gnashings

Ah, so that's what a Seafire is! :-)

 

Sorry, I can't help being a smart ass sometimes:)

Actually, I clicked on the photo before reading the caption - I simply love it, its full of a power, a "coming right at you" energy that is often hard to get from a typical vantage point at an airshow. This may sound funny, but I love the background, too - its almost like a painting and adds so much to the picture withouth taking away fromt he main point of focus - the aircraft.

I suppose some out there will ask for more colour or something - but to me this has everything it needs.

I wasn't necessarily attempting to be negative by comparing it to the model shots, it certainly wasn't meant as a put down, but I guess you're right... it is a little "off".

And never, ever, listen to the digital gurus... they just have too much to prove to be taken seriously (but, but, I am TOO a real photographer!) :-)

Pat,

 

that was a fun read!

 

On the subject of 'chutes - I too am aware of the Ministry directive, but I don't know how that affected the pilots from those other countries... I have read many accounts that suggest the other nations used the "manly man" clause as their excuse for not having chutes.

 

And in the case of Shackelton crews, I think people just stated to figure that something that has been flying that long (there is still one, I think, in South Africa in active service, about to retire this year!!!), well, something that has been flying that damn long will NEVER fall out of the sky! :)

 

Of course, I think in the whiskey discourse you have hit upon something that transcends language barriers and other petty differences:)

Andre,

 

I don't know what the preferred brand of beverage was back then, but I know that these guys had to have balls the size of water mellons - imagine, no parachutes because they were not chivalrous! Wow! :)

 

And whatever the Whiskey was, I am surprised Pat is not driven to it in large amounts because of my constant whining alone! :)

OK - here is a rant: why can't I have one? And why am I banished to a land where people worship NASCAR - the Special Olympics of motorsport...:)

 

Yuck... all that pixelography stuff - I would love to see the actual slide!

One thing I noticed (and I think this is a function of the heat effect playing tricks with the way the sharpness drops off, as well as the grass looking alittle larger than life) - it look like a model!

When I was younger I had this masochistic penchant for trying to make pictures of my models look real... they never did. Some of them looked pretty, but never realistic. I am not saying that this is quite like that (obviously this is a real plane), but it reminded me of all those shots of models I took.

I tell you what: you take the sunny weather, and I'll happily accept the endless parade of Spitfires as a trade, ok?

 

This is a lovely shot of a much too seldom seen Mustang variant, by the way.

OK - I didn't want to get into this, but August started it :)

There is a "retro" feel, and kudos for the great composition - but the afore mentioned LF shots from that period would look like B&W photographs, and even more so, they would look like B&W photographs taken on film that has a different spectral response than what we are used to - the highlight appear different (almost compressed), the rendition of the various tones (sky for one)would be different, etc. There is just that unmistakable look that photos from back then have due to those (and other) factors.

Having said that, this is a very enjoyable image - I don't think Pat was out to "fool" anyone, merely to enhance the enjoyment of a picture of some great old historical aircraft by adding an element which is evocative of their time period - key word being evocative. I don't think he is sitting in a dark room rocking back and forth rambling over and over "they're onto me..." :)

 

I still say its a great shot, and well done - even if personally, I would rather see it in colour, I can appreciate the direction that Pat tried with this.

Generally your shots a lot sharper - this one is a little too soft by your standards. Also, the composition... I am assuming you were trying for something, perhaps this was what you wanted... but that grass in the foreground is just distracting and serves no purpose in my opinion - especially that much of it.

At the end of the day, its a Spitfire - I can't be too critical:)

The image seems properly exposed - composition wise there is a little too much foreground for my liking. Also - did you use a filter? There seems to be very little IR effect happening (other than the characteristic grain), although that may be the subject matter - usually lots of greenery (leafs, grass) makes the IR effect come out, especially against a blue sky. I think I would have printed it a little different - but that may be a matter of preference.

Of course - a Foghter is a whole different airplane :)

 

Nice shot - good job keeping it "period correct" - anyone who has tried, knows how hard that is to accomplish!

About as good a rally shot as I have ever seen on this web sight. I love it - and I love the subject matter, reminds me of the good old days of rallying. I do have one suggestion - I would crop the tiny little bit on the left side of the image (behind the car) that contains what looks like the headlight of another car. I think it would be stronger that way.

Well spotted - Mediterrenean, red spinners - my oversight. But where they in conjunction with the regular grey/green/grey paint scheme? Having said that, the airplane that started as an LF and was restored with a regular c wing... I don't think that the colours are what I would call accurate, but at least they added a proper aerial mast which seems absent from the original restoration. I suppose the any quibles about the paint are minor when its not even the same variant as the one it started life as. I wonder what else is there - an LF was not just clipped wing tips. At what point can you still say its "the same airframe"?

