First Pics of Udvar-Hazy Visit

[Jay Beckman]

Many more in the near future...

Very interesting facility and well worth visiting.

From a photographic perspective, the lighting and layout make it very
challenging.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/udvarhazy_center

[Paul79UF]

great pics, I especially like the space shuttle.

thanks

[Flyingmonk]

Good job Jay. I especially liked the Spitfire.

The Monk

[Jay Honeck]

> Very interesting facility and well worth visiting.

Isn't it cool, Jay? Our flight there last year will always be a
highlight of our lives.

> From a photographic perspective, the lighting and layout make it very
> challenging.

Agreed. Almost none of the pictures I took there were worth a damn.
The scale of the place is just way beyond regular flash photography --
and it's really too dark for anything else.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Very interesting facility and well worth visiting.
>
> Isn't it cool, Jay? Our flight there last year will always be a
> highlight of our lives.

What can one say when standing face to face with such history. It's
definately a work in progress but I imagine when they eventually incorporate
the Garber facility / Research Library and can seamlessly move back and
forth between restoration/preservation and display area, they'll be able to
have a little more cohesion in each genre. It's just a little bit "asses
and elbows" right now. I did try to picture your family with Atlas out on
the ramp doing the "meet and greet" ... that just must have been a gas.

>> From a photographic perspective, the lighting and layout make it very
>> challenging.

> Agreed. Almost none of the pictures I took there were worth a damn. The
> scale of the place is just way beyond regular flash photography -- and
> it's really too dark for anything else.

Reminded me greatly of the USAF Museum at Dayton, OH.

I have to admit I'm pleasantly suprised with the results I managed to
achieve at ISO 400, no flash and a monopod. My 24-105mm lens is an IS
(Image Stablizer) lens and I think it really made a difference. Out of
approx 100-ish images shot, I didn't end up with too many technical
"clunkers" but some suffer from a lack of planning within the frame.
Sometimes I forget to look beyond my subject and make sure the background is
what I want as well.

Next time, I think I'll try a wider-angle lens so I can physically get
closer in order to further isolate specific aircraft and/or aircraft parts.
The thing you have to be careful of with going really wide is the forced
perspective which can make wings and tails look cartoonishly long.

(Envy Mode On...) Of course, in the book that they sell, the photos are all
perfect because the staff shooters had at their disposal a closed museum and
megawatts worth of flash power! (Envy Mode Off...)

Glad you liked the shots.

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Greg Farris]

In article <oUU7g.1147$KB.147@fed1read08>, says...


>
>(Envy Mode On...) Of course, in the book that they sell, the photos are all
>perfect because the staff shooters had at their disposal a closed museum and
>megawatts worth of flash power! (Envy Mode Off...)
>

They probably had 8x10" Sinar view cameras, tripods as heavy as you or me, and
used two-minute exposures!

Your shots are nice for the conditions - you're being too modest.
I like the 707 - I don't know if it's an artefact of the photographic
conditions, but the paint job, even if it's the "original" scheme doesn't look
much like a plane from that period to me - the high-gloss looks rather
"American Chopper"...

GF

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> From a photographic perspective, the lighting and layout make it very
>> challenging.
>
> Agreed. Almost none of the pictures I took there were worth a damn.
> The scale of the place is just way beyond regular flash photography --
> and it's really too dark for anything else.

Do they allow tripods? (My apologies if this came up in an earlier thread).

If I could get beautiful shots of the extremely low-lit caverns in Carlsbad,
NM using a tripod (and I could), I'd guess that at least one component of
the lighting equation is solveable with a tripod at U-H.

