Hurricane rising

To all of you who may be considering marking this with a low rating -

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE say why!!! Don't just add a mark and then pass

on to the next picture and do the same to that person as well. We

WANT critique - without it we cannot improve.

 

If you consider this appeal to be controversial - GOOD!

 

Thank you for your time.

Maybe you should try to tell why you`r so fascinated in war machines,,,,

this ain`t worth even a 3/3

Thank you Niels for taking the time to make a comment but a sensible one would have been more constructive. If you had bothered to take the time to look at the rest of my portfolio you will see that there is a great variety of subjects.

 

This "war machine", as you call is it, is a great feat of mechanical engineering and to see it in flight after so many years is a pleasure to watch. But from a purely aesthetic point of view I believe it is a thing of beauty and a great subject for photographers of all ages.

 

I hate to have to repeat myself but Niels you still haven't explained why "it ain't worth even a 3/3"!!!

I shoot a lot of pictures of my grandchildren. I love the kids and enjoy looking at pictures of them. I suspect that no one but a member of the family would be the least bit interested, unless I get an exceptional shot. Then I'll post it.

 

This is a photo of a plane. When you look at it later it will remind you of being at the airshow, and you might just relive part of the show. But it's just a picture of a plane. Technically it's a very good picture; focused, sharp, well exposed. But it's still a picture of a plane. Nothing unusual is going on. And short of (god forbid) a crash, nothing unusual will go on at an air show.

 

If I were there I'd probably have shot the same picture. But I'd also wander around shooting candids of pilots with their planes, with other planes, and who knows what. Because I think that's where the interesting shots are.

 

So this is a photo of one of your grandchildren.

Well thank God for a sensible piece of critique. Your views are most welcome and I agree that there are other subjects at air shows that you can take pictures of....and I have. I just haven't got round to sorting all of the photos I took that day.

 

Thank you once again.

If you`r only interested in engineerings, why then especially a war machine, that`s no explanation, I don`t buy it, you still need to explain your fascination of war machines,,, You could have choosen anything technical, but you prefere to show this.

 

Save me from this madman!!!

 

Niels - at least have the decency to use the correct English!

That was mean Paul,,,, in the first place you ask for comments, instead of just

an anonym 3/3, I have not given you any, but ask you to explain, why this, with an honest answer. I cannot take part in your fascination of weapons,,,,and if you think such a person must be mad,,, I feel sorry for you!

re niels

 

Neil, if he needs psychoanalysis, he'll get psychoanalysis. And he won't get it here.

Well, Niels' position is carried to a silly extreme but it is honestly held and no doubt there are many others who also cannot see past the military nature of these machines. Indeed, he (sort of) makes a valid point that many of those who are fascinated with machines like this overlook or gloss over their fundamentally lethal purposes too easily.

 

I have heard it said that the only good war movies are antiwar movies, and perhaps some feel that any photo of a military subject should make some antiwar point. Yet, there are a lot of movies out there that are not antiwar, that are downright war-glorifying; and then there are some that simply use war as a setting, actor or catalyst in other events. This photo is not antiwar, but neither is it war-glorifying; it just portrays a nice machine that happens (irrelevantly for purposes of the photograph) to be a weapon.

 

Critique? Well, good lighting, and a nice enough ground-to-air snapshot. However, the ground-to-air airshow genre is a pretty limited setting for artistic creativity and I am never surprised when even good airshow shots collect a few 3/3s.

 

"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."

 

So many people have been misled into forgetting this fundamental truth of human history. If Sidney Camm had not built this very machine of war, then the world today would be a much less nice place that it is.

"What do you think of Western civilization?" I think that would be a good idea!

 

Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

The only thing Man learns of the history,,,is to repeate it.

 

nichroe

 

 

Never mind all that rubbish. This is a great photo. Great colors and compsotion. Normally photos showing just the bottom of the plane dont work, but this one does. I feel like i can see the plane banking as it flies past. The clouds create an interesting element as this encompass the plane.

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."

So many people have been misled into forgetting this fundamental truth of human history. If Sidney Camm had not built this very machine of war, then the world today would be a much less nice place that it is.

Actually Andre, there are no fundamental truths of human history, and what you have quoted is merely an ideological position and tired cliche. In this respect I agree with Niels.

It is a nice picture, but as fanciers of artifacts that often happen to be weapons, I think we can/should go deeper than that in our thought and critiques, so I have enjoyed this little thread.

