Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Important:
please keep your image under 1000 pixels on the longest side for in-line viewing, and
please keep the FILE SIZE UNDER 300kb
. Note that
this includes photos hosted off-site
(at Flickr, Photobucket, your own site, etc). Are you
new to this thread?
The general guidelines for these Wednesday threads are
:
. This forum's moderators are allowing up to three Nikon Wednesday images per week, so share some work!

 

Last weekend our local waters were host to the shiny new HMS Queen Elizabeth - the UK's newest aircraft carrier and soon to be flagship of the Royal Navy. She'd just picked up her pack of F35B fighters in Norfolk, to join her Merlin sub-hunter helicopters. Because all her aircraft are VTOL, she's got a different look than many of our familiar carriers. Quite a sight, anchored in the mouth of the Severn River just outside Annapolis. I heard about this at the last moment, and got out to Annapolis late in the day, when the light was only going to be there for a bit longer. Got one shot from Sandy Point, looking under the Bay Bridge, and another from Tolly Point, closer to her anchorage. Nothing like a spontaneous outing! Hope you all can share some off the cuff stuff, too.

 

Here's the HMS Queen Elizabeth from Sandy Point. The Bay Bridge in the foreground is perhaps half a mile off. The ship is roughly five miles away. Used a D810 with a Nikon 200-500/5.6 and a TC1.7 from a tripod in the sand. Funky back lighting, but an interesting angle. The sailboat was probably a third of the way between me and the QE.

hms-qe_01.thumb.jpg.06f7dd3bebcc6c767a75ac2e835de3cc.jpg

 

And here's the ship from Tolly Point, using the 200-500 without the TC. She's about 1.3 miles from me, here.

hms-qe_02.thumb.jpg.0209ce6b62bfc642d91a27538e1bbbe0.jpg

 

And because it was Helicopter-Palooza out there in the afternoon, here's one of her MK2 Merlins having just buzzed us on the way out over the Chesapeake Bay for some training work. Hand-held the 200-500 for that one - just grabbed and shot.

hms-qe_03.jpg.b359e8c4f1f9183df4cceabc02017f5e.jpg

 

Happy Thanksgiving to all, and happy Nikon Wednesday!

Edited by ShunCheung
  • Like 5
Posted (edited)

Because all her aircraft are VTOL, she's got a different look than many of our familiar carriers.

I learn something new here every day. Had never heard of the acronym VTOL before: Vertical Take Off and Landing.

 

For those who celebrating Thanksgiving this week, happy holidays.

 

In the US, Thanksgiving is the 4th Thursday in November. Since November 1, 2019 was a Friday, this is as late in November as Thanksgiving can be. Hence the shortest shopping season to Christmas in the US.

 

No aircraft from me, just birds. It is nest re-building season again. Both 500mm/f5.6 PF lens.

 

_D5A2781.thumb.jpg.1c02a6acbb59f8a149c467c99cd9ddee.jpg

 

_D5A2766.thumb.jpg.4a588d44d8ede616188bd25d94b1c687.jpg

Edited by ShunCheung
  • Like 5
Posted

Nikon Z6 with the 14-30mm/f4 S lens @ 14mm.

 

This is the courtyard at an elementary school. They painted the ground so that the children can play the four-square game.

 

_DSC0285.thumb.jpg.a8e1f12b8bc49e1034c6b61d31354e8e.jpg

  • Like 3
Posted

A tale of two Nikons

[ATTACH=full]1319419[/ATTACH]

Berlin 1972 Nikkormat FTn & Berlin 2004 Nikkormat EL

note the Red Army Honor Guards in 1972

The 2004 is also missing the barricades.

Posted
The 2004 is also missing the barricades.

Hard to say for sure based on just a scan, but film quality appears to be better in 2004. I recall that color film technology was still kind of primitive back in the 1960's. But I was just a small kid then.

Posted
film quality appears to be better in 2004

 

I think it may have more to do with the light. The 1972 image was Kodachrome but on a very gray day. The 2004 was Kodak 100 C/N, surprisingly enough.

Posted
Hard to say for sure based on just a scan, but film quality appears to be better in 2004. I recall that color film technology was still kind of primitive back in the 1960's. But I was just a small kid then.

:) LOL. So was I, in my mind

Posted
I think it may have more to do with the light. The 1972 image was Kodachrome but on a very gray day. The 2004 was Kodak 100 C/N, surprisingly enough.

A couple of years ago, I saw a recent coffee-table book at a bookstore, with a large collection of sports images from the 1970's. (The book is quite new with modern printing, but the images are from 40, 50 years ago.) The colors look very pale compared to modern color images, and without AF back then, the overall quality of those sports images is quite primitive compared to what we see in, e.g. Sports Illustrated, today. I am sure that my reaction to JDM's 1972 image is influenced by my experience with that book.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...