Save 20% On Zoner Photo Studio X - The photo editor just for your style
Back Versions (1)
Modifications (0)
Views 192 Unique 50
Vote 44
Award Shortlist   
ADVERTISEMENT

Comments


SandyMiller 17 932 United Kingdom
11 Dec 2007 10:16AM
Well I like it so there....Smile
SuperRoo 16 63 2 Australia
11 Dec 2007 10:26AM
Sorry... but I'm with Sandy one this one... looks just fine to me as well. Smile Love the evening colours you have given the sky and the plane... and the title suits the shot perfectly.

Paul
Coleslaw 17 13.4k 28 Wales
11 Dec 2007 10:51AM
brilliant work
SandyMiller 17 932 United Kingdom
11 Dec 2007 11:13AM
I've just noticed something that does perhaps look a bit odd and that is the highest part of the propeller looks like it's covered by some mist, and I think it should be black. Don't know if that helps at all.
IanFlindt 18 740 21 United Kingdom
11 Dec 2007 11:21AM
Look pretty good to me, Kathy. I imagine you captured this from another plane?
chensuriashi Plus
16 337 18 England
11 Dec 2007 11:30AM
First class stuff one of my favourite shots now, thanks. Chen.
terry_cavner 18 332 United Kingdom
11 Dec 2007 11:34AM
Beautiful Work
lonely_oryx 15 61 55 England
11 Dec 2007 12:32PM
Have to confess that the propellers look a bit stationary to me. See if you can blur them up a bit
IanFlindt 18 740 21 United Kingdom
11 Dec 2007 12:36PM
[double posting]
James_G 16 166 5
11 Dec 2007 1:21PM
I think this is stunning. Wonderfully evocative image. The colours are brilliant. Why change it?!
11 Dec 2007 2:03PM
Kathy,

You are there already with a quality image of this aircraft, fantastic post production...

Gavin ...
Bob_V 15 1 2 United States
11 Dec 2007 2:51PM
Stunning, superb work.
Bob
javam Plus
18 1.1k 19 United Kingdom
11 Dec 2007 6:22PM
The conversion is reasonably effective and well executed particularly the light effect on the side of the mustang, but during the processing you appear to have lost some of the prop blur that is present in the original.

With a prop aircraft the blur is all important to portraying the right feel so needs to be retained in your conversion if possible.

Neil
exposure Plus
19 6.1k United Kingdom
11 Dec 2007 6:38PM
Lovely light and tones and a lovely composition.
Pauline.
SandyMiller 17 932 United Kingdom
11 Dec 2007 7:16PM
Just seen that you had posted the original and my earlier comment is clearly wrong - mea culpa!
KathyW 19 1.8k 12 Norfolk Island
11 Dec 2007 8:34PM
Many thanks for the feedback - all advice very welcome as photographing aircraft is something different for me!
Agreed the prop does need a little more blur, but I just couldn't get it right. I did also notice that one of the blades does look weird, kind of misty, as Sandy said, but as it was like that in the original I decided not to mess it up anymore! Maybe it was the way the light was catching the prop?


Quote: I imagine you captured this from another plane?

Alas no, Ian Sad But I'm glad you said that because that was the effect I was after!
Hmm... I wonder... if I could present Janie's owner with a stunning enough shot of her I might be offered a ride in one of his other planes to get some aerial shots... I can dream Smile
phillips 17 69 2 Scotland
11 Dec 2007 10:45PM
Kathy, for what it's worth I found that I was getting best results for prop blur at 320th sec when panning .320th gives you half of a chance of the aircraft being sharp if your panning technique is as dodgey as mine. Have a look at my aircraft gallery and let me know what you think.

Guy
javam Plus
18 1.1k 19 United Kingdom
11 Dec 2007 11:16PM

Quote:Kathy, for what it's worth I found that I was getting best results for prop blur at 320th sec when panning .320th gives you half of a chance of the aircraft being sharp if your panning technique is as dodgey as mine. Have a look at my aircraft gallery and let me know what you think.

Guy



320th is ok for the faster WWII fighters, but can be a bit short for some of the older planes and bombers where the prop speed is slower. IIRC I needed under 1/250th for the wingwalkers for example.

Bottom line is, if they are not jets it is always going to be a compromise between prop blur and sharpness unless your panning technique is good.

That being said, I think the blur in the original is adequate, it is just in the converted image the feathered edges of the blur are as dark as the center so it looks more static than it is.

I also have a couple of airshow albums set-up on here, although I have checked and I only posted up the settings on a few of the shots, but PM me if you want me to confirm the settings used for any of them.

Neil
KathyW 19 1.8k 12 Norfolk Island
11 Dec 2007 11:44PM
Thanks Guy & Neil - you both have some superb aircraft pics - inspires me to try harder!
I checked the exif & this was shot at 1/800th. I did take some at slower speeds & the props were really blurred out, unfortunately everything else was blurred out too Sad I think I need to sit at the end of the runway & perfect my panning technique!
AnneWorner 15 620 43 United States
13 Dec 2007 9:36PM
Whoa! That's quite a nice bit of work you've done on this! Nice.
Anne
stevem 18 238 United Kingdom
14 Dec 2007 1:03PM
Well it's convincing enough to be an air to air shot. Nice processing, makes a great image.
rontear Plus
20 23 9 England
22 Dec 2007 5:17PM
Looking good to me Kathy, a reminder of the film days when we would sandwhich a image. Ron.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.