Best scale photo!
12-06-2012, 02:37 AM
#4726
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Leicester, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
Come on guys, you can't knock a model like that Corsair and then say why you think it doesn't fit the bill. In my view it looks PDG! There are several things I like, in the detail dept., - the rivet detail and something you very rarely see on a Corsair model - the step cut out in the in-board right flap. Minor things - but I like things like that. The only thing I'm not sure about is what looks like a 4 blade prop. Was the Corsair ever fitted with a 4 blade prop?
As for a wire from the aerial to the fin - I'm no Corsair expert but I don't recall seeing a wire. On the earlier versions with an aerial in front of the cockpit, yes.
A real Corsair!
Neil
As for a wire from the aerial to the fin - I'm no Corsair expert but I don't recall seeing a wire. On the earlier versions with an aerial in front of the cockpit, yes.
A real Corsair!
Neil
12-06-2012, 03:40 AM
#4727
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: murrieta,
CA
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
ORIGINAL: Thunderbolt47
Come on guys, Do any of my photos cut the (fullscale ) mustard? Except for the last two.
Let me know what you like and don't like about the others. I would love to know so I improve on them.
Kelly
Come on guys, Do any of my photos cut the (fullscale ) mustard? Except for the last two.
Let me know what you like and don't like about the others. I would love to know so I improve on them.
Kelly
First of all, it's not just about the photography ( sorry to say ) but also, it's about having a model built extremely well. For example, the model can't have "model things" showing
like non-scale pushrods, control horns, clevises, screws holding the cowling on, mufflers / engine showing, nylon wing bolts, large gaps in the wing saddle area, wrong number of engine cylinders showing ( that B-25 has too many, B-25s had 14 cylinder Wright-2600s not 18 cylinder P&W 2800s ) and the biggest problem for in-flight shots of prop planes...
a non-scale diameter propeller.
The B-25 looks good at first glance, but right away I see 9 cylinders showing and what appears to be model engine parts showing near the bottom of the cowls. So you took good pics but the builder failed you!
I knew that the Corsair was not a model right away, although, the pilot's posture is a bit unusual in that most pilots "performing" usually lean forward a bit and don't sit back in the seat the way that guy is. Pilot posture in models in one of my pet-peeves. Most builders don't give it any thought as to how a pilot sits while flying.
The A-10 (shots are ok) but the model just looks like a model. The ordinance is way too clean. Absolutly no patina applied. The last one on the runway ( a solid good effort by you ) but the foreground gives it away immediately for me. The foreground is not scale. I explain in another earlier post how to composite a new foreground for a more realistic effect. The formation shot....well the two aircraft are not on the same "exact line of convergence" - heading=different perspectives. Not your fault. Your photography is good, but this thread is meant to be hard. I believe in using any and all means at my disposal to render the images as real as possible. Including using photoshop ( for the fun of it
)Some on here poopoo using any image manipulation.
Next time, if possible, try to get a one-on-one photo session with one of the best models in your area. Take lots of static shots as well. Static shots are a bit easier. Flight shots require the pilot to "fly for the camera"....not always an easy request to comply with.
Another issue with most ( not all ) flight shots is the shallow depth of field created when shooting with a long lens - "wide open" (using a small numbered f.stop - 2.8,3.5,4.5 etc. ) instead, try using f 11,f 16 and just adjust the ASA / ISO / DIN for a higher number like 400,600,800 etc. On a cloudy day you will not notice the extra "grain" or noise. Main thing is that using a smaller apperature will give you a greater depth of field. Remember a smaller apperature equals a larger number. Reciprocity.
Keep trying. The point of this thread is meant to be challenging.
Ken.
12-06-2012, 03:56 AM
#4728
RE: Best scale photo!
Sometimes realism is in the eye of the beholder. I dislike Corsairs and hate A-10s but don't really know anything technical about them. I certainly couldn't tell you how many cylinders a B-25 is supposed to have or how clean modern military ordinance is supposed to be.
But I can spot a non-scale DrI or EIII (and that's 99% of them) a mile off.
But I can spot a non-scale DrI or EIII (and that's 99% of them) a mile off.
12-06-2012, 04:38 AM
#4729
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Leicester, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
Hi Ken,
You make some interesting points, as does Fletch - and I agree with you both. I'm in the same boat as Fletch, I'm not well versed in all types of aircraft. The era I think I know most is WW2. However, I don't know enough about all types - throw a Mosquito in my direction and I can be really sad about the amount of detail I know about this aeroplane - ask Corgi before they brought out their 1/32nd scale model and asked me for comments. I found over 20 items that were wrong with it and that was just looking at photographs of the model. In my view the idea is to create an illusion of the really thing. Using your example, I would prefer to see some sort of dummy radial engine in a B-25 than nothing at all. Also things like clevises etc can always be removed in Photoshop or something similar - I've done it countless times.
