"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...


old rhinebeck.?

"Ray O'Hara" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> old rhinebeck.?
>

Some.

The images I took were at Arlington, WA

Mitchell,
Am I to understand that you shot this recent selection of images??? If so I
am impressed! You should post more original stuff more often.

Andrew



"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...

"Andrew-S" <I-Still-Hate-Spammers@Sorry-I had-to-leave-for-bit.com> wrote
in :

> Mitchell,
> Am I to understand that you shot this recent selection of images???


Only a few of them.


If
> so I am impressed! You should post more original stuff more often.
>
> Andrew


I post as much original stuff as I can, but
cannot hold a candle to Glenn and Bob and Rusty, et al.
I need to get out more.......

Mitchell,
There is something to be said for quality as well... Besides this group is
not about competition it's about sharing the one thing all of us male or
female amateur or pro share; our common love of aircraft.

So I would encourage you to get away from posting series of images that
where shot by others, and post those that you shot as your time allows.
Many of the images in this series with your name on where VERY VERY good!!!

As for myself...
These days I don't post much for two reasons...

The first is time...
I am working two almost full time jobs... The first is in Pro Camera Retail
and the second is in aviation photography..

The second is the selling of my images...
Because I am shooting for several police departments, and the commercial air
industry; it takes away from my credibility when the same image I am
charging $150 to xyz airline can just be downloaded off the internet for
free..

If I where to cut loose and start posting at the rate I was in the past with
all the new stuff... Suffice to say that it would be rather scary both for
my mental state and for the group... Remember the rumor that went around
about my demise a few months ago? These days for me it is better to lurk,
post a couple of shots every other month, and just enjoy visual side of the
group.

Attached is an example of some of the air to ground stuff I have been
doing...

Andrew





"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew-S" <I-Still-Hate-Spammers@Sorry-I had-to-leave-for-bit.com> wrote
> in :
>
>> Mitchell,
>> Am I to understand that you shot this recent selection of images???
>
>
> Only a few of them.
>
>
> If
>> so I am impressed! You should post more original stuff more often.
>>
>> Andrew
>
>
> I post as much original stuff as I can, but
> cannot hold a candle to Glenn and Bob and Rusty, et al.
> I need to get out more.......
>
>
>

"Andrew-S" <I-Still-Hate-Spammers@Sorry-I had-to-leave-for-bit.com> wrote
in :

> Mitchell,
> There is something to be said for quality as well... Besides this group
> is not about competition it's about sharing the one thing all of us male
> or female amateur or pro share; our common love of aircraft.
>
> So I would encourage you to get away from posting series of images that
> where shot by others, and post those that you shot as your time allows.



Since my main interest is in historical aviation
and I don't have a time machine I have to rely on
the images taken by others. Ergo most of the stuff
I post are black and white images from decades ago
("Dog Days of Aviation", for example). One of the
joys of this group is that is not limited to
original images. It would be a much duller place
if it were restricted to only images from recent
airshows and museum visits.

Mitchell,
Good foil...
At the risk of this being taken the wrong way I think what gets you in
trouble sometimes is the lack of source information. As in if you picked up
a book and made a scan make a mention of where it came from. OR if you
don't know, mention that you don't know and invite the owners of the
copyright to claim credit. Certainly not a 10 paragraph explanation but
perhaps just one or two sentences at the beginning of a series. It's been
my experience that an open and willing approach works out best. As for a
time machine, isn't that what war bird shows are for??

Andrew

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew-S" <I-Still-Hate-Spammers@Sorry-I had-to-leave-for-bit.com> wrote
> in :
>
>> Mitchell,
>> There is something to be said for quality as well... Besides this group
>> is not about competition it's about sharing the one thing all of us male
>> or female amateur or pro share; our common love of aircraft.
>>
>> So I would encourage you to get away from posting series of images that
>> where shot by others, and post those that you shot as your time allows.
>
>
>
> Since my main interest is in historical aviation
> and I don't have a time machine I have to rely on
> the images taken by others. Ergo most of the stuff
> I post are black and white images from decades ago
> ("Dog Days of Aviation", for example). One of the
> joys of this group is that is not limited to
> original images. It would be a much duller place
> if it were restricted to only images from recent
> airshows and museum visits.
>
>
>
>

"Andrew-S" <I-Still-Hate-Spammers@Sorry-I had-to-leave-for-bit.com> wrote
in :

> Mitchell,
> Good foil...
> At the risk of this being taken the wrong way I think what gets you in
> trouble sometimes is the lack of source information. As in if you
> picked up a book and made a scan make a mention of where it came from.
> OR if you don't know, mention that you don't know and invite the owners
> of the copyright to claim credit. Certainly not a 10 paragraph
> explanation but perhaps just one or two sentences at the beginning of a
> series. It's been my experience that an open and willing approach works
> out best. As for a time machine, isn't that what war bird shows are
> for??
>
> Andrew
>



I used to be a regular at CAF airshows but quickly tired
of AT6's dress up as something else. Not to mention the
supply of warbirds that dwindles everytime one augers in.
I wish I could see the real thing in real action, but for
the time being I have to resort to finding and posting grainy
images of same.