I admit, there's more to getting a great photograph than simply getting a
sufficient exposure. But that's a pretty good start. :)

Pete

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> From a photographic perspective, the lighting and layout make it very
>>> challenging.
>>
>> Agreed. Almost none of the pictures I took there were worth a damn.
>> The scale of the place is just way beyond regular flash photography --
>> and it's really too dark for anything else.
>
> Do they allow tripods? (My apologies if this came up in an earlier
> thread).
>
> If I could get beautiful shots of the extremely low-lit caverns in
> Carlsbad, NM using a tripod (and I could), I'd guess that at least one
> component of the lighting equation is solveable with a tripod at U-H.
>
> I admit, there's more to getting a great photograph than simply getting a
> sufficient exposure. But that's a pretty good start. :)
>
> Pete

Hi Pete,

Unfortunately, the NASM website specifically calls out tripods as a No-No.

I found out the hard way back in the pre-internet 80s when I brought one
into the museum on The Mall and had a heard of security jump all over me
before I could even shoot one frame.

I was told at the time (and I assume it's still the rationale...) that
tripod legs could be a trip and fall hazard for other patrons.

I also found out that the Capitol Police get uptight when you bring a long
lens (tubular object) and a tripod (for aiming) onto Capitol grounds (and
again, this was back in the mid 80s.) Long story short: I ended up in an
office in the third sub-basement explaining that I was just an amateur
shooter and meant no harm. Still had to sign a couple of forms however.

Jay B

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:QQW7g.1152$KB.264@fed1read08...
> Unfortunately, the NASM website specifically calls out tripods as a No-No.
>
> I found out the hard way back in the pre-internet 80s when I brought one
> into the museum on The Mall and had a heard of security jump all over me
> before I could even shoot one frame.
>
> I was told at the time (and I assume it's still the rationale...) that
> tripod legs could be a trip and fall hazard for other patrons.

Bummer.

I somehow doubt that safety is the actual issue. After all, people can trip
and fall over all sorts of other similar hazards that are allowed in (canes,
crutches, small children...)

More likely it's about commercial photography. I've run into plenty of
places, museums or otherwise, that readily admit that the reason they don't
allow tripods is that you can get a good enough photo with a tripod to be
able to sell it, and they want royalties from any sales, and it's too hard
to guarantee they'll get those royalties if they just allow any random
person who comes in to use a tripod.

Oh well...at least they let you in with a monopod. Almost as good, in the
hands of an experienced photographer.

Pete

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

Tripods and exposure times are only half the issue.
In most indoor aviation exhibits distances are too short for much photography,
and there are often other planes in the way. I did some work at the Duxford
museum in England - often working alone at night, just to go to the toilet I
literally had to walk around a B17 and under a Vulcan bomber! No way to get any
pictures there though, because of the way the planes are crammed into the
hangar.

Looking at Jay's pictures, there may be better views at U-H.
Also, I'm impressed with the performance of his stabilized lens.

GF

[Kingfish]

Well done Jay. The U-H annex is next on my list of aviation museums I
want to see. After that there's CAF in TX and Chino in CA.

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> says...

I didn't write any of the text found in your post. Why did you include an
attribution?

> Tripods and exposure times are only half the issue.

No doubt. That's why I wrote in a previous post: "there's more to getting a
great photograph than simply getting a sufficient exposure".

> In most indoor aviation exhibits distances are too short for much
> photography,
> and there are often other planes in the way. I did some work at the
> Duxford
> museum in England - often working alone at night, just to go to the toilet
> I
> literally had to walk around a B17 and under a Vulcan bomber! No way to
> get any > pictures there though, because of the way the planes are crammed
> into the
> hangar.

"In most"? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Most of the aviation
exhibits I've been do don't involve cramming as many airplanes as possible
into a space. Sure, it's often not possible to take a picture of just one
airplane at a time, but to say you can't photograph most indoor aviation
exhibits is just plain wrong. It just takes some creativity and a good eye
for the composition.

Pete

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>"In most"? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Most of the aviation
>exhibits I've been do don't involve cramming as many airplanes as possible
>into a space. Sure, it's often not possible to take a picture of just one
>airplane at a time, but to say you can't photograph most indoor aviation
>exhibits is just plain wrong. It just takes some creativity and a good eye
>for the composition.
>

Sounds to me like we probably have different ideas of what constitutes a good
photograph.