As for the photography thing - we could start a whole new thread on this one. Again, I agree with your points but what we must remember is, people like you and me have some pretty good kit, which cost an arm and a leg to buy. I like to think we take the photography bit to several stages higher than the norm. Lets face it if we haven't, what was the point of spending all that cash. We should be able to produce good quality pictures in just about every weather condition (and I usually see most types of weather in a UK weekend!
). Whereas the guy with a start up dslr and a reasonably cheap zoom lens will struggle, that's not say there aren't some pretty good pictures being posted by these guys. I look back at the first pictures I took that were published in my first article and they look bloomin' awful compared to what I send in now. I want to see everyones efforts and if they C&C's on their picture fine I'm only to happy to help. So, I think constructive critism and encouragement is the way to go because I for one love see what models you guys in the States produce and fly. One of these days I will catch the big silver bird and head West and catch up with you guys[8D]
There is one other thing you didn't mention - the 'cleaning up' process once you've downloaded the pictures from your camera. I don't know about you Ken, but I use Photoshop CS6, which isn't exactly a cheap editing suite to buy. The cost of CS6, in my view, isn't worth it for most. However, if you're prepared spend mega bucks on your camera kit then CS6 is cheap and it really is bloomin' good!
That's just my 2 pence worth.
Neil
You make some interesting points, as does Fletch - and I agree with you both. I'm in the same boat as Fletch, I'm not well versed in all types of aircraft. The era I think I know most is WW2. However, I don't know enough about all types - throw a Mosquito in my direction and I can be really sad about the amount of detail I know about this aeroplane - ask Corgi before they brought out their 1/32nd scale model and asked me for comments. I found over 20 items that were wrong with it and that was just looking at photographs of the model. In my view the idea is to create an illusion of the really thing. Using your example, I would prefer to see some sort of dummy radial engine in a B-25 than nothing at all. Also things like clevises etc can always be removed in Photoshop or something similar - I've done it countless times.
As for the photography thing - we could start a whole new thread on this one. Again, I agree with your points but what we must remember is, people like you and me have some pretty good kit, which cost an arm and a leg to buy. I like to think we take the photography bit to several stages higher than the norm. Lets face it if we haven't, what was the point of spending all that cash. We should be able to produce good quality pictures in just about every weather condition (and I usually see most types of weather in a UK weekend!
). Whereas the guy with a start up dslr and a reasonably cheap zoom lens will struggle, that's not say there aren't some pretty good pictures being posted by these guys. I look back at the first pictures I took that were published in my first article and they look bloomin' awful compared to what I send in now. I want to see everyones efforts and if they C&C's on their picture fine I'm only to happy to help. So, I think constructive critism and encouragement is the way to go because I for one love see what models you guys in the States produce and fly. One of these days I will catch the big silver bird and head West and catch up with you guys[8D]There is one other thing you didn't mention - the 'cleaning up' process once you've downloaded the pictures from your camera. I don't know about you Ken, but I use Photoshop CS6, which isn't exactly a cheap editing suite to buy. The cost of CS6, in my view, isn't worth it for most. However, if you're prepared spend mega bucks on your camera kit then CS6 is cheap and it really is bloomin' good!
That's just my 2 pence worth.
Neil
12-06-2012, 04:49 AM
#4730
12-06-2012, 06:01 AM
#4733
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Leicester, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
Hi Fletch,
That's one of my 2012 favourites - it doesn't take much for me to post it. It was taken at this years Victory Show. The place is great for taking pictures of aircraft taking off, but because the sun is completely in the wrong place, flying shots are not so good. Into the naughty field next year, I think!
Neil
That's one of my 2012 favourites - it doesn't take much for me to post it. It was taken at this years Victory Show. The place is great for taking pictures of aircraft taking off, but because the sun is completely in the wrong place, flying shots are not so good. Into the naughty field next year, I think!
Neil
12-06-2012, 11:11 AM
#4735
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Leicester, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
Hi David,
I think you're right - the runway isn't the longest, so I guess it was a case of going to full take off power PDQ! The sound was superb. They also got a C-47 off that strip, too. Unfortunately, I couldn't stop - I had to leave before it took off. Now that would've a shot from where I was standing! Next year it'll be a case of - into the naughty field opposite and leave the missus at home!