I love P47's - they are so... P47-ish you just have to love them! I would love to see a Razorback first hand - never have, in flight.

August - please don't misunderstand - I appreciate your input, and I know you won't like every picture I take, in which case I certainly prefer to hear your take on it than to have you pass on stating your views for fear of hurting my feelings. You put a lot of thought into and shed a great deal of unique perspective in your posts, and I am certainly not taking the time and effort for granted - even if I don't agree with everything you say every time, I usually get something out of each of your posts that I am sure will make my next shot better. So no worries.

 

As to that MkIX... I spent a better part of my youth and most of my adulthood pouring over paint chips, photos, matching colours (I have gone as far as getting the input of veterans who flew some of these planes)and researching everything down to the varying degrees that exposure to sun changes the colour of a particular paint (I won't even go into the debate of how scale affects the human perception of colour). The underside of this airplane is too dark, the dark sea grey is off as well and sky band across the rear fuselage is well, it is what it is. I also can't recall a Spitfire of this vintage with a red spinner, although I can't rule out that it has happened. Plus, the variance in sheen between the two colours is also not something I have ever seen in many of the war time photos I have studied (excluding patch jobs and repairs). Hence my verdict on the paint scheme, and it would take a lot of convincing to change my mind:)

Works for me! Lovely mixture of birds, not often one sees these three in one shot, that's for sure!

I guess its "street" photography :)

 

Lovely shot, I really enjoyed it.

Thank you for your kind words, I really appreciate your up lifting words! You know I am a little bit of a film snob... (ok... I am pretty much a die-hard luddite:-)), but you know... I am also a Spitfire purist - and as such, that "bleeding earial" making the Spit look like a cat-detector van is well served by some wizardry, and I like the results. My desire for a clean and proper Spit outweighs my film snobbery:-)

Now... this was scanned from print - as everything in my portfolio is... so I will have to spend some long hours in the darkroom trying to replicate that result. But oh well - it will be fun (aside from the countless sheets of paper I will destroy and new obscenities that I will inevitably invent!)and in the end, I will have learned something, so it won't be all bad.

Thanks for being so encouraging, I really appreciate it. While airplanes are my first love, they are not really my photographic forte - I photograph them because I love them and I can't help it - so I am always grateful for the time folks take to chime in.

August, I see your points - I have to admit that they were not apparent to me when I took this shot, or for that matter, until you pointed them out.

 

You do understand that I will now have to commit ritual suicide, right? Taking an ugly picture of a Spitfire would require that, I am afraid... :)

 

The secong aerial disturbs me not for its visual aspects but for the fact that is simply doesn't belong there, but I see the visual impact you mention. Its too bad - I was actually pretty happy with this shot. Perhaps I can attribute that to a couple of things:

 

a) I loved the clouds and the way the gathered seemingly in front of the airplane

 

b) Perhaps I can not be critical of a Spitfire image even if its my own :)

 

Thanks for the input August, either way, I appreciate it.

 

And Duncan, thanks for the kind words.

Couldn't you get the other 5 degrees... jeez... ;)

 

Just jokes - its certainly a lovely shot, great background - and yes, the prop blurr is almost unreal! Not usually the type of airplane that draws my eye, yet I had to stop to look at this photo.

Thanks, I was trying to be selective with the focus to draw the eye into the shot... but I don't think I quite nailed it...

I feel like someone just showed me how its done :) Great shot!

I kind of liked the clouds gathering in front of this MkIX - kind of

foreboding, and since so many of the airplane photos I take kind of

look the same (hey, look - its an airplane in a field...), I was

pleased to get this shot. I am just annoyed that the image looks

kind of grey on the screen - it seems to have lost a lot of the

highlights and deep blacks, but I guess that's the nature of the

beast. And of course I wish that second antena wasn't there - but

what can one do:)

Your comments are welcome, and as always, appreciated. Enjoy.

August, thank you for your kind words - I really appreciate your comments and always highly value your opinion.

There were a few clouds in the sky and I think I may be able to drag them out with a little burn-in to liven up the background - perhaps next time I am in the darkroom. I think it will change the character of the picture to a large extent, though.

 

Now... as to the airplane, I assure you its the very same one that displays its prop and engine the close up shot, and its very much blood red:) I think I will have some fun with this one - any guesses?

Gorgeous! I would love to see the actual print! I am sure what I see on the screen pales by comparison, and still its so lovely!