First Pics of Udvar-Hazy Visit

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

great pics, I especially like the space shuttle.

thanks

Good job Jay. I especially liked the Spitfire.

The Monk

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 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"

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

"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

"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

"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

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