GF

[Jay Beckman]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> says...
>
>>"In most"? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Most of the aviation
>>exhibits I've been do don't involve cramming as many airplanes as possible
>>into a space. Sure, it's often not possible to take a picture of just one
>>airplane at a time, but to say you can't photograph most indoor aviation
>>exhibits is just plain wrong. It just takes some creativity and a good
>>eye
>>for the composition.
>>
>
> Sounds to me like we probably have different ideas of what constitutes a
> good
> photograph.
>
> GF

As it should be with all "art" forms.

Jay B

[Montblack]

("Jay Beckman" wrote)
> As it should be with all "art" forms.


My working definition of art: If I can do that - it aint art.


Montblack
Pictionary anyone?

[Jay Beckman]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jay Beckman" wrote)
>> As it should be with all "art" forms.
>
>
> My working definition of art: If I can do that - it aint art.
>
>
> Montblack
> Pictionary anyone?

Couldn't draw Binky the Elephant, eh?

Me either...

Jay B

[Peter Duniho]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> My working definition of art: If I can do that - it aint art.

You need a broader concept of "art". I've seen plenty of "art" in your
posts, and I mean that in a good way. You obviously have artistic ability.

Heck, the post in which you claim not to be able to do art, you've done art.
:p

[Jack Allison]

Montblack wrote:

> My working definition of art: If I can do that - it aint art.

So...the PMC isn't art, eh? :-)

Functional, yes, art, no...or so says Montblack


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jay Honeck]

> > My working definition of art: If I can do that - it aint art.
>
> So...the PMC isn't art, eh? :-)
>
> Functional, yes, art, no...or so says Montblack

Durable, too! We got to use the PMC ("Pimp My Cooler") again this past
weekend, when Montblack hosted us at the Golden Wings Museum (watch for
pix) in Anoka. It still looks -- and works -- as good as new.

Of course, we had to warn airport personnel that it wasn't some sort of
an IED, but hey...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("Jack Allison" wrote)
> So...the PMC isn't art, eh? :-)
>
> Functional, yes, art, no...or so says Montblack


Art? Sure, ok, why not?

PMC does fall under the Early Shaker style....

"Cocktail Shaker: This is a device which allows you to shake the hell out of
drink ingredients without them getting all over the place. It is composed of
a [plywood and 2" rigid pink] vessel with either a glass, which fits into
it, or a lid. You simply place the ingredients and ice (usually) into the
shaker, connect the glass or lid to the shaker, and shake."

....that's why there are handles on the side of "The (PMC) Casket"


Montblack
And that lovely patina...
Um, that's green treated plywood, ma'am.

[Montblack]

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
> You need a broader concept of "art". I've seen plenty of "art" in your
> posts, and I mean that in a good way. You obviously have artistic
> ability.
>
> Heck, the post in which you claim not to be able to do art, you've done
> art. :p


Thanks Pete, but Aristotle nailed my arse years ago!

The Art of Rhetoric - 4th century B.C.
"Wit is educated insolence." :-)

Some fun quotes from IMDB:
L.A. Story (1991) ...Steve Martin

Harris: I call it performance art, but my friend Ariel calls it wasting
time. History will decide.

Trudi: Sheila has been studying the art of conversation.
Harris: Oh, you're taking a course in conversation?
Sheila: Yes.
[Long pause]

Frank Swan: What do you do for a living, Rollie?
Roland: I deal in English paintings.
Frank Swan: Abstract or realistic?
Roland: Depends on which way you look at them, I suppose.

