Re: My Oshkosh 2003 Scrapbook

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Theorem" <t h e o r e m @ a x i o m e t r i c . o r g> writes:

> > I finally finished my Oshkosh scrapbook for this year. Lots of
> > pictures, lots of info, and lots of links to even more info. No ads,
> > no cookies, no clutter. Corrections are appreciated. Hope you enjoy.
> >
> > David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
>
> Very nice, David. Thanks. By the way, the diffuse light of a cloudy day
> makes for great pictures, much more so than bright sunlight, which is too
> contrasty and produces hard shadows. You had perfect light for pics!

I've gotta agree. And I have my own glare-filled pictures of
airplanes on sunny days to prove it, too!

A lighter overcast would have been *worse* -- the clouds would have
been bright enough to be too bright when exposure was right for the
planes (they would be "burned out"). The nice heavy overcast he had
gave a very soft light, and kept the sky dark enough to show details
in the clouds, so they aren't a distraction or blank space.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > > Holy cats -- you missed 75% of Oshkosh!
> > >
> > > And I'm not joking...
> >
> > Just deluded?
>
> Okay, maybe 25%? Whatever the percentage, missing the North 40 is missing a
> HUGE part of Oshkosh.
>
> And I'm not deluded -- I'm "demented". Get it right, dammit! :-)

They're not mutually exclusive, you know.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[David O]

David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:

>I've gotta agree. And I have my own glare-filled pictures of
>airplanes on sunny days to prove it, too!
>
>A lighter overcast would have been *worse* -- the clouds would have
>been bright enough to be too bright when exposure was right for the
>planes (they would be "burned out"). The nice heavy overcast he had
>gave a very soft light, and kept the sky dark enough to show details
>in the clouds, so they aren't a distraction or blank space.

What you may not realize is I applied *selective* brightness,
contrast, and gamma corrections to different parts the picture in most
of those overcast shots. If I had taken the easy route and simply
applied such corrections to the entire picture, the overcast sky in
many of the pictures *would* have been distractingly bright. Your
comments about the lighting, therefore, may speak more to my care and
skill in digital image manipulation than to the true lighting
conditions of the day. Anyway, such matters are largely subjective.
I prefer copious blue sky and direct sunlight to the diffuse light of
an overcast day. For example, I much prefer this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2003/page63.html

and this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2003/page119.html

to this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2003/page22.html

or this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2003/page16.html

Yes, the last picture is nicely exposed but in my opinion it lacks
visual impact and is somewhat dreary looking, not unlike the dreary
looking day in which it was taken.

I do agree that a bright overcast is more problematic than a darker
overcast for the reasons you mention. Given a choice, however, I'll
take no overcast at all.

Cheers,

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David O > writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet > wrote:
>
> >I've gotta agree. And I have my own glare-filled pictures of
> >airplanes on sunny days to prove it, too!
> >
> >A lighter overcast would have been *worse* -- the clouds would have
> >been bright enough to be too bright when exposure was right for the
> >planes (they would be "burned out"). The nice heavy overcast he had
> >gave a very soft light, and kept the sky dark enough to show details
> >in the clouds, so they aren't a distraction or blank space.
>
> What you may not realize is I applied *selective* brightness,
> contrast, and gamma corrections to different parts the picture in most
> of those overcast shots. If I had taken the easy route and simply
> applied such corrections to the entire picture, the overcast sky in
> many of the pictures *would* have been distractingly bright. Your
> comments about the lighting, therefore, may speak more to my care and
> skill in digital image manipulation than to the true lighting
> conditions of the day. Anyway, such matters are largely subjective.
> I prefer copious blue sky and direct sunlight to the diffuse light of
> an overcast day. For example, I much prefer this,

Certainly well-considered adjustment helps a lot :-). But the detail
has to have been there in the original picture, the adjustment can't
pull details back out of truly burned-out areas. And the softer light
reduced the total brightness range and made it easier to expose so as
to avoid losing highlights and shadows. (Looks and sounds like you
know your way around photography pretty well, but I'm also talking to
everybody else and trying to make this make sense.)

Also harsh shadows create really dark areas that you often can't see
into at all.

> http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2003/page63.html
>
> and this,
>
> http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2003/page119.html
>
> to this,
>
> http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2003/page22.html
>
> or this,
>
> http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2003/page16.html
>
> Yes, the last picture is nicely exposed but in my opinion it lacks
> visual impact and is somewhat dreary looking, not unlike the dreary
> looking day in which it was taken.

22 is one where the sky is actually somewhat over-bright, I'd agree.
I haven't tried adjusting 16 more, but it looks to me like the
dreariness can mostly be fixed.

> I do agree that a bright overcast is more problematic than a darker
> overcast for the reasons you mention. Given a choice, however, I'll
> take no overcast at all.

The blue sky, or blue sky with a few artistically arranged clouds, is
a very nice background. But the harsh sun gives very bright
highlights and very dark shadows, and I find it quite problematic for
airplanes on the ground in particular.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>