Time Machine

Please comment

good idea. well done!

I guess the thing that hurts this as a convincing photo is the fact that the cloud layers are tilted together with the airplane, so it is immediately apparent that it is a tilted picture and not a banking aircraft. Just as a study of the airplane's akin gnad the play of light it is pretty good though.

I don`t mind when a photo "gives the impression" of something else, heck - I like it. But when someone goes to such lengths as to photo shop the props out of the shot... it just looks like a gimmick. Too bad, because if some of the things that were meant to "fool" the viewer into seeing this airplane if flight were not undertaken (the obvious framing meant to show no ground at the expense of composition, the crude removal of propellers), this would be a lovely, very well executed study of a classic aircraft.

Yikes! I didn't do any Photoshop to this image at all! The only thing I did here was tilt the image and crop (just a little). I didn't remove the props! The props were removed from this airplane for the display. Every photographer crops stuff out and frames to make an impression-to fool the audience. As a photographer, you make choices and I chose to focus on the "Buck Rogers" quality of this aircraft soaring into a blue sky. If I have to actually stand on the tail during flight to get a "real" shot to impress you then it's more trouble than it's worth frankly! All that really matters to me here is that the image is quite beautiful and the fantasy quality of it is a bit of fun!

An evocative image that does work in terms of symbolising flight. Perhaps a wee touch of PS to add a prop arc could have completed the dreamy quality of the pic. Not sure I would like to be on board with all the corroded rivets tho!

 

Regards, Pat.

Heck, my first thought thought was that this plane was being restored, hence the lack of props. Viewing it in full size seems to suggest that there is more noise in a circular path around the engine mount, but it doesnt look like it was photo shopped, Peter. And lest we forget all of the clutter that is usually on the ground when we shoot at air shows, and it forces us to short in such a way to exclude it.

 

I like the compostion, its tight and well balanced. I like the rotation, but believe too much was used. I rotate nearly all of my later airplane photos for compositional purposes, to include or exclude features of a plane; atleast when the ground is not visible. On my monitor, the contrast is good, but i would maybe, just maybe, add a *slight* touch more to make it a little more dramatic lighting wise. Pre-exposure, i would have considered including the edge of the engine, but that is not something that bothers me at all and the exlusion of it may have helped compositionally elsewhere in the photo.

 

Stephen, be happy that people have taken the time to view this photo and critique it, even if they are not praising it. Many others on this board would simply just rate this a 3/3 and be on their way.

I like the lighting, the curves of the airframe and the simple fact that it is an airplane. I thought you did take the time out to photoshop in the sky as the background. Then I noticed the bungee cord on the bottom right of the frame.;-)

Yes, I am happy that people noticed this picture and stopped to comment. Most of the comments have been positive and the ratings are favorable.

 

Hehe-I considered taking out the bungee chord but then I thought -no, it's kinda fun to leave it in. To me, the shot is supposed to be playful. I also like the fact that their is obviously no propeller. I really didn't think I would fool anyone into believing that this plane was airborne but I wanted to capture the elegant and graceful lines of this shiny old airplane plane reaching hopefully towards the heavens for just one more flight.

 

I'm really happy with the mood in this shot and I'm glad to see that others seem to appreciate it as well.

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen