A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

My Oshkosh 2003 Scrapbook



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 16th 03, 10:11 PM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default My Oshkosh 2003 Scrapbook

"Theorem" t h e o r e m @ a x i o m e t r i c . o r g writes:

I finally finished my Oshkosh scrapbook for this year. Lots of
pictures, lots of info, and lots of links to even more info. No ads,
no cookies, no clutter. Corrections are appreciated. Hope you enjoy.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com


Very nice, David. Thanks. By the way, the diffuse light of a cloudy day
makes for great pictures, much more so than bright sunlight, which is too
contrasty and produces hard shadows. You had perfect light for pics!


I've gotta agree. And I have my own glare-filled pictures of
airplanes on sunny days to prove it, too!

A lighter overcast would have been *worse* -- the clouds would have
been bright enough to be too bright when exposure was right for the
planes (they would be "burned out"). The nice heavy overcast he had
gave a very soft light, and kept the sky dark enough to show details
in the clouds, so they aren't a distraction or blank space.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/
  #2  
Old October 16th 03, 10:11 PM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Holy cats -- you missed 75% of Oshkosh!

And I'm not joking...


Just deluded?


Okay, maybe 25%? Whatever the percentage, missing the North 40 is missing a
HUGE part of Oshkosh.

And I'm not deluded -- I'm "demented". Get it right, dammit! :-)


They're not mutually exclusive, you know.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/
  #3  
Old October 18th 03, 05:29 AM
David O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I've gotta agree. And I have my own glare-filled pictures of
airplanes on sunny days to prove it, too!

A lighter overcast would have been *worse* -- the clouds would have
been bright enough to be too bright when exposure was right for the
planes (they would be "burned out"). The nice heavy overcast he had
gave a very soft light, and kept the sky dark enough to show details
in the clouds, so they aren't a distraction or blank space.


What you may not realize is I applied *selective* brightness,
contrast, and gamma corrections to different parts the picture in most
of those overcast shots. If I had taken the easy route and simply
applied such corrections to the entire picture, the overcast sky in
many of the pictures *would* have been distractingly bright. Your
comments about the lighting, therefore, may speak more to my care and
skill in digital image manipulation than to the true lighting
conditions of the day. Anyway, such matters are largely subjective.
I prefer copious blue sky and direct sunlight to the diffuse light of
an overcast day. For example, I much prefer this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/page63.html

and this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...3/page119.html

to this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/page22.html

or this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/page16.html

Yes, the last picture is nicely exposed but in my opinion it lacks
visual impact and is somewhat dreary looking, not unlike the dreary
looking day in which it was taken.

I do agree that a bright overcast is more problematic than a darker
overcast for the reasons you mention. Given a choice, however, I'll
take no overcast at all.

Cheers,

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com


  #4  
Old October 18th 03, 05:45 PM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David O writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

I've gotta agree. And I have my own glare-filled pictures of
airplanes on sunny days to prove it, too!

A lighter overcast would have been *worse* -- the clouds would have
been bright enough to be too bright when exposure was right for the
planes (they would be "burned out"). The nice heavy overcast he had
gave a very soft light, and kept the sky dark enough to show details
in the clouds, so they aren't a distraction or blank space.


What you may not realize is I applied *selective* brightness,
contrast, and gamma corrections to different parts the picture in most
of those overcast shots. If I had taken the easy route and simply
applied such corrections to the entire picture, the overcast sky in
many of the pictures *would* have been distractingly bright. Your
comments about the lighting, therefore, may speak more to my care and
skill in digital image manipulation than to the true lighting
conditions of the day. Anyway, such matters are largely subjective.
I prefer copious blue sky and direct sunlight to the diffuse light of
an overcast day. For example, I much prefer this,


Certainly well-considered adjustment helps a lot :-). But the detail
has to have been there in the original picture, the adjustment can't
pull details back out of truly burned-out areas. And the softer light
reduced the total brightness range and made it easier to expose so as
to avoid losing highlights and shadows. (Looks and sounds like you
know your way around photography pretty well, but I'm also talking to
everybody else and trying to make this make sense.)

Also harsh shadows create really dark areas that you often can't see
into at all.

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/page63.html

and this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...3/page119.html

to this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/page22.html

or this,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/...03/page16.html

Yes, the last picture is nicely exposed but in my opinion it lacks
visual impact and is somewhat dreary looking, not unlike the dreary
looking day in which it was taken.


22 is one where the sky is actually somewhat over-bright, I'd agree.
I haven't tried adjusting 16 more, but it looks to me like the
dreariness can mostly be fixed.

I do agree that a bright overcast is more problematic than a darker
overcast for the reasons you mention. Given a choice, however, I'll
take no overcast at all.


The blue sky, or blue sky with a few artistically arranged clouds, is
a very nice background. But the harsh sun gives very bright
highlights and very dark shadows, and I find it quite problematic for
airplanes on the ground in particular.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News Otis Willie Naval Aviation 0 December 12th 03 11:01 PM
My Oshkosh 2003 Scrapbook David O Owning 2 October 14th 03 06:49 AM
My Oshkosh 2003 Scrapbook David O Home Built 12 October 11th 03 08:03 PM
My Oshkosh 2003 Scrapbook David O Military Aviation 2 October 8th 03 08:57 PM
Oshkosh 2003 Redux Montblack Piloting 62 August 14th 03 04:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.