Blue Angel Echelon Pass

Haven't we all taken better pictures than anything that has been taken before? What is good and what is bad can only be determined by the parameters we set for ourselves. I like pictures of cobwebs in the morning. Do we need to hear from others that a picture is good before we enjoy the fruits of our own efforts? I have many ordinary pictures, a few good ones and the occasional masterpiece. But thats just my view. Doesn't mean a thing to anyone else. I dare say Scott vanished because he forgot to let go when the film had finished rewinding! Beauty, as they say, is certainly in the eye of no-one in particular.

I liked (and envy) the photo's that both Jay and Scott took, but can't see any point in rating them other than to start an argument.

As far as Pic-of-the-week, isn't that just the opinion of the editor???

 

Keep snapping out there people, there are tons of good photo's waiting to be taken.

I would certainly like to see an explanation why "this user is deleted" appears in Scott Eaton's account. I don't feel that Scott got exactly overboard with his critique, and think it would be good for everybody to know why a long-time user's account was deleted. Even though photo.net never promised us democracy, it is still an open community.

I think, Scott's examples don't quite make the composition, at least because his framing was not very careful. I don't know about sharpness and exposure: sharpness is impossible to judge from this small image, and exposure cannot be discussed after the photo has been scanned and digitally processed, unless there was a large exposure error.

Regarding the POW, I'd apply some Photoshop adjustments to it (maybe the result looks less realistic).

Good work Vadim the picture is better. But did you notice there are "ghosts" all around the wings due to image compression and can't help it.

There seems to be some concern that Scott Eaton has been, shall we say, "eliminated" with what might be called "extreme prejudice." I'll take this opportunity to express my doubt about that:-)

Personally, I think Scott's composition was much better. I am not a real fan of the POW because to me the blending of the planes is a little disturbing. I like to see the entire plane. The colors are good in the POW shot though. Having shot some of my first real photos of airshows this season, I can recognize how difficult it can be. The main problem is the weather. If its cloudy or what ever, you just will not get the good picture and better luck next year. This happened to me, at the Navy show in NJ. Most shots were nothing great and I don't have the money to follow the Blue Angels around the globe either.

I need to explain why I asked the people who rate it low for originality to state their view.

I see that majority of the comments for most of the photos uploaded for critique are positive and say that they have given higher rating to the image. But the ratings do not match up with the type of the comments, which makes me think that there are many people who do not think a photo is great and rate it lower. Over all it would lead to a more balanced discussion rather than a list of kudos which may not really provide any feedback in terms of technique/skill. Ofcourse I love these comments...helps my self esteem I guess beleive it or not... but the negetive ones would make sit up and think.

Sharing your opinions even when they are negetive helps the photographer (if she/he is interested) and also other subscribers. Helps them understand how you define the term originality and gives a reason to go beyond first impressions.

Michael Spinak has said it very nicely: the POW

is better than Scott's attempts, because it gives

some nontrivial insight. While the POW highlights

the extreme danger of the manouvre, Scott's pics

just show a collection of four airplanes. In

particular, Scott's second image is really boring.

I agree largely with Scott Eaton's critique only I would rate it lower. As a stand alone image it has very little to offer me. Trainspotters may get exited about any photograph resembling a train, parents by any photo of their offspring. I feel the same here: The subject matter offers me nothing, and there isn't anything else in it for me.

 

I was hoping for something like moderator/administrator suppression, but no such luck. Scott deleted himself so there is nothing to get excited about.

My god it is a well framed, well exposed snapshot with a long lens. that requires some skill and it is a nice enough shot but really it is nothing it is nothing more than that. I salute the photographer fro his skill: knowing where to point the camera and when to press the shutter release is a good set of skills but Where is the imagination? Where is the heart? Where are the brains? Where are the guts of this image? Where are its big clanking brass balls? It is a simple safe snapshot, a record of what passed in front ofthe photographers lens and nothing more.

Its a confusing mess.

 

The F/A-18s arent banking quite enough to pull off this composition, so you can see two noses below the leading plane, and they dont look good because they arent in the same vertical plane as the first aircraft. You cant see the nose of the fourth and lowest plane, and because the third plane is about a mile out of formation (if anyone knows who flies plane 3, let me know and Ill report him to the Blue Angels management -- this photo is a veritable embarrassment to the Navy) the whole thing doesnt line up and the resulting composition is a chaotic muddle. Wings and vertical stabilizers are sticking out everywhere like arms and legs in a playground scuffle. Add what appears to be a half-stop underexposure, a not-quite blue sky and bad focus or fuzzy JPEG and youve got a recipe for... POW???

 

Scotts photos are better and I dont even like them (what a dead sky).

 

Airshows are the only photographic events where I like to use a motordrive. I track the planes until I see the shot I want, squeeze and hold -- the resulting burst as they drift relative to each other pretty much ensures that one of the photos portrays the team in perfect formation and harmony.

 

You should take a dekko at the Red Arrows... NINE Hawks, flown with a precision thats got to be seen to be believed.

I really like the negative space formed by the repeating starboard fins, and the left wings create a nice complex pattern as well. I would be interested to read about the lens used -- in modern airshows, it's getting harder to get sufficiently close to the performers, unfortunately.

Samuel, you always make a serious second look necessary. To then be followed by Mr. Bentley's comment.

