Blue Angel Echelon Pass

Thanks for your comment on my rodeo picture - greatly appreciated. In return, this is excellent - perfect timing to bring all the planes together and show the precision of their flying. Good stuff.

Not your typical air show shot, this is one of the best I've seen. I like the tight framing and the long lens compressing the planes into one.

That plane has more wings than a barbecue. A great shot of a very difficult subject. 8/8

Its a great shot Jay!

 

Can you all who give such a low score for originality explain why you think this an "unoriginal" shot? Have you all seen this before with so many planes in such a tight formation? Would love to know your point of view.

Great shot, Jay!

Veerendra & Bill,

 

If you really want originality as you've defined it, you may want to take a look at the picture I shot recently of my new phono cartridge. The Dynavector XX2 has just been released and the market for such high-end devices is miniscule, so not only have far fewer people seen it than the "Blue Angels," but no one (as far as I know) has ever managed to photograph the thing in this extremely precise tone-arm mount: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=278588 .

 

Vuk.

Definitely 10 out of 10 on the testosterone scale. Awesome.

Excellent photo. I have seen them perform probably 15 times in my life and this must be one of the best pics I have ever seen of them. Well done.

Great image. I have my own photo of the Blue Angels Echelon

Pass here. It's from a different angle and certainly not as

good as the photo of the week.

I love the Blue Angels and this shot is just amazing. You must have A) had a really good position to get this shot and B) not have blinked :) I don't know what else to say but WOW

I've seen the Blue Angels all the way back when they flew F-4's and did the infamous shell burst straight down over the crowd. I've also been to 3 air shows this year already and already seen the Blue Angels and Airforce Thunderchickens in a 3-day span. I shot about half a dozen rolls of 120, 3 more of 35mm with a beater Tokina 400mm, and I have no less than a dozens shots identical to this one, except mine are in focus.

 

Air show pics require a long lens and the ability to follow a moving target - that's it. The real creativity is in trying to frame the planes against an interesting sky.

 

Aesthetics 3 / Originality 3

 

 

in case anyone's interested, there's some decent airshow photography on this page (it's not mine though):

 

http://www.threewireaviation.com/

 

 

So Scott Eaton, you have some very similar pictures to the photo above? So what? That doesn't mean it's not original. If we could only take original photos in the true meaning, i.e. nobody else had ever either thought or attempted or succeeded at a photo of that subject, well then we all might aswell give up this photography lark now, hadn't we?

 

I think it's a brilliant photo and it's highly original. For those of us who don't frequent air shows, nor know much about them, this picture is perceptually very striking and educational. Thank you.

Scott Eaton, you boast that you have no less than a dozen shots identical to Jay Beckman's but that yours are in focus. Well, where are they? The image that you attached to your comments is no where close to being identical to the shot that Jay took. IMO, Jay's image captures the power and excitement of a Blue Angels' precision formation much more effectively than the photo you presented. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you accidentally uploaded the wrong photo with your comments. Please show us one of your nearly identical shots of the Blue Angels that you claim to have taken. Any of the 12+ shots would do.

 

BTW, I don't think Jay's photo is out of focus, but has a very slight blur due to the shutter speed being too slow to completely freeze the action.

 

Great shot Jay! You make some people jealous

 

Man, there are certain to be some sore chests in this group of (hey look at me) commentators. After all when you beat-em that hard............ oh well.

 

Great shot Jay. I agree with the others who see the shot for what it is, well executed, nicely exposed and interestingly cropped. Its really just a quick multiple exposure, right? :)

 

Bravo on the POW. Good Work.

 

I hate to agree with scott eaton, but i do prefer his version, its sharper and more vivid, etc. Also, geometrically pleases more so, check it out.

Man, there are certain to be some sore chests in this group

I wouldn't give you the benefit of the satisfaction. As for the rest of the flames, please go send sappy poetry to each other via ICQ or something.... or until photo.net adds a critique forum where only positive replies and back slapping are involved.

Had this picture been just a random critique I would have ignored it and let somebody be proud of it - no problem. However, to be given "photo of the week status" the highbar is raised, subject to review (harsh and positive) so better standards do apply.

As far as I'm concerned, my shots of the Blues qualify barely better than snap-shots and would never post them to brag about because there's nothing special in composition or technique about them. Even though note: I was sober enough to not obscure all the canopies which looks downright silly, and you can read the writing on my aircraft even though my IF focus was fixed with duct tape at infinity. However, the image under critique is obviously out of focus (considering that jets move in relatively straight lines), and fairly murky to boot in terms of scan quality, and a unremarkable formation.

The Blues perform for about 25-minutes in perfect view of hundreds of thousands of people, and hold formations to allow everybody with a camera to get at least 3 shots (2 with the lens cap on), so what *is* the big deal about this shot?

Here's another shot from that same roll......