Neil
I think you're right - the runway isn't the longest, so I guess it was a case of going to full take off power PDQ! The sound was superb. They also got a C-47 off that strip, too. Unfortunately, I couldn't stop - I had to leave before it took off. Now that would've a shot from where I was standing! Next year it'll be a case of - into the naughty field opposite and leave the missus at home!
Neil
12-06-2012, 12:32 PM
#4736
RE: Best scale photo!
What a coincidence Jin Tobul...
Gerry
12-06-2012, 04:47 PM
#4738
RE: Best scale photo!
ORIGINAL: Mustang51
Lets post our best ''SCALE'' photo of our favorite plane.
Post as many photos that you like, but they MUST be SCALE! (They MUST look like a shot of the real plane).
-Mustang51
Lets post our best ''SCALE'' photo of our favorite plane.
Post as many photos that you like, but they MUST be SCALE! (They MUST look like a shot of the real plane).
-Mustang51
Secondly, it looks like your pilot kicked the plane and put his foot through the skin, and now it's stuck there! That's not scale! No one in real life could kick a hole through the skin of a plane! Besides, if he was tough enough to kick a hole through the skin of the plane, he would also be strong enough to get his foot out.
12-06-2012, 06:43 PM
#4739
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Buckeye,
AZ
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
ORIGINAL: Thunderbolt47
Here you go!!
Here you go!!
12-06-2012, 07:49 PM
#4740
RE: Best scale photo!
ORIGINAL: Airplanes400
Scale? Are you kidding me!
ORIGINAL: Mustang51
Lets post our best ''SCALE'' photo of our favorite plane.
Post as many photos that you like, but they MUST be SCALE! (They MUST look like a shot of the real plane).
-Mustang51
Lets post our best ''SCALE'' photo of our favorite plane.
Post as many photos that you like, but they MUST be SCALE! (They MUST look like a shot of the real plane).
-Mustang51
But, really, we should cut him some slack as the person who started this thread several years ago. I doubt he would take or post the same photo today.
12-06-2012, 08:03 PM
#4741
RE: Best scale photo!
I'm really with keeping the real meaning of the thread......
Let's not post full scale models ie: 1to1 scale.
I've been watching this thread since forever and I really like it and its' purpose even though I know very little about photography.
Let's not post full scale models ie: 1to1 scale.
I've been watching this thread since forever and I really like it and its' purpose even though I know very little about photography.
12-06-2012, 09:36 PM
#4744
My Feedback: (19)
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: arlington,
MA
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
i posted a pic long ago .i didnt really read into the thread..i posted a DR1 of course i thougt it was the best pic ever.but then aftet some enlightening coments and some deeper viewing .i found out what this thread is about.i was so impressed by some photos..
This is an awsum thread if you post and get spanked a bit its all for the good of the thread.keep those.!!!is it real or is it memorex photos coming.
Great Job
Stagger123
This is an awsum thread if you post and get spanked a bit its all for the good of the thread.keep those.!!!is it real or is it memorex photos coming.
Great Job
Stagger123
12-07-2012, 02:27 AM
#4745
RE: Best scale photo!
ORIGINAL: abufletcher
To be fair to Mustang51, his photo (from the first post of this thread) was intended to show the sort of ''diorama'' type photo that was meant by ''scale photo.'' This idea evolved a bit over the lifetime of this thread to mean something along the lines of ''a photo of a model which can't be distinguished from a photo of the real deal.'' Mustang51's photo is a reasonable attempt to get a ''people's eye view'' on the model and in that sense it's successful. However, in the later sense of ''fooling us that it's full scale'' it clearly fails.
But, really, we should cut him some slack as the person who started this thread several years ago. I doubt he would take or post the same photo today.
ORIGINAL: Airplanes400
Scale? Are you kidding me!
ORIGINAL: Mustang51
Lets post our best ''SCALE'' photo of our favorite plane.
Post as many photos that you like, but they MUST be SCALE! (They MUST look like a shot of the real plane).
-Mustang51
Lets post our best ''SCALE'' photo of our favorite plane.
Post as many photos that you like, but they MUST be SCALE! (They MUST look like a shot of the real plane).
-Mustang51
But, really, we should cut him some slack as the person who started this thread several years ago. I doubt he would take or post the same photo today.
But it does kind-of look like the "pilot" kicked the plane and got his foot stuck.
12-07-2012, 08:25 AM
#4746
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Buckeye,
AZ
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
ORIGINAL: Airplanes400
Scale? Are you kidding me! Where do I begin!? First of all, couldn't you spend a little extra time to grow 1/5th size grass to make it look more realistic!? It looks like the plane is in Jurassic Park with giant grass that size!!!
