Here’s the car that beat the F3 … (circa 1963 vintage)
Maybe they should’ve put a lighter crew in the F3?
Got some dates through for a course in January so i may not be on BBMF this summer, all good things must come to an end.
I’d heard you got dates for your course ( http://www.polecatz.co.uk/courses.php ) … Good luck!
I’m sure comments will continue to pass through this forum though.
You bet.
unc,
Touche <————— that means “nice one!”.
1. I don’t come from Chorley!
2. ‘Manual’ 2 out of 36 is a better skilled strike rate than ‘automatic’ 7 out of 400.
3. B/w works better for some subjects due to it’s greater latitude and the fact that colours often distract the viewer from the intended subject.
4. Next year will be so much fun. I can’t wait.
BTW, I think that’ll be the nose of a big flight engineer …
Bruggen 130,
Thanks for the comments, but re the first, I have to disagree. The black on the LHS, in my opinion, gives the image context, which cropping tighter takes away. I also think it helps draw the eyes to the subject – the picture looks great mounted and framed. But hey, eye of the beholder etc.
Re pic 2 – possibly – to be honest, I didn’t pay much attention to that one. It was a pre-focussed opportunity shot (with large Nav intruding on the bottom right hand corner!).
(Both images shot on Ilford XP2 using a 15mm f4 lens with separate dedicated viewfinder, mounted on the flashmount. Pic 2 was taken without reference to the vf, with an outstretched arm (!), whilst pic 2 was intentionally framed as shown with no issues of parallax etc.)
Mike Fit ?!?!
Have they no shame?! There’d have been a mutiny in my day!
ps. Good attempt at the pics.
I suppose it depends on your definition of ‘sad’ … calling yourself after your daughter’s rabbit rates fairly close in my book … 😀
Re the camera … I can’t really say (I only shoot film, using a rangefinder). I’ve had many cameras and know that the EOS350D is (1) in your price range, and (2) fairly well thought of. I guess the other obvious option is the Nikon D70s.
I’m sure others can give you better advice on what you really need for airborne photos – generally, it’s much better to spend extra on the lens than on the camera body. It’s also better to aim for prime lenses rather than zooms, but you lose out massively on convenience …
I have a friend with a (get this) spare Canon 350D with associated standard zoom for sale. If you wish, I can pass on your email address. The camera has never been used and is only about 3-4 mths old.
__
Dave
The benefits of digital/photoshop …
I like the last shot, but I think it takes on more atmosphere if you ‘change’ it slightly (I hope you don’t mind my ‘take’ – I just added a sepia tint and boosted the contrast a touch).
Nearly impressed !
One or two of those are actually quite good!
I’ll give you some tips on minor improvements next week.
… this pic looks fabulous as a 30×20 and has been on my parents dining room wall for about 10 yrs!
Amendment to the above. Just arrived at my parents house to find said Tornado picture on floor in study. Lancaster now in dining room !!! 😡
Heh,
Guess we are going to have to agree to differ on this DMC 😀 You believe you can’t do it with a digital camera, and ~gosh~ you can’t.
It seems we’re in agreement.
Here’s a shot I took in 1994 using a Kodak 1600 film and a humble Pentax P30 T. The only manipulation was to add the text (very cheesy, I know, I had a couple with different phrases made) – this pic looks fabulous as a 30×20 and has been on my parents dining room wall for about 10 yrs!
The second shot was prob taken in 1992/3 – I’ve recently scanned it at 3600dpi using a budget £200 35mm film scanner and done some minor contrast/brightness adjustment in PSP.
Any guesses as to the venues?? :confused:
( These are posted to prove that I was ‘manipulating’ 10/11 yrs ago … I’m sure my wife would agree!! )
For me the camera is a sketch book, an instrument of intuition and spontaneity, the master of the instant which, in visual terms, questions and decides simultaneously. In order to “give a meaning” to the world, one has to feel involved in what one frames through the viewfinder. This attitude requires concentration, discipline of mind, sensitivity, and a sense of geometry. It is by economy of means that one arrives at simplicity of expression.
… It is putting one’s head, one’s eye, and one’s heart on the same axis.
For some unexplained reason I just can’t really do the last point with digital.
Interesting pic Snapper,
No I can’t guess, but v. atmospheric !
Surely there’s only one poem!!
Although personally I think that ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull’ is more inspirational, ‘High Flight’ (assuming that’s what you’re representing) is brilliant, but a bit ‘over-used’. :rolleyes:
If one is silly enough to bang off 1,000 or 36 pics without thinking about it, you’ll get what you deserve.
My point here is that I believe the medium does make a difference. If one has to accept that viewing the image will occur after the shoot with fim, then there is a natural proclivity to ensure the setup is absolutely perfect prior to pressing the shutter.
Every seasoned photographer will extol the virtues of fixed focal lenses over zooms for 2 reasons; they’re generally better, and perhaps more importantly they make you exercise your legs and self criticsm rather than your zoom. I believe the analogy is the same with digital.
Going back to conventional cameras and taking more effort to get good pictures is laudiable – but I fail to see why more care could not have been used with the new kit for the same result. Sure there are different merits, but don’t blame digital for your lack of application to it! 😉
See above. A few years ago I had a fantastic Canon T90 – in terms of features it was easily the better of today’s sub £1000 digital SLRs, but I still put more thought into my photography then, than I seem to do now with my current Nikon 8800.