Reading mode: Light Dark

Pretty airplane pics

Go to last post
P

PhotoRecon

Senior Member
Messages
4,032
Reaction score
13
Location
Atlanta, US
Below is a direct link to some interesting perspectives of
airplanes (some of my best work to date), made at an
airshow and in proximity to the airshow, during 2007.

http://www.sweetapplephoto.com/mspc/thumbnails.php?album=95

Note: there are a lot of images (almost 250). I recommend
looking at only a few at time; otherwise, you may find you
become burnt-out (as I have :-). The images were placed
randomly to be fair to the performers & pilots.

Thanks for looking,
Cheers to ya in 2008,
marc
 
I noticed some of your shots appear to have been taken from another airborne aircraft. What was the situation? I'm jealous.

Mike
--
'It is better to have and need not than to need and have not'
 
Mike, don't be jealous. For $5,000/min you could have been
up there with me too!!! (just kidding! :-)

The aircraft was a Hughes 500 helicopter. There is an image
of it somewhere up front within the images. The farside
rear door was removed for me and I wore my own full-body
harness - which was attached to the helicopter's lap-belt
portion of the seatbelt. By doing so, I was able to lean out-
side the aircraft. The cameras being used were then attached
to the chest strap of the harness via nylon webbing lanyards.

The helicopter was made to fly at its fastest speed to keep up
with the warplane propeller-driven aircraft (approx 125 mph).
My cameras & skin were-a-rocking!

I do not yet own any VR lenses and was forced to use a much
higher shutterspeed than I had wanted.

Thanks again for looking,
Cheers to ya,
m.
 
Wooooo Hooooooo !!! I love all of the pics (very, very nice photography), but that 500 series helicopter tugged at heartstrings! I can imagine the pilots of that little bird with the collective pulled up high and the cyclic stuffed forward just to keep the airspeed up. The 500s are pretty quick, and (IMHO) more pleasurable to fly than the Bell 206 series.

Your photos are wonderfully close. I like how you bring the action right to our laps. Excellent shooting, I hope to cross paths with your photography again, and again in the future.

Best in photography to you, and stay safe out there.

Teila K. Day
 
Teila, thanks for the uplifting words.

Feel free to look at other pics within my
website. Only a very small fraction of my
work is on that site. Posting images takes
far too much of my time: time I truly do
not have - I need help. So the images
posted to my website are primarily there
for specific purposes. The site has so far
been serving as a utility device.

Right now, I'm working on portrait images
of a recently born baby girl. The images
of this baby are to die for!!! I'm going
crazy over them :-)

You seem to be a good person meet,
your friend,
marc
 
Ooooops!

I forgot to email you Yoshiki ! I had written
to you before that I would do so if I ended
up posting these. I'm soooo sorry! :-)

Hey, thanks for looking at them. I was
hoping you'd be able to do so.

BTW: I read yesterday that Seattle is having
little bit of a problem with mannequin decoy
dummies being used as car passengers so
that dummy drivers could drive in the HOV
lanes???

But worse, I read that one dummy was pulled
over because his dummy passenger did not
have the seat belt buckled!!! :-)

cheers to ya,
marc
 
Marc,
I am glad I visited your site. A lot to learn.
Yes, Seattle traffic is becoming too bad so that anything can happen.

I will go 3rd time (this season) Bald Eagle photo shooting tomorrow. This time the weather seems to be better than previous two. I got TC-17 and intend to use with 200VR. I used 70-200VR with TC-20 for last two trips (to gain the reach), but noticed that TC-20 does create unsharp images. I hope I can capture photos which I can satisfy.

Yoshiki in Seattle
 
Baby girl? Now thats more precious to photograph than an airplane any day ;)

Congratulations! Is this your first?

Good to know I made a friend today Marc!

Sincerely

Teila
 
I like the pano ... very interesting idea.