Secondly, it looks like your pilot kicked the plane and put his foot through the skin, and now it's stuck there! That's not scale! No one in real life could kick a hole through the skin of a plane! Besides, if he was tough enough to kick a hole through the skin of the plane, he would also be strong enough to get his foot out.
ORIGINAL: Mustang51
Lets post our best ''SCALE'' photo of our favorite plane.
Post as many photos that you like, but they MUST be SCALE! (They MUST look like a shot of the real plane).
-Mustang51
Lets post our best ''SCALE'' photo of our favorite plane.
Post as many photos that you like, but they MUST be SCALE! (They MUST look like a shot of the real plane).
-Mustang51
Secondly, it looks like your pilot kicked the plane and put his foot through the skin, and now it's stuck there! That's not scale! No one in real life could kick a hole through the skin of a plane! Besides, if he was tough enough to kick a hole through the skin of the plane, he would also be strong enough to get his foot out.
12-07-2012, 12:07 PM
#4748
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Barrowhill, Staffordshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
Heres a pic I love that NeilHutch took of the Ju 52.
I really love what he did to the pic, looks like a period propoganda pic or cigarette card perhaps.
And another of a take off from a not often seen angle. Plus another just because I like it, reminds me of the final pass at Duxford before they hauled it round to land.
Ian.
I really love what he did to the pic, looks like a period propoganda pic or cigarette card perhaps.
And another of a take off from a not often seen angle. Plus another just because I like it, reminds me of the final pass at Duxford before they hauled it round to land.
Ian.
12-07-2012, 01:00 PM
#4749
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: fishers,
IN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Best scale photo!
ORIGINAL: rcphotog
I'll try to offer some constructive criticism.
First of all, it's not just about the photography ( sorry to say ) but also, it's about having a model built extremely well. For example, the model can't have ''model things'' showing
like non-scale pushrods, control horns, clevises, screws holding the cowling on, mufflers / engine showing, nylon wing bolts, large gaps in the wing saddle area, wrong number of engine cylinders showing ( that B-25 has too many, B-25s had 14 cylinder Wright-2600s not 18 cylinder P&W 2800s ) and the biggest problem for in-flight shots of prop planes...
a non-scale diameter propeller.
The B-25 looks good at first glance, but right away I see 9 cylinders showing and what appears to be model engine parts showing near the bottom of the cowls. So you took good pics but the builder failed you!
I knew that the Corsair was not a model right away, although, the pilot's posture is a bit unusual in that most pilots ''performing'' usually lean forward a bit and don't sit back in the seat the way that guy is. Pilot posture in models in one of my pet-peeves. Most builders don't give it any thought as to how a pilot sits while flying.
The A-10 (shots are ok) but the model just looks like a model. The ordinance is way too clean. Absolutly no patina applied. The last one on the runway ( a solid good effort by you ) but the foreground gives it away immediately for me. The foreground is not scale. I explain in another earlier post how to composite a new foreground for a more realistic effect. The formation shot....well the two aircraft are not on the same ''exact line of convergence'' - heading=different perspectives. Not your fault. Your photography is good, but this thread is meant to be hard. I believe in using any and all means at my disposal to render the images as real as possible. Including using photoshop ( for the fun of it )
Some on here poopoo using any image manipulation.
Next time, if possible, try to get a one-on-one photo session with one of the best models in your area. Take lots of static shots as well. Static shots are a bit easier. Flight shots require the pilot to ''fly for the camera''....not always an easy request to comply with.
Another issue with most ( not all ) flight shots is the shallow depth of field created when shooting with a long lens - ''wide open'' (using a small numbered f.stop - 2.8,3.5,4.5 etc. ) instead, try using f 11,f 16 and just adjust the ASA / ISO / DIN for a higher number like 400,600,800 etc. On a cloudy day you will not notice the extra ''grain'' or noise. Main thing is that using a smaller apperature will give you a greater depth of field. Remember a smaller apperature equals a larger number. Reciprocity.
Keep trying. The point of this thread is meant to be challenging.
Ken.
ORIGINAL: Thunderbolt47
Come on guys, Do any of my photos cut the (fullscale ) mustard? Except for the last two.
Let me know what you like and don't like about the others. I would love to know so I improve on them.
Kelly
Come on guys, Do any of my photos cut the (fullscale ) mustard? Except for the last two.
Let me know what you like and don't like about the others. I would love to know so I improve on them.
