classic aircraft Bristol Fighters and 'start cart'

Line up of 'Brisfits' at Duxford - slightly reworked to provide

(hopefully) a contemporary look. Your comments appreciated.

Sorry about the fingers and thumbs stuff in the title - should read 'Bristol Fighters'. Pat.

Of course - a Foghter is a whole different airplane :)

 

Nice shot - good job keeping it "period correct" - anyone who has tried, knows how hard that is to accomplish!

My only complaint is that it is too good to be a period vintage shot; too crisp.

Too crisp? Hmm. A lot of WWI airplane portraits were shot with large format gear that would blow away a 1DS Mk.II on detail and sharpness, and you can see it in the better preserved pics from that era. So I don't think that is the problem.

 

For me the main things that make it not super convincing as a period shot are that it was taken with a longer lens than would have been usual in those days, and perhaps with too much depth of field (bearing in mind that on the large format gear of the time, this shot would have required a lens of 400mm or more). That said, even though it is easy to identify as a modern shot, it still does carry that period feel.

OK - I didn't want to get into this, but August started it :)

There is a "retro" feel, and kudos for the great composition - but the afore mentioned LF shots from that period would look like B&W photographs, and even more so, they would look like B&W photographs taken on film that has a different spectral response than what we are used to - the highlight appear different (almost compressed), the rendition of the various tones (sky for one)would be different, etc. There is just that unmistakable look that photos from back then have due to those (and other) factors.

Having said that, this is a very enjoyable image - I don't think Pat was out to "fool" anyone, merely to enhance the enjoyment of a picture of some great old historical aircraft by adding an element which is evocative of their time period - key word being evocative. I don't think he is sitting in a dark room rocking back and forth rambling over and over "they're onto me..." :)

 

I still say its a great shot, and well done - even if personally, I would rather see it in colour, I can appreciate the direction that Pat tried with this.

And I think that the real question is what brand of whisky the gunner/observer drank. This is what Pat gets for having a rowdy gang like us as friends.

Andre,

 

I don't know what the preferred brand of beverage was back then, but I know that these guys had to have balls the size of water mellons - imagine, no parachutes because they were not chivalrous! Wow! :)

 

And whatever the Whiskey was, I am surprised Pat is not driven to it in large amounts because of my constant whining alone! :)

Hi guys - well, who would have thought that a simple little image would have generated such an erudite and far-reaching discussion. Perhaps, as the instigator, I can help shed a little light on some of the topics, so I?ll tiptoe out of the ?darkroom?!

 

The original image looked a bit ?garish? - bright colours, manicured grass etc and not at all like the prototype environment. It was easily amended ( desat, filter -sepia, levels, curves and a wee bit sharpening) to produce the reworked pic - no intention to present it as a ?period piece?. The original in all it?s glowing Technicolor is appended.

 

Parachutes - the Air Ministry ( group of senior military and civil servants which ?ran? the then air arm of the Services) decreed that parachutes would not be issued as it may encourage ?a lack of pressing home an engagement? and thus diminish the effectiveness of the Squadrons. There was, apparently, no question of chivalry involved as the best air-war practitioners snuck up behind their targets and shot them in the back if at all possible. It appears, from contemporary accounts, that some pilots carried a pistol for personal use in the event that they became a ?flamer? - the most likely conclusion to a failed engagement. (As a footnote - RAF Shackleton crews in the 50s - 80s period did not carry chutes)

 

Whisky - can only provide some insight into the habits of one Sqdn. My father served in 1917/18 as an armourer on 59 Sqdn, equipped with RE8s (Harry Tates) and based in various forward fields in the Arras/CambraI area. Like nearly all WW1 veterans he never spoke of his experiences (probably fairly benign as he didn?t see service in the trenches) until one rather memorable day. In one of the most bizarre coincidences my first operational posting was as Canberra 8 navigator to - 59 Sqdn based in Germany. When my father visited us at the base in 1959 he was invited, as an honoured guest and the ?oldest inhabitant?, to a Mess dining -in night. This proceeded in the traditional manner and next day my father remarked that very little seemed to have changed in 40 odd years and aircrew capacity for booze remained staggering (almost literally, actually not almost). For a short time he seemed happy to discuss RE8 days and reminisced that as a resident of Kilmarnock whenever he went home on leave the 59 Sqdn Adjutant funded him to purchase as much Johnnie Walker as possible (our home town was Kilmarnock, the home of Johnnie Walker ). So, 59 Sqdn used Johnnie Walker?s brands, probably Red Label - often stored in the little box used to house the flare pistol in the RE8 and also much favoured as the square bottle didn?t roll around on the cockpit floor with the potential to jam cables etc.

 

Also - no Scot would willingly drink whisky spelled with an ?e?, that?s Irish or even some strange concoction from way down south US. And, of course another possible reason for the lack of ?chutes could be that with balls like melons ( and no argument there) a ?chute would have been seriously uncomfortable, that harness is TIGHT.

 

Thanks for all your input - makes my day. Pat.

 

 

 

Sorry, but my system apostrophe seems to be recorded as question mark when uploaded. Stuffed again by Bill.

Pat,

 

that was a fun read!

 

On the subject of 'chutes - I too am aware of the Ministry directive, but I don't know how that affected the pilots from those other countries... I have read many accounts that suggest the other nations used the "manly man" clause as their excuse for not having chutes.

 

And in the case of Shackelton crews, I think people just stated to figure that something that has been flying that long (there is still one, I think, in South Africa in active service, about to retire this year!!!), well, something that has been flying that damn long will NEVER fall out of the sky! :)

 

Of course, I think in the whiskey discourse you have hit upon something that transcends language barriers and other petty differences:)

I think the comment about depth of field is right on. I attached an example with some blur in the background and foreground, and applied some omni light to darken the edges/vignette a bit. Maybe lost too much detail in the plane, but think that is the right direction.

 

I like you portfolio.

Erik, I love your rework. That selective defocus must have been difficult to do!

I think your re-interpretation is much more 'authentic', but (always a but isn't there?) perhaps ends up a little too dark. Too much vignetting?? Echoing August would appreciate knowing the technique you used to fuzz the background. Thanks for your help and interest. Pat.

This is in Photoshop Elements 2, but should be similar in all programs.

 

Mask plane and foreground. Apply Gausian blur filter, I think I used like 2.1 pixels. Mask plane and back ground. Apply less guasian blur filter to the foreground grass - I think I used 1.3 or 1.5 pixels. Use the blur tool at 25-35% strength to soften the blur edge in the foreground.

 

This takes about 5 minutes for the rough job I did in the method example photo attached to this post. If you spend about 15 minutes being a bit more careful in masking and softening the edges of the blur/changing the blur strength you can make it much better.

 

Good luck.

Thanks for the tutorial - filed away for future use and much appreciated. Regards, Pat.