Tony Iannucelli

My Feedback: (193)

Hey Mark. Check out the "flybar" the tail rotor and the color scheme. Pretty close, no? The exhaust.... well you got me there.
The photo has been published in an article already, so maybe it wouldn't be cool to touch it up. Just delete it if you wish, no problem

mark fadely

It is a good looking model and is close to the look of the full size that you have also shown. No need to talk about deleting. My intent in this thread is to learn from others and to help others if I can.. If we can all make better models and images of them then everyone benefits. You are probably right about not editing this photo since it was not taken by you.

Tony Iannucelli

My Feedback: (193)

90 Size Hughes 500MD.

abufletcher

In this case, the conversion to a black and white (or sepia) photo doesn't do anything to enhance the realism. In fact, when googling the Hughes 500 (first flown in 1963) I couldn't find a single image in B&W.

RodanAZ

Not to mention the two bladed head that's way too big, tail rotor on the wrong side, skids not even close to scale, etc. Apparently you didn't read Mark's reply to your first post?



Why is it so hard for people to comprehend this thread?

Tony Iannucelli

My Feedback: (193)

You missed these. Not converted.

WacoNut

And some people wonder why guys get bent out of shape posting here
I probablay shouldn't post but::::::: Guys post their best effort at a pic of a model and all they catch is alot of grief. Why not change the tilte to best pictures by pro photographers of scale contest winning models only.

They may not have the best camera, best model but they are posting their best effort. Constructive criticism is one thing but too many guys here take it too far.

It is a shame as I really enjoyed stopping in here and looking at some of these fine models and pictures that are posted by Neil and others. I cannot stand to see some of the comments directed at individuals who posted a pic to share with others that they perceive as being a good representation of an aircraft and just get slammed for it. I will not open this thread again.

abufletcher

Should it just be like a YouTube video with all comments disabled? Photos only? The good, bad, and the ugly?

sebo

I enjoy the thread.......on helicopters, I know nothing.....you can fool me all the time.
On aircraft, I know a little.
On tall grass.....I know a lot.
On large buildings.....I know a lot.............
Weeds too, are my forte.
Some of these photos are absolutely superb in my opinion....that's just my opinion
An aircraft with a modeler hold it or standing above it taking a picture.......well, not so cool for this thread.........put it in the scale model thread......it allows any kind of picture of a scale plane, even if it is sitting on the roof of a car.
I like to see your stuff there too.

RodanAZ

I would argue that they aren't making any effort at all: either to understand the point of the thread, or to post a scale picture of a scale model.

I equate these posts with someone walking up to a group having a conversation and butting in without even knowing what the conversation is about, and then trying to change the subject. And IMHO, that's just rude.

Chad Veich

My Feedback: (60)

Very well put Rodan, right on the money.

nitro wing

My Feedback: (1)

You guys are hard ass and have rules. I like it.

Spuetz

I guess there are some points that lead to people posting out-of-place pictures:

1. Most forum threads don't have very strong rules. Peoplesimply don't expect rules of that kind.
2. The digital world is very fast paced. The attention span of manyhas shrunk to split seconds (with all the attention problems that come with it - especially for kids).Thisleads to newbies very quickly scanning the thread, thinkig: Oh, nice scale models - great! I'll post mine here... Very few new posters take the time to actually understand this thread. this is in part because they don't expect that anything is to be understood (point 1)
3. The unexplicable urge to "blog" - to tell the whole world what you think, do, have. I am aware of the fact that I am an example of this as I write this. However, I will never understand the "what are you doing right now" posts on fb. Frankly: Who cares?

so, lets continue to be both strict and understanding at the same time... I enjoy this thread tremendously. Can't wait for spring to come, so I can take out models and camera and enter this friendly competition again... (yes i know, Icould take pictures in the snow. However, the "flight season feelings" completly go to sleep here in Germany when the days are short and the weather is grey, cold, miserable. Has anyone ever taken a true scale workshop picture? Now, here's a challenge...

Cheers,

Spuetz

Guys, I need your help with that third Bf109 shot, the one from left, behind.What tells me that this is a model? The longer I look at it the more I think this is the original! Is it in the end? What gives it away as a model? If nothing and if it is a model:Absolutely fantastic shot - the best yet...The way the tailweel's slightly bent under the weight of the tail! the background, the coarseness of the tarmac...

ah, found one thing: (did i?): the rudder linkage! Or am I mistaken and it was that way?

abufletcher

I've been looking at actual old photos of the EIII and playing around in photoshop. The second one is the actual old photo for comparison purposes. And the third is the original old photo run through the same photo-processing as the first image of the model. My pilot is too large for an EIII...makes it look like a 3/4 size replica. The 1/6 scale Dragon action figures look great for the smaller fighters but the EIII was a larger aircraft...much larger than, for example, the DrI.

From a photography point of view, we need to keep are few things in mind about WWI era photos. First, most photos would have been taken with large format plate cameras. Large format negatives (up to 8x10") result in almost no grain and a very smooth gradation of tones. If we see grain in an old photo it's probably because it's an extreme enlargement of a small section of a larger photo. Second, many of the large format lenses used at that time were a bit on the "soft" side...even when focused perfectly. So modern lenses can look overly sharp. Also, the film used at that time was strongly "othrochromatic" which means that it was more sensitive to certain "colors" than others. Specifically, it had good sensitivity for blues (which is why the skies were often washed out) and poor sensitive for reds (which could make yellows and reddish tones) look almost black. In the middle photo the diagonal stripe ahead of the white field on the fuselage was almost certainly some shade of blue, which the film rendered lighter than the overall "yellow" of the German doped linen.

acerc

"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)."


