gnashings

Everything as per above (you may have a better success ratio starting with a shutter speed slightly faster than 1/15th while still capturing much motion even at 1/60 or so), and this picture is slightly underexposed (at least on my monitor, not that it matters how pictures look on monitors...). The meter obviously read the whole scene, unfortuinately your main subject is black and in much of it is in the shadow. More detail in there would be much more engaging.

This is a lovely shot - I think its mission accomplished as far as capturing the pilot, lost in the act of flying and his lovely (and not often seen) airplane.

I am pretty sure 40 years is more like it! these were made (I think) 56-69. Ype, that means we're getting old... Nice shot.

Nice work - I personally prefer the colour version, but that's me. I was thinking (again, not having any digital imaging know-how) that when I painted scenes like this (and God only knows, I am NO Robert Taylor!), I would enhance depth by making the colours on the background object more subdued, and a touch darker - it seemed to add to the sense of depth by slightly decreasing the amount of detail - just the way your eyes percieve less detail at a distance and the basis for the whole f-stop theory (factor by which light diminishes over distance from source). Keep 'em coming - I hope you do know that I am only "criticizing" this much because I really enjoy the images and see it as a worthwhile discussion to make them even better (and it makes me feel good to think I may "contribute" in some small way - I am such a tag-a-long!;)).

Thanks for taking me in such good humour!:) Just to clarify, I know that comments made elsewhere suggested the distances portrayed were wrong or unrealistic - myself, I do NOT think that is the case. I don't have an issue with the distance, merely think the distance present needs to be enhanced visually, as the Spit seems a little to "pasted on" by comparison to the original image where the Spit looked exactly, visually correct for the distance its size implied. I have no clue of what I wrote here conveys what I am thinking... its a touch late...:)

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

 

 

 

I know I was the one that did the most whining about the initial image (being a terminal Spitfirephile...), but I think as a graphic image, I liked the first one better. The reason for it: Simplicity of the two airplane arrangement and one more thing. I don't know anything about digital image manipulation, but whatever you did with the last image made the distance appear more realistic (between the main 109 and the chasing Spit). I don't know if the original images were captured in more varied lightning conditions, or what the reason is, but the first image had a better feeling of depth. Although - again - I have no knowledge or interest in photoshop so I can't speak in specifics, but it seems to me like the Spitfire in this is too vivid and detailed to be this far away - perhaps too brightly lit.

 

You know, I have to agree with what has been already said by some and by myself: I don't really see how this relates to photography (except in some most cursory way), but these are images that, if properly printed, I would be inclined to purchase. I have nothing against the craft of digital graphic design or collages of any sort, and frankly, I love these airplanes so much that when I come to this section of pnet I set my photographic views (for the most part)aside and just enjoy the capture of living history and the display of airplanes that still give me goose-bumps to even look at. But I would have to say, this is about 10% photography, 90% graphic design. Which is fine, but not really in the realm of photography in my opinion.

 

However, keep 'em coming, whatever they are - I like looking at them!:)

Great shot, unusual angle (for some reason, few people do the rear 3/4 shot?). And I love the gear going up - such a perfect way to convey that rush of a thoroughbred breaking the sluggish bounds of Earth and leaping into its element! Really enjoyed this one!

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.

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.

You know, all I have is this darn book knowledge! You on the other hand get to see all these beauties in action.

You have to admit, there is a moment right when they start to bank, when you know you will see that wing, that silhouette... and I don't know about you - but I get goose bumps! Every time! And your shots let me experience that from my living room. I truly appreciate that!

I hope you noticed the smiley at the end of that!

Lovely shot, very Robert Taylor-ish (I am a huge fan of his, imagine that...).

I can see the point about the crop - but I can also see the merit of the expanse of sky. I think that boils down to how the artist wants to interpret this image.

And I hate this guy... another rare Spit!!! He seems to have an endless supply and all I can do is drool:)

Jokes aside, was this shot from the air?

I hope you don't hate me after this series of comments, but, uhm... MkIX. :)

Hey, you get to watch them, so in my jelousy all I can do is be a pain about details, hehehehee. I love these simple shots that capture the speed and give a nice study of the airplane - I can look at these all day and all night!

Lovely photo - after all, the most gorgeous part of a Spit, is that eliptical wing... I hate to be a stick in the mud, but I can't help it: 303 call letters were RF (until August1945 when they changed to PD for a very brief period before the sqdn was disbanded). This airplane is depicted in the livery of the 317 (Wilenski - City of Wilno)sqdn.

Either way, lovely shot.

I like it. Its simple, well shot - nice prop blurr, too.

Good to see a nice shot of a rare bird.

Awesome!

Not something you see every day - not that I dislike clouds and trees and such - but I am jelous! This one definitely stands out.

Yep - I jumped the gun. I noticed you mentioned this in your other post of this event. Still, I say good photo-journalistic skills on display!

This is a photograph? Sure doesn't look like one.

OOps! I didn't see this one before I commented on the other four - glad to hear its alive to fly another day!

Poor Dragon! I hope no one got hurt... and the plane is fix-able?

If you can't find a MkI or II, even a MkV would be less conspicous due to the radiator sizes under the wings - the paint scheme will still, however, not be the drak green/earth you want here. Very, very few early marks flying around - but more likely in your neck of the woods than mine :)

Tha's a MkIX Spitfire - not around in 1940, entered squadron July 1942 and were in widespread use by the end of that year. Paint scheme also not accurate for this time period.