[Admiring a painting]
Harris: I like the relationships. I mean, each character has his own story.
The puppy is a bit too much, but you have to over look things like that in
these kinds of paintings. The way he's *holding* her... it's almost...
filthy. I mean, he's about to kiss her and she's pulling away. The way the
leg's sort of smashed up against her... Phew... Look how he's painted the
blouse sort of translucent. You can just make out her breasts underneath and
it's sort of touching him about here. It's really... pretty torrid, don't
you think? Then of course you have the onlookers peeking at them from behind
the doorway like they're all shocked. They wish. Yeah, I must admit, when I
see a painting like this, I get emotionally... erect.
[the painting is revealed to be of a red rectangle]


Montblack
[...saving the best for last]
Harris: When I really analyze it, Trudi wasn't for me anyway. The only good
times we had were having sex and laying in bed watching TV.
Ariel: I hate to tell you this, Harris, but if you can find somebody you
can have sex with and lie in bed and watch TV, you've really got something.

[LWG]

Hat tip to Red Green.

>> My working definition of art: If I can do that - it aint art.

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>>Very interesting facility and well worth visiting.
>>
>>Isn't it cool, Jay? Our flight there last year will always be a
>>highlight of our lives.
>
>
> What can one say when standing face to face with such history. It's
> definately a work in progress but I imagine when they eventually incorporate
> the Garber facility / Research Library and can seamlessly move back and
> forth between restoration/preservation and display area, they'll be able to
> have a little more cohesion in each genre. It's just a little bit "asses
> and elbows" right now. I did try to picture your family with Atlas out on
> the ramp doing the "meet and greet" ... that just must have been a gas.
>
>
>>>From a photographic perspective, the lighting and layout make it very
>>>challenging.
>
>
>>Agreed. Almost none of the pictures I took there were worth a damn. The
>>scale of the place is just way beyond regular flash photography -- and
>>it's really too dark for anything else.
>
>
> Reminded me greatly of the USAF Museum at Dayton, OH.
>
> I have to admit I'm pleasantly suprised with the results I managed to
> achieve at ISO 400, no flash and a monopod. My 24-105mm lens is an IS
> (Image Stablizer) lens and I think it really made a difference. Out of
> approx 100-ish images shot, I didn't end up with too many technical
> "clunkers" but some suffer from a lack of planning within the frame.
> Sometimes I forget to look beyond my subject and make sure the background is
> what I want as well.
>
> Next time, I think I'll try a wider-angle lens so I can physically get
> closer in order to further isolate specific aircraft and/or aircraft parts.
> The thing you have to be careful of with going really wide is the forced
> perspective which can make wings and tails look cartoonishly long.
>
> (Envy Mode On...) Of course, in the book that they sell, the photos are all
> perfect because the staff shooters had at their disposal a closed museum and
> megawatts worth of flash power! (Envy Mode Off...)
>
> Glad you liked the shots.
>
>
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Iowa City, IA
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
>
Yeah, our photographer is also really good. With the new energy
policies in place it's really dark.

Margy

[Ron Natalie]

Margy Natalie wrote:

>>
>> (Envy Mode On...) Of course, in the book that they sell, the photos
>> are all perfect because the staff shooters had at their disposal a
>> closed museum and megawatts worth of flash power! (Envy Mode Off...)
>>
Actually they don't always use a closed museum...it's easily to lose
a few thousand people in Hazy it's so big. What they do have is
lots of slaved flash. It's a little disconcerting to be walking on
the catwalks and some flash there fires off when the photographer
is halfway across the hall.

[Jay Beckman]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>>
>>> (Envy Mode On...) Of course, in the book that they sell, the photos are
>>> all perfect because the staff shooters had at their disposal a closed
>>> museum and megawatts worth of flash power! (Envy Mode Off...)
>>>
> Actually they don't always use a closed museum...it's easily to lose
> a few thousand people in Hazy it's so big. What they do have is
> lots of slaved flash. It's a little disconcerting to be walking on
> the catwalks and some flash there fires off when the photographer
> is halfway across the hall.

You can also make people "disappear" in existing light with a very long
shutter speed. Blur thier motion enough and they will cease to exsist.

Jay B