I do have a criticism and it has to do with the gallery :-) not your images. The "SAMPLE" watermark is a real shame, it distracts so much from the images. Do you have real trouble with stolen images or something? For posting on the net, and that is if you want to show off your work for the sake of community participation, I encourage you to consider taking off the watermark or making it very light. A 2 dimensional one smaller and lighter, perhaps across the center of the frame would be much less distracting.

In over 10 years of posting images on the net, I have NEVER had an incident with stolen images. Not that mine are worth stealing LOL.

Besides, they are so small in size they would not be good for making any money anyhow.

Just offering some constructive criticism, not taking anything away from your fine images.

Thanks for sharing. Cheers!
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://manny.org/FCAS
 
oh, no... i've photoed a number of babies.
it's the 2-year olds that are problematic!

it's a shame i've next to no portrait work
on my website - because i've a lot of it.

i very much enjoy photoing people.

from this morning's photo shoot of this
very, very young little girl, i've actually
too many keepers. when i see the
client tomorrow evening - - they're
not going to be able to decide!...
...and i already know this is going to
be a problem.

i'm falling asleep & can't keep my eyes
open any longer - i think i should turn-
in :-)

yours,
marc
 
Thank you so much for your reply & words.

Regarding the panorama image: I received a note from an aviation
museum in Texas yesterday stating their overly strong desire to
house that exact panorama image within their museum.

The 45-deg panorama was made as 11-inches tall by 18-feet wide
and is approximately 300 mb in size as a tif file.

This makes the third museum that has expressed a desire to house
a particular piece of my work. The other two being the Naval Air
Museum, in Pensacola, FL, and the Air & Space Museum in Washing-
ton, DC. For the latter two - I'm needing to finish the artwork first
(they have so far only seen a preliminary version of what I have to
offer).

Regarding the 'Sample' watermark: I HATE IT!!!

And I ALWAYS have!!!

The watermark is simply another step that I find I must go through
prior to posting or presenting my images to my website or such.
I've no time for this; I dislike marring-up my images; And I dislike the
fact that others must see my images with this horrendous marking
smeared all across it.

But here's the rub: I have so far been into the homes of two clients
of mine who have actually printed out & framed the low, low rez in-
ternet image off the website WITH the Sample watermark still on
the framed image. In ONE case, the image was made to an 8x10
and in the other case the printed image was LARGER - 12x15 in size.
And in BOTH cases, the client thought nothing of it. And in EACH
case, the image looked like complete, total cr*p. They looked hor-
rendous. They looked pathetic. And here they were both framed,
with 'Sample' stamped on them.

In a third case, at a client's house, it was hard not to notice her wall-
paper on her computer screen was one of my images of her children -
with of course 'Sample' written across it. A number of other people
have also been using my images off my website for computer wall-
paper, as well as for other purposes. Some of them will openly tell
me this.

It used to be that my 'Sample' was written larger and more so crossed
the subject. But I thought that it was so obnoxious that I reduced the
size by a little.

Here's a little more of the rub: Several of my clients have called me or
written me and have complained that they can't make use of my im-
ages of themselves because 'Sample' is written on them.

...Well HELLO!!!... They haven't BOUGHT that image!!!

I kid you not Manny, I don't know WHAT to do.

I, myself, could quite easily remove just about any given watermark
made by someone else, on just about any image - being on paper or
simply electronic. Some watermarks would of course be more difficult
to remove, but I've overcome far more difficult tasks in Photoshop
than removing watermarks.

I'd rather not have ANY watermark. But Manny, I'm still very much
a starving artist. And as a literal starving artist, people are STILL
steeling my work - left & right - in what could easily be droves.
And my posting my images on this forum, for the world to 'see' on
their own machines, is contra to helping my case.

But I'm not a paranoid person. I'm wanting others to see & enjoy
the hard work (all of this has been hard work). Hence the sole reason
I permitted those on dpreview check them out. There's no benefit
to me. I simply knew people would like to see these.

But I'm very much hoping they won't steel them - though some will.