The OP does not mention photoshop or anyother program. So I would have to assume an actual effert in positioning.
The OP also does not state the aircraft has to be scale, nice would do. Once again I assume.
With all the technology today one would not even need to leave there shop, only have a good program and ability to use it to create what this thread's current requirements are.
My how this thread has changed.
Nothing like it started out as.

Idigbo

You are mistaken Spuetz, the full size 109E had the rudder linkage in the same place, I think most 109's had it in the same place come to that!

I love this thread more than any other, both for the right photographs and for the wrong ones. I find it amusing that sometimes the point of the whole thread is missed but do feel that there is a right and wrong way to explain why a particular model or image doesn't fit the criteria without any upset.

Ian.

David Bathe

You certainly dont need a hyper scale model or high tech photo equipment to participate.

nine o nine

My Feedback: (1)

My B-17. Mitch

Dwhart24

DSC_4299 copy by dwhart24, on Flickr


DSC_2703 copy by dwhart24, on Flickr

mark fadely

Good thoughts guys. We are almost at the 10 year anniversary for this thread! It is still developing and I was wondering what the posting statistics would look like over the years. You may find this interesting.


Total posts = 4900 + that's an easy one to see.

Almost 200 pages

Total posts at 100 pages = 2400+ at 12/2007

Thread started by Mustang51 on 1/26/2003

10 year anniversary 1/26/2013

10 years with 4900 total posts = 1.34 posts per day

In the month of January 2013 there have been 225 posts for an average of 9.78 posts per day.

Even with all the controversy it seems this 10-year conversation is still very alive.

I have enjoyed my time here and happy anniversary to the thread.

David - great shots once again! Love the retracting gear.

abufletcher

I wanted to add a few comments about the use of photoshop. Firstly, there's the level of "crop and tweak" and that's being done on almost every one of the best photos on this thread. I consider this just part of good photography in a digital age. Second, there's using photoshop (or other software) to create the look of an older photo. Often this involves converting to black and white, but it might also be messing with the colors a bit (as on those Bf109 shots). You can even use the following website to "make old photos" automatically. Just browse to the image on your computer than click on the button below that.

http://labs.wanokoto.jp/olds

These sorts of stylized photos aren't everyone's cup of tea. Rather than trying to make the MODEL look like a full-scale aircraft (though they usually attempt to do that as well) they are actually trying to create the look of an actual old photo. This might be related to the type of film used or even involve "weathering" effects to the photo. This would be one interpretation of "scale photo." WWI models can often benefit from this treatment since there are no original color photos. But of course, the world was just as much "in color" back in 1914 as it is today, so you could argue that we should be trying to photograph our models as they would have appeared at that time. One thing's for sure though. You can't make a poor photo of a poor model good by converting it to black and white (or sepia).

Finally, there's using photoshop to ALTER/EDIT/REMOVE elements in a photo. This is perhaps the most contentious use. Is it OK to digitally remove servo linkages and other non-scale features of a model? Would it be OK to ADD panels lines where none existed on the model? Personally, I don't like this. In my mind that's just cheating. It's making the model better than it actually is. But what about "zapping out" distracting items in the background? Or digitally altering the foreground?

abufletcher

Unfortunately, this has become sort of like interpreting what the "founding fathers" intended 200+ years ago with "the right to bear arms."

SDCrashmaster

Excellent point about PS. I had composed the following offline earlier, as I didn't want to time out, and I offered my same thoughts which were spurred by the comment of PS gladly accepted here...

I think that some of the ultra scale nitpicks are a bit much. An appropriate image is one that looks like a full-size, both in it's subject matter and environment, to the average, yet astute viewer.
I've been watching genre experts getting way to critical over great "thread essence" images that the rest of us think are great. And as far as Photoshop not being a dirty word here...that isn't fully true.
Using PS to make your image look "old timey", richer, sharpened, or even composited to a different background has become acceptable, but altering the physical components of the subject model ala removing things like antennae, or adding door hinges, panel lines, rivets or weathering when there wasn't any, is not as accepted. If your going to do that stuff, and it's done so well that we're not the wiser, you probably should not talk about it as having to digitally alter the subject model to make it look real is not in the spirit of this thread. This thread is about photographing a model so that the final image fools us into thinking we're looking at a 1:1 photo. If the model is "not up to snuff", then it won't make a good subject for this thread, unless shot at a distance, that doesn't reveal it's "not up to snuff-ness". Aerial photos, although harder to get without great camera gear, have an advantage in that there is usually nothing but sky to signify scale. Ground shots, although easier to shoot, bring a whole new level of difficulty in that nearly everything in the image fights against your intended deception. I love the great aerial images posted by the top photographers in this thread, but I do miss the staged surface images that are all too few and far between.
There is not enough of that going on here (planning, building scale accessories if necessary, etc., then bustin' your hump to get that perfect photo). That to me is exactly what the OP intended. If this was "Best Scale Boat Photos"...we would be looking for this!

abufletcher

Of if it were the Best Scale Car/House Photos" it might look like this:

http://www.telovation.com/articles/a...ture-city.html

While I like the great aerial photos of great models as much as the next guy, I must admit I'm partial to ground photos.