Questions for our WIX photographers

[CAPFlyer]

I have to say that I think one of the most "dramatic" shots I've seen in a long time that is aviation themed is the one on the front of Warbird Digest featuring "Ol' 927". A night shot that not only catches a good prop blur and the exhaust flames but also has good front lighting to highlight the important parts of the subject (the nose art & Gary) is very hard to do, but the image shows exactly what it looks like when it all goes right.

I have no illusions that I take even average photographs. That can be evidenced by the low number of photographs that I've had accepted to Jetphotos.net. I've had NONE accepted to Airliners.net, but mainly because I stopped trying to upload to them after they rejected a photo from me that was well done and met all their criteria but another (from a "well known" Airliners.net photographer) got uploaded which was grainy, poorly balanced, and not even level. Their reason for rejecting mine? "Poor subject matter." The photo was of the first Kitty Hawk Air Cargo 727-200F in their last paint scheme, and was the first picture taken of *ANY* of their aircraft in the new scheme. Three days later, two guys (both "well known") had their photos uploaded to both Airliners.net and Jetphotos.net and were "front page" news that they'd gotten the first shots even when my shots had been uploaded first to Jetphotos, so that day was the last time I uploaded photos to any website other than my own personal webspace.

I don't look for "admiration" or even recognition, but I do have a problem when websites display blatant favoritism while proclaiming to be "open to all".

The point of all this - be careful of what you want out of your efforts. If you want to do it for your personal pleasure, find something affordable that you can be satisfied with your own work and have it on your own computer and let other see. My Kodak Z610 does just that. I get decent images and I'm more than happy to have them playing as my screensaver and I get more than enough compliments (and requests) on my pictures by my friends, family, and acquaintances to satisfy any "ego" I may have on the issue.

As the others said - it's very difficult to get a publishable picture, but it's even harder when the deck is stacked against you and you don't know it until it's too late.

[JDK]

I have to say that I think one of the most "dramatic" shots I've seen in a long time that is aviation themed is the one on the front of Warbird Digest featuring "Ol' 927". A night shot that not only catches a good prop blur and the exhaust flames but also has good front lighting to highlight the important parts of the subject (the nose art & Gary) is very hard to do, but the image shows exactly what it looks like when it all goes right.http://www.mcgrathfoundation.com.au/news/

Very good point. Sadly shots of aircraft on the ground don't 'sell' so most magazines can't afford to run them as covers. (Personally I love night shots) WD (and Warbirds Worldwide way back then) are and were able to, because of a loyal subscription readership. We ran a few interesting covers on WW, including a stripped back Hurricane and a Beaufighter cockpit, among others.

I have no illusions that I take even average photographs. That can be evidenced by the low number of photographs that I've had accepted to Jetphotos.net. I've had NONE accepted to Airliners.net,

Hmmm. Those mentioned websites are great as trading-card level sites, but there's no art there, and precious little craft. Not to disparage the photographers who post stuff; that's great - but the criteria they use is a focus on minor technical achievement to the end of rampant tedium, IMHO. Zzzzzzz. Oops, sorry.

In short they're no measure of achievement (so don't beat yourself up) maybe a good foundation course in the technical basics.

The point of all this - be careful of what you want out of your efforts. If you want to do it for your personal pleasure, find something affordable that you can be satisfied with your own work and have it on your own computer and let other see. My Kodak Z610 does just that. I get decent images and I'm more than happy to have them playing as my screensaver and I get more than enough compliments (and requests) on my pictures by my friends, family, and acquaintances to satisfy any "ego" I may have on the issue.

Absolutely. I'm also very aware that the vast majority of photographers are very happy to help others, even to the extent of creating competition, if you want to get serious.

Another point is GET CLOSE. There are plenty of photos (posted here for instance) which show a great sky- and concrete-scape with the a/c as 3% of the frame - when that's from someone with ramp access, that's just not trying. (Another point is the pros don't bother with excuses. We hear about the one that got away in the bar, NOT in the office. And everyone's missed the shot of a lifetime.) Posting 'dot pics' here is fine, but ask yourself honestly (if this is you) could you have done better? Then next time try to do better, and you'll enter a positive improvement cycle, rather than thinking you aren't much good.

As the others said - it's very difficult to get a publishable picture, but it's even harder when the deck is stacked against you and you don't know it until it's too late.

Actually, it's very easy to get published. (I'm only slightly kidding.) Get a good quality decent photo of a newsworthy item, on time, with the right info with it to your (preferred) Editorial office. And keep trying. You'd be amazed at the number of photos we don't have but need.

Cheers,

[CAPFlyer]

Actually, truth be told, I've had my picutres published several times, including on a major media outlet here in DFW (CBS 11 - KTVT). You're right that it's not that hard to get published, but to get publishable (in my mind that means worthy of getting paid good money for them as they'll sell copy) is very difficult. I got a nice sum for reference photos I took of several DC-10s for a Flight Simulator payware addon a few years back. Some of those pictures ended up as photo textures on the aircraft, so I know I did a pretty darned good job if they were able to use the photo itself for the textures (a very rare thing as the lighting and focus must be perfect for it to look right on the model).

I took several photography classes in High School and they were the best electives I took as far as giving me practical skills. I learned how a real camera (an SLR-type, not a point-and-shoot) works, did B&W, did manual coloring, and did a little slide shooting, so it gave me a much better foundation in how to shoot. My high school instructor also gave lessons at Wolf Camera (which was founded in Denver) and some of his lessons to us were also parts of lessons at the Wolf classes, so I suggest that anyone wanting to learn about their cameras to look into classes at a reputable camera store like that. They won't make you great, but they'll make sure you know what the functions on the camera are and what they do so you can me more aware of what to look for and how to get certain effects.

