US Air Force Museum Batch 2 [01/64] - WPAFM batch 2 Index 1.jpg (0/1)

[Indrek]

Here is the second, and last, batch.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto

Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult W.W.Churchill

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Indrek" > wrote ..
>
> Here is the second, and last, batch.

I would like to make a comment about your photography, but take it in the
light of constructive criticizm, please.

I have no idea if others feel the same way about your pictures, so this is
my opinion alone.

I realize that this particular museum is real tough to get good
line-of-sight, but I wonder if you could have gotten better placement to
take the pictures. Unless you are taking a close up to show a detail of a
particular feature, I would like to a view that shows more of a side view,
or at least an angle that shows the front and back plane at the same time.
Just backing up would help, in many cases, or using a lens with a slightly
wide angle, like a 28mm.

Also, I do not know if you are allowed to take a two foot step ladder of
something of the sort into the museum, but getting a little higher would
help the viewpoint, also.

Again, thanks for posting your pictures, as there are a lot of shots of cool
planes. Perhaps you can improve your pictures by keeping some of my
suggestions in mind.

Thanks for the series.
--
Jim in NC

[Giganews[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Indrek" > wrote ..
>>
>> Here is the second, and last, batch.
>
> I would like to make a comment about your photography, but take it in the
> light of constructive criticizm, please.
>
> I have no idea if others feel the same way about your pictures, so this is
> my opinion alone.
>
> I realize that this particular museum is real tough to get good
> line-of-sight, but I wonder if you could have gotten better placement to
> take the pictures. Unless you are taking a close up to show a detail of a
> particular feature, I would like to a view that shows more of a side view,
> or at least an angle that shows the front and back plane at the same time.
> Just backing up would help, in many cases, or using a lens with a slightly
> wide angle, like a 28mm.
>
> Also, I do not know if you are allowed to take a two foot step ladder of
> something of the sort into the museum, but getting a little higher would
> help the viewpoint, also.
>
> Again, thanks for posting your pictures, as there are a lot of shots of
> cool planes. Perhaps you can improve your pictures by keeping some of my
> suggestions in mind.
>
> Thanks for the series.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
Thanks for your feedback. You make some good points.

The physical realities of the location and equipment posed certain
difficulties.

I was using 18 mm focal length for most of the pictures, which is as short
was my 18-55 lens will go. Even if I had owned a shorter focal length lens,
I suspect the picture quality would have been impaired by spherical
distortion.

As I mentioned in the preamble to the first batch, the aircraft are packed
very close together, and it was next to impossible to get far enough away
from the aircraft to get a full profile view. It was also very difficult to
avoid parts of other aircraft intruding into the frame.

I did consider trying some shots taken with the camera just above the floor,
but that would have necessitated shortening the tripod legs each time, and
time was very short. The tour only allowed 40 minutes in the hangars so
there was not enough time to fiddle with the tripod legs. As for using steps
to get the camera higher, it's something that might have been possible, but
I'm not sure how much that would have enhanced the images. Certainly it
would have made using a tripod difficult. Given the available light, many
shots were in the half to one second exposure time range. I think shots from
a low angle would be much more dramatic...but that's just my opinion.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I will, of course, bear in mind what you
have said the next time I have the opportunity to take some museum shots.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto

--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult W.S. Churchill

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Giganews" > wrote

> Thanks for your feedback. You make some good points.
>
> The physical realities of the location and equipment posed certain
> difficulties.
>
> I was using 18 mm focal length for most of the pictures, which is as short
> was my 18-55 lens will go. Even if I had owned a shorter focal length
> lens, I suspect the picture quality would have been impaired by spherical
> distortion.

Wow, that is already short. Nothing more you could do there.

> As I mentioned in the preamble to the first batch, the aircraft are packed
> very close together, and it was next to impossible to get far enough away
> from the aircraft to get a full profile view. It was also very difficult
> to avoid parts of other aircraft intruding into the frame.

Yes, I realized that, too. I would rather see parts of other airframes, and
see the full profile. That's just me, perhaps.

> I did consider trying some shots taken with the camera just above the
> floor, but that would have necessitated shortening the tripod legs each
> time, and time was very short. The tour only allowed 40 minutes in the
> hangars so there was not enough time to fiddle with the tripod legs. As
> for using steps to get the camera higher, it's something that might have
> been possible, but I'm not sure how much that would have enhanced the
> images. Certainly it would have made using a tripod difficult. Given the
> available light, many shots were in the half to one second exposure time
> range. I think shots from a low angle would be much more dramatic...but
> that's just my opinion.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I will, of course, bear in mind what
> you have said the next time I have the opportunity to take some museum
> shots.

That long of exposures would make a high view hard, without a super tall
tripod. Perhaps it would be better to go with a super fast film, and accept
the graininess. I dunnow.

I think above views are superior, in most cases, because that allows you to
see the wing plan better, and the cockpit. Who wants to see the greasy
underside of planes, anyway? <g>

Perhaps that was the best that could be done in that place. Too bad the
taxpayers won't spring for some more hangars to spread out the planes some
more.
--
Jim in NC