 

I love the confusion and chaos created by the angle of the shot. My first thought was "wow these guys fly close" irrespective of the long glass. The perspective adds excitement to the shot, a sense of motion. Others I've seen recently show four rigidly spaced aircraft hung in mid-air. These guys gotta be moving. I do however agree with Samuel's comment about the focus or lack there of. Here on this large bright screen it is off-putting. I personally like the exposure but a half stop wouldn't hurt. As to whether this shot deserves a POW, why not? Given many of the pics in the past, are we still attempting to discern the elves logic?

 

To those recently "self deleted," I'm satisfied.

a beautiful image! i think many say it lacks in originality because of the subject matter is one of the most photographed and familiar of all airshow performers. hence nowadays stunning blue angels maneuvers are not as "impressive" to this sophisticated audience :) I like the image and as an avid aviation nut would gladly keep this one in my collection!

I must say after trying to shoot airshows myself, I've never managed a single photo worth getting excited about -due to position bad days, heat of the moment, getting too snap happy etc. Trying to track fast moving aircraft with a 300mm lens andtrying to keep focus is quite challenging. The shot is quite well composed - sure there are some flaws that other users have pointed out. The one thing I'd like to point out that makes Scott Eatons photo better is the background colour. Blue aircraft against a blue background don't stand out as much as the grey background that Scott has - but then again that's beyond you're control. Congrats on a pretty cool image!

Personally, I think this shot is not as impressive as it could've been.. The photo is not sharp! The colors are very flat. For everyone who praises this photo for its great tight composition, think again, the photo was post-cropped, unless he was shooting APS (*smile*)! I think scott is truely right.. Photos of planes are possible from the luck of the draw, but looking at Scott's photos tells me and hopefully everyone, that you're gonna have to be pretty damn good to get your exposures right. Scott's photos are NOT snapshots.. I can see it right now (judging from the 'car bumper' photo); Tripod laid out, camera positioned, then spending about 20 minutes to evaluate the scene and finding a great composition.. That's what I would call a work of art, not a snazzy snapshot. Hell, POWs are getting more controversial by the day.. But maybe that makes this site goes round and around - as it does.

...that looks like it's shot on a rather hazy day. I don't want to beat up on this poor fellow, but what Scott Eaton said is largely true. This is a pretty easy shot to come by if you have the right lens, the sun is on the right side of the runway, and the air is clear.

 

Attached is a Blue Angel formation from a perspective you don't get a chance to see at an airshow.

 

All the Best,

 

Joe Oliva

 

www.Jetpix.com

Good spatial design - quickly seen and captured.

 

Ultimately though, not very interesting

Look at the JetPix photo two comments above. There is a ghost following just one of the five Blue Angels. I'm scared.

Congrats on POW. This one doesn't really jump out at me though. I prefered a couple of the other shots in your aviation folder.

*I think that the composition of the airplanes is a little confusing.

*Maybe a little more spacing in between (like the other blue angel shot in your folder.)

* Focus could be improved. Granted, I'm sure it's hard enough taking a crisp shot of a plane traveling a bazillion miles an hour

 

**Of course, my critique comes from what I would chose to market or print if the pics were mine.

Jay, As they say f8,or 11 or 16 or whatever & be there plus accumulated skills & a little luck = this very good shot. The timing is on a par with David Wheelock's shot of his daughter on a roller coaster. Sorry, I don't have the skills yet to give a highlighted direction to his folder. It's worth the search though. Congrats on POW. Best, LM.

As for self deleting of Scott Eaton I'm not satisfy. I found that contrary to me an amateur Scott is experienced profesional and I'm sorry my comments triggered him to quit.

 

So Scott Eaton come back !!!

Yeah, where did Scott go? Could someone confirm if he has deleted himself or if he was deleted? (*ahem* moderator, anyone? ;-)

 

Last time someone had his account deleted by the moderators was in the "property rights" discussion, but Scott Eaton's posts are nowhere near as off-topic and aggressive as those of the guy who was deleted (perhaps some of you remember the discussion? ;-)

 

This makes me seriously doubt that Scott has been deleted - sounds more like he deleted himself. A shame, he seemed a nice feller to me. Often gave good advice on questions, too. Well, well.

 

As for the POW, well.. I think the composition, with the planes overlapping, just showing the tail fins, is interesting. But other than that it's not very exciting: blurry, no "snap" in colors/exposure, nothing else in the picture that is interesting.

 

Just my 2 cents ;-)

I don't mean to make light of the photograph and the skill of the photgrapher that took it.

 

But do you think the lens was responsible for making the planes appear very close together?? Well, the planes *are* close together. Does a long lens make them appear even closer, sure. But they started out pretty damn close.

 

Does the photo show skill?? Sure does. SHows how skilled the Blue Angle pilots are. They are *very* good at what they do.

Thank you Dave for computation of average "Aesthetics" of this POW. An introduction of list of all the ratings for a particular photo is usesful. On the other hand the list of best rated photographers has disappered several days ago.

So PhotoNet is more political correct, there are

no rating chalenged members anymore. The main concern is photo rigth now, that's fabulous. Looking for explanation for the latest changes I've got suspicious that editor is working on a Phd thesis on human behaviour. That is why one of my comments was:"Scott have you ever thought that 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?"

 

Dave you are right, rates in some degree might as well be random but does they follow Gaussian distribution? Could you kindly figure it out?

Taking into accout the SD we can say who rated it within statistical limits and who is out of average, so such rates are not valid, great.

Maybe distribution would show us groups of supporters and oponents in case of one photo and

gaussian distribution for the different one.

I find PhotNet very interesting place.

It's on the MIT server after all.

Congratulation Philip Greenspun !!!