![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/...03/page63.html and this, http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...3/page119.html to this, http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/page22.html or this, http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/...03/page63.html and this, http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...3/page119.html to this, http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/page22.html or this, http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
My Oshkosh 2003 Scrapbook | David O | Owning | 2 | October 14th 03 06:49 AM |
My Oshkosh 2003 Scrapbook | David O | Home Built | 12 | October 11th 03 08:03 PM |
My Oshkosh 2003 Scrapbook | David O | Military Aviation | 2 | October 8th 03 08:57 PM |
Oshkosh 2003 Redux | Montblack | Piloting | 62 | August 14th 03 04:29 PM |