Aviation Photography: Air to Air

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

I got paid, and all was well...

LOL... Paid??? What's that!! Don't think I was ever paid for an A2A session, having to pinch myself to actually believe I was doing what I was doing was enough reward

Just as it does with the actual racers, the old saying of how to make a small fortune in Air Racing "start out with a big one" holds true for the folks shooting same!

High end cameras have never been cheap, glass even more so. My $6500. D4 is worth about $650. now, worth FAR more to me and I'd never consider selling it.

Geez was there a better way to pay for them all these years

[wingman]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

Air Race earnings are best described as small and seldom.

I had a business, but it was mainly a tax write-off. I could generally demonstrate earnings to largely cover operating expenses (gas, lodging, film and processing, fees, etc.). But I bought a LOT of equipment over the years and capital expenses could definitely be written off. I got a few bucks off my personal taxes over the years, and Uncle Sugar never complained, and so it went.

Neal

[sledge39]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

.
Chino local, 02 Sept 1973, Cliff Cummins N79111 "Race 69".

Photoed from "Planes of Fames" SNJ-5 N3375G flown by Bill Muszala (the rear seat swivels to face aft).
The red airplane is N6340T owned and flown by Dr. Ernie Beeler ... which later became "Candy Man, Race 7" with Beck and Modes.

"Race 69s" prop blades are three red, one white ...

Sledge

[wingman]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

My goodness, those are really something, Sledge. That was quite a day!

Thank you...

Neal

[wingman]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

I really hope your stuff gets saved for posterity, Sledge. There is absolutely pricless stuff in those files of yours.

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

I really hope your stuff gets saved for posterity, Sledge. There is absolutely pricless stuff in those files of yours.

I love what you're doing with your post work Neal, ever so slightly over sharpened to my eye, most notable looking at pilot's face....

[wingman]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

Yeah that was pushed pretty hard (and without Sledge's permission) and it shows. I just wanted to give a sense of what was lurking in that little internet image. Remember that all I had was a small image from the internet, and that it's at least a couple of generations from the original slide or neg (I think slide from the quality). I could see even on the internet that there's something to play with -- It is a great image. I wanted to bring up some texture in the fuselage and a bit of detail in the face. I love the stuff Sledge has done over the years.

Neal

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

I get that... remarkable image and correction though.

Given that a lot of my early stuff was shot with the 2.73 mp Nikon D1, to get decent prints, I used to have a program that did a decent job of upsampling, then cleaning up the artifacts.. you could fade the corrections with a slider, was really neat..

The D1 is an interesting camera in that it had a sensor that was just shy what we call full frame today but it's not a small sensor at all, it's nearly as big as the sensor in the D4. Some of the p&s cameras of the day were advertising huge MP output.. this was being done with a tiny sensor and a boatload of incamera upsampling, I think??

Anyway, my early stuff is limited by that mp size, then I shout the minimally better pixel size D2 and can't remember if the D2x was bigger, smaller or just faster?

Shooting Nikon's loaner D4 was all it took to get me to beg borrow and steal enough to purchase my very own unit. I can not remember the MP's it shoots, but the AF speed and 10fps is pretty amazing. I'm wondering though with some of the output I'm seeing guys get today like Tim O'brien over on FB.. my god some of his stuff is unbelievable.. don't know if it's just his tracking and steady hand or if is camera is so much better than the D4.. anyway. That quiet unassuming man can shoot!

[sledge39]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

.
...Inspired by Neal's inverted P-51 photo...

A barrel roll enroute Chino to George AFB for an airshow, 3 April 1971.

Les Grant's N5436V

[wingman]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

That is a cool photograph...

Neal

[wingman]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

Lotta mountains out there in the haze.

Sorry, Sledge -- the Devil made me do it again...

Neal

[sledge39]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

.
...Neal...where did those little white specs on your version come from ?

[RAD2LTR]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

.
...Neal...where did those little white specs on your version come from ?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26185[/ATTACH]

Digital noise from pushing an image further than it should be. This usually happens when something is oversharpened or run through another program that enhances detail.

In my book, if you push something that far, you've gone to far and you need to back off till it goes away. Sometimes that means backing almost all the way off till its nearly the same as the original. It works better with a RAW image, but since these are scanned images, JPG is all you get. If they are slides, and you happen to have a Nikon ES-2, you can make them RAW images and adjust away.

Will

[wingman]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

.
...Neal...where did those little white specs on your version come from ?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26185[/ATTACH]

I think they're just random noise brought up by some of the texture and clarity I applied. I left them in just so there'd be some appearance of texture there. Maybe a good choice and maybe not. This was just a quicky fooling around -- unfair to the image, but I liked those mountains.

Do you have any objection to my fooling around with your images this way? I can easily stop...

Neal

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Aviation Photography: Air to Air

I actually think that Neal has brought out artifacts that are normally out of view. I've seen it before. Neal corrected the photo and it revealed some slight light changes in those areas. I called them artifacts but I meant to say "details". That's what I think is happening. When you start digging into digital images and bringing out details, it's amazing! Digital sensors are like our eyes on ATOMIC STEROIDS!!!

They see stuff that you could say is not there, because we can't see it!!