Kelly
First of all, it's not just about the photography ( sorry to say ) but also, it's about having a model built extremely well. For example, the model can't have ''model things'' showing
like non-scale pushrods, control horns, clevises, screws holding the cowling on, mufflers / engine showing, nylon wing bolts, large gaps in the wing saddle area, wrong number of engine cylinders showing ( that B-25 has too many, B-25s had 14 cylinder Wright-2600s not 18 cylinder P&W 2800s ) and the biggest problem for in-flight shots of prop planes...
a non-scale diameter propeller.
The B-25 looks good at first glance, but right away I see 9 cylinders showing and what appears to be model engine parts showing near the bottom of the cowls. So you took good pics but the builder failed you!
I knew that the Corsair was not a model right away, although, the pilot's posture is a bit unusual in that most pilots ''performing'' usually lean forward a bit and don't sit back in the seat the way that guy is. Pilot posture in models in one of my pet-peeves. Most builders don't give it any thought as to how a pilot sits while flying.
The A-10 (shots are ok) but the model just looks like a model. The ordinance is way too clean. Absolutly no patina applied. The last one on the runway ( a solid good effort by you ) but the foreground gives it away immediately for me. The foreground is not scale. I explain in another earlier post how to composite a new foreground for a more realistic effect. The formation shot....well the two aircraft are not on the same ''exact line of convergence'' - heading=different perspectives. Not your fault. Your photography is good, but this thread is meant to be hard. I believe in using any and all means at my disposal to render the images as real as possible. Including using photoshop ( for the fun of it
)Some on here poopoo using any image manipulation.
Next time, if possible, try to get a one-on-one photo session with one of the best models in your area. Take lots of static shots as well. Static shots are a bit easier. Flight shots require the pilot to ''fly for the camera''....not always an easy request to comply with.
Another issue with most ( not all ) flight shots is the shallow depth of field created when shooting with a long lens - ''wide open'' (using a small numbered f.stop - 2.8,3.5,4.5 etc. ) instead, try using f 11,f 16 and just adjust the ASA / ISO / DIN for a higher number like 400,600,800 etc. On a cloudy day you will not notice the extra ''grain'' or noise. Main thing is that using a smaller apperature will give you a greater depth of field. Remember a smaller apperature equals a larger number. Reciprocity.
Keep trying. The point of this thread is meant to be challenging.
Ken.
Great advice,
And great shots over the last couple of pages!
These are the bits of information that are so helpful for photographers to hear. Getting good shots of models or full-scale planes is difficult and there are many ways to attack the obstacles. In any type of photography there is so much to learn that it can be very overwhelming. Just buying all the most expensive camera gear is really not going to get you there either. Knowledge of technique is the key. That's why I like this post by rcphotog(Ken). If photographers can share some of their more elegant techniques it will benefit everyone as we all learn from each other. I haven't been very forthcoming with information myself so I will throw my 2 cents in more often as I hope others will. It's a lot more interesting thread when posters challenge each other to better their work as long as it's done in a positive way. I look forward to following along to see everyone's continued input.
I guess my tip/input for now would tie into what Ken has already mentioned about apertures. If there is one thing that I notice a lot it's the improper use of aperture(lens opening size). Wide/large apertures create a thinner depth of field and sometimes that's what you want in order to isolate the subject from the background. Sometimes you don't want that though. Typically lenses with larger apertures are more expensive and the very high quality ones will render some incredible images. For the past year or so I have shot all airplanes with a smaller aperture (more depth of field) and then have relied on panning to blur the background. Another benefit of panning at slow shutter speeds is the prop blur will be much more pleasing. I shoot in manual mode and set the shutter speed to 1/160th or less. There are quite a few less expensive lenses on the market that include image stabilization which will help to aquire sharp images at slower shutter speeds. The less expensive lenses produce significantly better/sharper images when stopped down to smaller apertures. So with good panning technique you can use a much more economical lens at say f8 - f16 and get some great shots that rival other photographers using much more expensive equipment.
Here's my B-25 example shot at 1/125th. I did use an expensive 300 2.8 lens but you could get the same quality shot with a much less expensive lens. It was shot at f8 which provides a great depth of field. All the blurring comes from the pan motion and the panning technique was not perfect as the aft section of the plane suffers from some blurring as well. Sometimes paritial blurring of the subject can be desirable as it adds an artistic element. I believe the most important parts of the aircraft such as the cockpit should be sharp to be most pleasing.
12-07-2012, 01:39 PM
#4750
RE: Best scale photo!
I did notice that the "skin" on the wings and fuse are very smooth. Is that normal for a warbird, or any aircraft for that matter; even for a fresh one out of the hanger? No bleaching out of the top surfaces.....It is a nice picture, however.
Just a question and little things that came to my attention...not being critical.
Just a question and little things that came to my attention...not being critical.