To go back to the beginning, Paul - you asked for some constructive critique as opposed to the 3/3 posted as a dismissive comment (or rather, no comment). With some experience of aircraft photography behind me I agree that to produce a ?different? airshow shot is not easy - but it can be done and if you have a browse through the portfolios of Alex Kew and Duncan Speirs I think you will find some intriguing shots. As to the Hurricane I find it technically good (sharp, nicely posed, good detail, not too high a shutter speed) but the colours seem a little pushed - maybe a wee visit to photoshop could help - and thus I think it merits a 4/4 bordering on 5/4.

 

As for the subject matter - there seems to me to be no attempt in either the pic or the title to emphasise the Hurricane as a ?war machine?. Many tens of thousand of ordinary people attend the UK air shows, with the Duxford Legends being one of the most popular, and the fascination of the day is not fixated on ?war machines? but on a true love and respect for flying and to revel in the superb demonstration of genuinely iconic machines. To express this in a photograph is a valid ambition and to seek considered comment on such an image does not merit some of the more personal vitriolic comments in the thread.

 

August, I agree with Andre in his reviving the old saw (Latin, even!) and although the comment is perhaps a clich頉 would contend that history has proven it?s validity time after time. It will do until humanity comes up with a better way of running their affairs - and most military and ex-military people will tell you that training and preparedness is the essence of maintaining some semblance of peace. Perhaps, then, Andre is close to the mark when he says such an approach is fundamental. With the Bears coming down the Norwegian Sea again maybe we should ask why and it would be quite improvident not to dust off the old plans and sharpen up the training -hmmm!

 

Well, Pat, the point I would make is that, empirically, war comes whether you are prepared or not; and it tends to be started by those who are prepared. So I would say that preparation for war correlates with war, not with peace.

 

More to the point, the slogan Andre quoted was first coined by a Roman general and was adopted as the slogan of the Roman Legion. It is basically the credo of career military people, essentially a first-century equivalent of the Strategic Air Command's old slogan, "Peace Is Our Profession," whose absurdity Kubrick underscored so effectively in Dr. Strangelove. Military establishments solidify their power and secure resources, especially in peacetime, by scaring the public with such threats. Whether the threats are true, at least in some cases, is almost beside the point. Career soldiers accept the principle as an article of faith and would trumpet it whether it is true or not.

 

What has all this got to do with pretty airplane pictures? Well, Paul wondered why his airplane pictures draw 3/3s with no comments. I believe one reason why not just his pictures, but the genre of aviation photography as a whole pretty much draws a big fat no-comment 3/3 from serious photographers is a persistent failure to engage with questions like the one we are discussing here. We do not use our photography to explore themes like war, technology, and social relationships that naturally flow from the subject matter. Instead we snap shots of pretty airplanes. It surprises me a little that we expect anything but no-comment 3/3s from anyone but fellow airplane buffs for such work. We should be grateful that they even glance at the pictures long enough to leave a 3/3.

 

If we want thoughtful critiques, we must take thoughtful pictures. It will not work to try to goad critics into putting more thought into critiquing the pictures than we put into taking them.

I've been away for a few days and come back to see all of this healthy debate about war, the meaning of life and everything else!

 

Let me firstly go back to Niels...the question in the first place was one that has been raised by many other people on this website and that is would you please leave a critique on the photo and not just blindly put a 3/3 or less without giving some reasoning to the marks. You too have raised this very point - correct?

 

I appreciate that it may seem I have a fascination for "war machines" by looking at the folder entitled 'Planes', but this is not true. I visited an airshow - fact! It is also a fact that many airshows feature aeroplanes that have been used for the very purpose of either defending an aggressor or by the agressor themselves. The reasons for this are many however in this instance all of the aeroplanes are antique and capable of landing on grass whereas modern aeroplanes cannot. This a private collection which includes many machines that were never used, nor intended to be used, as "war machines". If you're vaguely interested here's the link to their website address.

 

www.shuttleworth.org/

 

Regarding my later comments I apologise if it caused you offence however these were born out of frustration that you seemed to miss the point and enter into a debate on the philosophy of war and peace....that debate is not one to be entered into here. Perhaps you should find another forum for entering into this kind of discussion?

 

To all of the other contributors. Thank you for your photographic critique (Dan - you're opening comment says it all!)

 

Thank you.

 

Regards

 

Paul