I too agree with Scott, and happen to think Spinak wrote a very good critique and explanation. I feel much the same about this image.

 

It is such a mystery to me that week after week, whenever someone does not especially like the POW, or god forbid actually critiques it, so many others yell sour grapes! jealousy! bitterness! How about instead of being so concerned about what others say about the image and feeling like you have to defend the POW you just state what you think, why you like it, or why you do not, and just drop the babble of attacking someone else's critique? Would make the POW message area much less boring and perhaps maybe even more meaningful. PLEASE, drop the bombastic drivel.

Having read several last comments I looked up the:http://www.threewireaviation.com/ and found very similar photo http://www.threewireaviation.com/images/ba16.jpg .

That one is better from technical point of view, better light and sky, but Jay Beckman "Blue Angel Echelon Pass" has better composition and agle of view definitely. Simply it's more interesting no doubt. That why it's so original and complains of Michael Spinak won't change that. So in my opinion there is no point in disscusing "is it worth of POW". Congratulation Jay !!!

 

Perhaps I didn't express myself very well in my comment above. My irritation is with people who give low ratings to good shots WITHOUT comment or explanation. A low number, without comments, doesn't really tell the photographer anything useful about his photo.

 

I respect Mr. Spinak's, and all other, comments on this picture and hope I've clarified my position. Respectfully. Bill.

Pawel,

 

Your gracious support of this images justifies why mass photo-finishing has such low quality standards, and why it's tolerated much to the frustration of the rest of us.

 

This photo is a "Snap-shot", period, neither bad or good, but simply a "Snap-shot" that is neither remarkable in (a) composition, (b) technique, or © effort as indicated by my uploads. Usually I can see some justification in POW to at least stir up some controversy, but this one baffles me.

Frankly speaking although I was a modeller in my youth I do not find those photos of aircrafts very interesting. Maybe I missing something. But I think your problem is that POW is a photo best of the week not best of it's kind. We are all learnig here, not only masters. You do not allow something below your high expectation what is a bit wrong I guess. There are constant disputes about what should be chosen as a POW. Something technically exellent or something outstanding from composition and emotional point of view - simply art. Actually it's your choice. In this particular instance I've chosen the latter.

Even technically it's not a bad photo. The sun is behind the blue aircrafts, you can figure it out from reflection at the crafts "beak", and the shadows on wings. That is why they looks a bit underexpose but it's not a fault e.g. Michael Spinak commented:"I would have preferred about 1/3 stop darker". In my opinion all aircraft photos are snapshots, just point and shoot. All the rest is your ability to follow aircrafts movements.

So do not label: "This photo is a "Snap-shot".

I've seen many photos of famous photographers which I do not like at all. They are simply bad from technical point of view but they convey something more.

If you're looking for the best ones only lets have a look at an example:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=233564

 

 

Reffering to the K-market should I throw away Minolta standard lens 50/1.7 bought there and buy it somewere else since it's bad just because of K-market?

 

Besides Scott have you ever thought that "elves" chose such photos for POW on purpose just to encourage members to dispute. Maybe someone's pulling your leg? Ha,ha ...

 

I am pretty new here and was just reading through the comments on this photo and thought I would check out Scott Eaton to have a look at his photos (since he is being so critical) only to find he has been "deleted" (kinda sounds like something out out of a Twilight Zone episode). What's up with this? It looks like he has been a member since 1998! Did he just suddenly decide he didn't want to participate? I think not!

 

As to the photo, I've been to a lot of airshows and seen tons of photos of the Blue Angels. While this photo is pretty good (something I might say "nice shot" to and wouldn't mind saying I took), I don't think it is all that exceptional. As Scott points out the Blue Angels (and the Thunderbirds) provide tons of perfect photo opportunities that your average joe can take advantage of (they will even tell you when the photo opportunity is coming up!). Even so, I think its a nice shot.

 

However, I still have to wonder what happened to Scott... Both criticism and praise are helpful. No doubt, I will disappear soon as well. Farewell all...

 

This shot is fine. I like it, but I don't think that it is a great shot. To me, the colours are a bit too muted to convey the impact of such in-your-face...ears...nose...etc machinery. I also think that the framing is a bit too tight to give any real feeling of the movement of the aircraft. I think there should at least be more space behind and below the aircraft. For such tight framing, I think it could also do with being much sharper; this would also suit the attributes of the subject much better. In terms of atmosphere, I think that Jay has a much better image in "Sunset Mustang" in the same folder. My favourite image by Jay would be a toss-up between "Gorilla My Dreams" and "Sunset Over Phoenix" in his single photos folder.

 

I rate this image 5/4 as I do like it and there has obviously been some thought put into it, but I don't think it offers anything particularly original.

You can still see Scott Eaton folder at adress:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=23104

 

His 3 photos are pretty good!!!