[RyanShort1]

Seems to me that the "great" shots I've seen also tend to have good backgrounds. That can be very hard to do if you're in an urban area, or even most suburban areas.

Ryan

[JDK]

Seems to me that the "great" shots I've seen also tend to have good backgrounds. That can be very hard to do if you're in an urban area, or even most suburban areas.

Good point. Learning how to 'lose' a poor background is a neat trick. Personally I prefer a2a with credible period backgrounds to those which just aren't right for the subject.

[Jack Cook]

since I shoot for fun I don't ever worry if my shot is publishable. I just want to have fun and get a couple good shots.
I've found that 3 factors are important.
#1 having a good eye. #2 having a semi-decent camera #3 having opportunity and taking advantage of it.
I have a Canon Rebel 2000 with the basic lens and a haze filter.

[PeterA]

They key to any photography today is to take an excess of shots and then ruthlessly edit them.

Digital cameras with large memory cards have made this so much easier in recent years.

I have the greatest admiration for the likes of Charles E Brown, back in the 1940's. He wielded a large format monster A2A and seemed to take few shots but achieved wonderful results with never a cloud out of place.

I suspect good planning and briefing played its part.

PeterA

Image by Charles E Brown c1946/7

[RyanShort1]

I only have a point and shoot and limited opportunities for A2A, but it sure is a blast when you can do it.













Ryan

[Bluedharma]

Lots of good air-air shots here.
Thanks for posting them!

[Bill Greenwood]

Peter Arnold, where is the Mk VIII now and what is it doing or being done to it? I wish I could have sat in it when it was mostly original and better yet flown it. Man, I hope it doesn't get too Lear Jetted up.
It is hard to make a Spit look bad in flight, but that muddy yellow paint job doesn't do much for it.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Eric Presten]

Wow, where to start. Lots of good advice here. Each a-t-a session is different. Weather, pilots quals, photoship quality, background, turbulence, purpose of the pictures, time of day, desired view, airport conditions (event day or not) and the ever present "combat photography" (thats my term for having to compete for a slot in the photoplane with either friendly photogs, or the very few not friendly photogs). Combat photography happens both on the ground and at the photo window.

I have been involved in over 1500 a-t-a sessions (I know, no one who has not seen my photo collection ever believes me) and trying to get a good image and not be in danger over this long a period of time is an interesting challenge. These sessions include shooting (about 65 percent), flying the photoship (about 20 percent), and flying the subject airplanes (about 15 percent). I would love it if every shot was one of those magazine covers, but the fact is that on most sessions the best you can safely do is a good, stock quality, publishable a-t-a. It takes very top notch pilots to get awesome shots. Not everybody is a Walt Bowe, Chris Price, Andy King, Robin Reid, Harvey Cleveland, Chris Prevost, Ted Davis, Tom Murphy, Carl Ericson, Jimmy Leeward, Dave Morss, ect.......

My biggest piece of advice? Be careful who you are flying with. I have walked away from some shoots that I really wanted to go on in the name of self preservation, and not walked away from a few I should have for the same reason. I have been lucky a few times, and needing luck is a bad thing.

[Bluedharma]

My biggest piece of advice? Be careful who you are flying with. I have walked away from some shoots that I really wanted to go on in the
name of self preservation, and not walked away from a few I should have for the same reason. I have been lucky a few times, and needing luck is a bad thing.

Whoa... It never occurred to me... I have never done a-t-a. I just assumed that things would be ok. This is good advice.

[Jerry O'Neill]

Good post.
I've done a bit of ATA and, as it's been said, it's hard to take a really top notch image. I've taken thousands of ATA shots but only a handful are what I'd say are well above average.

That said, if many of you are taking ground shots, one of the most important things I learned years ago is to make sure you have a "clean spine". Try not to have anything poking up behind the aircraft's spine. It clutters the image. It's easy to shoot it by just stepping left or right or perhaps gong a bit lower to shoot the aircraft at a lower angle. Try it if you don't already. The results will take your image from just a "snapshot" to a "Photograph".

Also, wether ATA or on the ground, keep the background simple and uncluttered. A photo of a beautiful silver Mustang taken over a city full of grey, concrete and steel buildings will make that P-51 dissappear into the background.

And my last bit of advice for now is just shoot!
Shoot as often as you can. Digital media allows for almost never running out of space. The more you shoot, the more you will learn and find your "Style". If you know you camera well, you will know what it will let you do. And don't forget to experiment. Try something new and you might find something very special.
Blue skies,
Jerry

[PeterA]

Peter Arnold, where is the Mk VIII now and what is it doing or being done to it? I wish I could have sat in it when it was mostly original and better yet flown it. Man, I hope it doesn't get too Lear Jetted up.
It is hard to make a Spit look bad in flight, but that muddy yellow paint job doesn't do much for it.

Bill,

That is a 60 year old image, that was starting to degrade when I had a print made from the positive/negative 30 odd years ago.

It is the Vickers proto two seater with the BRITISH 'class B' civil registration N32, later to be G-AIDN. It was also the company 'hack'.

The yellow is standard RAF Trainer Yellow, the same as the yellow in the roundel on your Spitfire

G-AIDN holds a special place for UK enthusiasts who were extremely sorry to see it depart UK shores. It spent a number of years 'resting' with Jack Erickson's collection but is now back in the UK in British ownership nearing completion of a major and sympathetic restoration. I expect to see it flying again this year and I anticipate the camouflage paint job will be changed to that rather striking yellow, period livery.

PeterA

[retroaviation]

Ol' 927 makes a pretty good photo platform.

From the tailgunner's section (and you don't have to remove anything, like on a B-25 )......








From the waist gunner's position......








And from the tunnel gun position......








And all of that was done with this crappy camera......




Gary