For you, Manny, I'd be more than happy & willing to reduce the size
of the written 'Sample.' And I WOULD do this. But I've also been
advised that my 'Sample' is not obnoxious enough.

I'm torn!

marc
 
Wow, some rare birds there. Particularly like the air to air shots of the SBD and F4F (or FM2, they look the same). Really outstanding, like the B25 air to air shots too.

The gasolene explosions don't do much for me though.

I don't mind the SAMPLE, I can mentally remove it, and certainly understand why you do it, your images are certainly good enough to tempt jerks to steal them.

Perhaps you could stop using sample, and switch to "I stole this image and did not pay the photographer anything for it"

Thanks for posting,

Chris
 
I just had lunch with the man who has been putting on
the Rome, GA airshow. He's putting me in charge of the
artwork for his 2008 show - the promotion poster, pro-
gram cover, billboards, magazine ads, etc.

I'm not wanting to release his theme of the show, and
he doesn't yet know what's on my mind, but I'm thinking
I'll have the various performers each write an aspect of
his theme in the sky with their own airshow smoke. I'll
need to travel around to the various places where these
performers live, but I think it'll be fun to have different
airplanes & aircraft types write different things for me in
the sky.

I'll then combine all the sky writing on the computer.

The unique artwork I had done for his show last year is
the first image posted within my Rome airshow pics.
(you must click on the thumbnail to enlarge the image)

Below is the direct link to those images:
http://www.sweetapplephoto.com/mspc/thumbnails.php?album=95

marc
 
My website just crashed as its monthly 'Bandwidth' was exceeded.
We're working on this - but I'm surprised - as the bandwidth was
kind of high.

I'm not a guru on websites, but apparently the site's bandwidth has
to do with the number of downloads the site is capable of handling
or offering.

My web-guy is out partying tonight, but when he sobers-up I'm
hoping he'll fix my little problem. If he doesn't sober-up, I'm SOL !

marc
 
I've had clients ask me to outright steal someone's image on the web to use on their stuff. Just as if the web didn't matter.

People have NO morals! :(
 
Hey George - Nice to hear from you !!!

Sorry you can't see the pics at this moment - they're in a 'holding pattern' :-)

My web-guy friend asked the same thing:
"1) Are lots of people looking at your pictures and 2) did you make the files
any larger?"

I only spoke with him for a moment or two as he's out on town.

However, my file sizes are slightly larger than they were about 10-11 months
ago. When I compress the file (or 'Save for Web & Devices') I have been
saving at the higher-rez jpg size, as opposed to the medium-rez size, which
he liked about 4-years ago when the site was established.

I liked the medium-rez compressed files for the internet for the exclusive
reason that others would be less inclined to swipe the image from the
website & make use of it for their own purposes - which has truly been
a problem with my images. But at the medium-rez, I found people to be
taking them anyway.

However -

At the lower compressed resolution, I (and others) discovered more
readily 'editing marks,' or places immediately adjacent to some objects or
people or such, where the image pixels became unnaturally distorted.
This went away for the most part upon my beginning to save the images
to the internet at the high-rez compression.

George - please tell me your thoughts. I'm wanting to hear your recom-
mendation.

Thanks for the note,
m.
 
George, this is likely common practice. (If you & I don't believe it's common,
then we're simply naive.)

While doing airport planning work and while doing architectural work, not me,
but bosses would ask for something on some type of presentation piece.

"If we don't have it, just get it somewhere off the internet."

This would be a common quest.

Well, you can see (as I very clearly can), if someone knows about my site &
about my pictures of airplanes or boats or of swimmers, etc - there they
go. An airplane of mine will sneak out the door and paste itself on someone's
own website or presentation piece or anything else.

I have seen this happen first-hand with my own work. And you're right, the
response of the other will automatically be "oh, I didn't know." or something
like, "oh, I didn't think you'd mind."

Then what do I say?... I don't know.

m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top