"The Business End of Things" Comments or Suggestions Welcomed

Comments and or suggestions on this would be appreciated for any

below average rating. This was a very bright day with out much cloud

cover. This is a channel mixer work with some contrast layer and

curves put into it. It may be to bright for some monitors, if it is I

would like to know what type of monitor LCD or CRT.

Thanks

Wow, right out of the gate a 3/3. I must be good.

I think the ratings hear are way out of whack. I think some people vote on the subject matter and their feelings toward it without any regard to the quality of the photograph. On top of that they are unwilling to comment and make any suggestions as to how to improve on what they see as wrong. One of the rating numbers is for originality and the same type of wide angle landscape images show up over and over with high marks for being original. How do you figure that? I guess I am through griping now. I like your picture. It is a beautiful old war bird, and I think well presented.

Don't sweat the anonymous ratings, I got two 3/3s and a 7/7 on one of mine, it was interesting enough but didn't deserve either grade, I don't give # grades as I don't quite understand them, and actually don't care

 

Fine job under rough lighting, the Japanese called these "Whispering Death", and speaking of not understanding numbers, neither they nor the Germans quite grasped the safe end of "fifty caliber"

This one of the cleanest Corsair's I have seen in quite some time. I have a photo of one starting up in my portfolio-- You did a really a nice job! By the way, I don't pay too much attention to the rating thing either. Seems that there are a few out there that can't count past 3 and don't know how to type a comment either! It's all "art", just gotta remember to not get too discouraged just because someone has a not so positive reaction. This is a great photo, well done!

I don't give #'d ratings and I ignore those made on my work; they just baffle me...

 

She's a beautiful bird! I'd have burned at least a roll, probably two or three on this baby!

 

For tough lighting conditions (darn near noon, I'm guessing, with not a coud in sight)your camera did a pretty good job...very sharp!

 

Only a couple of issues from me; and minor ones at that...

 

The DoF seems a bit long for this shot. The background doesn't contibute, so why put it in focus?

 

The image seems like it wants to be square, but it isn't...the shot angle seems just a bit "normal". I think you could crop the prop a bit...pull in from the 12 and 3 o'clock sides. The negative space in that corner of the shot doesn't help much anyway...

 

jmo...feel free to tell me I'm nuts..

 

Joe

 

 

Thanks to all for the comments. Just trying to do something a little different, it just seems that when you take a picture of somethings they just seem to appear better when presnted in the format that was in use at the time they were built. Some color works, sometimes b&w. Did try and do some aging processes on this one but wasn't really satisfied with the results so just stayed at the channel mixer level and contrasts. As for the "3/3 out the gate" without an explaination I think someone out there feels a little threatened in their placement in the main gallery listings. So I don't let the rating thing get to me any more. I'm sure who ever they are, they go livid when someone does it to them because their own work surely rates a constant 7/7 in their minds eye. I'm no Pro, but I do keep trying. Maybe a suggestion to open the apperature up a little and defuse the background a little would have been nice, maybe a suggestion on how vary the individual settings on the type of camera would have helped also. So before I continue to rant along. Thanks for looking. Will keep trying, one day there's a going to be a 7/7 there.

Joe, your comments are what we need on the site. Thanks for the input on making it better next time.

First off, I think its a very decent shot of a classic airplane. I would not be displeased with it at all. But if you want to hear what I thought after reading your request for suggestions, here is what came to mind:

 

I would not concern myself with people's monitors, or yours. An image ona screen is just a poor man's proof, used to share your image with others for one reason or another, but it really doesn't matter. To quote one of the greatest photographers of all time, "the negative is the score, the print is the performance". An image on a screen is just a tool in my opinion. So don't sweat it.

 

I think you did a very good job of getting decent shadow detail on a really dark subject on a sunny day. Its not easy to do in these high contrast situations, and you did it well.

 

As to things I would have done differnt, well - I think I would rething the composition. Don't get me wrong, I would most likely have a shot just like this one among mine, but more as a keepsake than the image to concentrate on.

This is a very unusual shape, very striking - not just to an aviation aficionado but on a purely graphic merit. Most of that magic is in the wing, and I think you could have exploited it more. Usually the wing tip chop of the type you have here does not bother me at all - its the only way to fill up a frame with somethng of an airplane;s proportions. But in this case, I think I would have sacrificed some of the fuselage for the sake exploiting that wing shape, and the relationships of shapes that it creates. This is of course a purely subjective matter - more of a brain storm than a criticism.

 

I definitely agree with the suggestion of better depth of field control - the one thing I don't think is subjective here is the distracting buildings in the background (dof being something that the miniscule size of a sensor really compounds, so you have to be extra careful with it).

 

And going back to a personal matter of taste, I would keep it colour.... And I'll stop right there before I start a holy war :)

 

Hope you get some useful ideas from all that typing and I look forward to seeing more warbirds.

And one more thing - this one directed at Jack:

 

The Japanese called Beaufighter TF MkX's (also known as the "Torbeau" to the men who flew them) "Whispering Death", not Corsairs.

Peter; Thanks for the input. Next time I get a chance to be alone with one these beasts I'll remember your suggestions. Thanks.

Peter,

 

you may well be correct, thought I read it somewhere, being due to a particular sound those gull wings make

 

A Beaufighter? Are you sure? Not that up on non-US WWII aircraft, but I thought the Beau was somewhat obsolete by 1940. Of course, so was the P-40, and it held it's own OK in China

 

Any good references, let me know, an interesting field of study on a hot summer afternoon

The Beau was mainly a night fighter, as I am sure you know. However, with near-fighter performance and a ver powerful armament, they did very well as maritime attack aircraft in their TF (torpedo fighter) MkX iteration, used until the end of the war, both in the Pacific and in Europe. Armed with rockets and a torpedo, as well as 4x20mm cannon (the mkX's were not equipped with the additional 6 machine guns of the fighter)... it had a mean, nasty punch. The extremely low flying tactics employed by the pilots meant that the plane would appear to people on the surface before the sound reached their ears (due to the baffling effect of the choppy seas, etc.), hence the nick name.

I am not much of web-researcher - but I could hardly just send you several hundred pounds of books (aside from the fact that at least half are in Polish), so I hit the Google trying to find something reasonably accurate and extensive, and as far as the Beau was concerned, this was a pretty good place to brush up if you're interested in this (largely) unsung hero of the WWII skies:

 

http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/Beaufighter.htm

 

 

 

Thanks, Peter