Eye contact, and pylon photography

[wingman]

I have very much enjoyed seeing some pylon work this year, though we still have not seen the rest Of Connor's shoot -- (hint hint). There is a lot of good stuff there (from a photographic perspective). Add in Bill Pearce and Kenn's work from the end of the ramp and we have pretty good coverage of the event, just from the four serious guys that are posting stuff here.

What I am not seeing much of, though, is excitement and a feeling of motion and speed. Much of what I'm seeing could have been done at a good air show. Part of the issue, I think, is that guys like Will and Connor are not cropping enough by my standards. I like closeups, motion, and even sometimes eye contact. I love the feeling that the pilot is looking at me as he goes by. Obviously he's actually looking at the pylon and the racing line, but I still love the illusion.

Equipment these days is so good that you can do shockingly deep crops and still get a great looking internet image. Some of these will not make a great 11x14 print, but nobody out there is buying 11x14 prints anyway, so if the image works for internet usage I don't care at all.

For photogeeks this was done with an older Nikon 300mm and a teleconverter. Teleconverters do cause some image degredation, but not nearly as much as internet denizens will make you think. My criterion was always to have equipment that is better than I am. I could never do stuff as sharp as this consistently, but getting shots like this always reassured me that any image problems were my fault because the lens would clearly do its part if I just did my part right. A good teleconverter on a great prime lens always did fine for me...


Neal

[RAD2LTR]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

I've got lots of pilot in cockpit shots, but no I didn't crop them super close for the most part. I guess I could go back and make digital copies and crop them super close.

That is an awesome shot of the Wildcat.

Will

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

Thank you, Will. That shot has always been a huge favourite of mine. You should see a big print of it.

I would like to see you try some stuff more like this. Not necessarily cropped as tight as this -- I am somewhat unusual in my taste for super tight crops, and they are not easy to get right. But I know there are some killer shots in your files that you just have not seen the potential of. I have talked in the past about Bill Pearce's sense of "presentation" -- a lot of this is his cropping...

You need to have a goal for an image -- not just a "Wow I can see right into the cockpit" shot, but one that conveys something to grab the viewer. It can be speed, or concentration, or competition, or whatever you want to convey. There is so much technically competent imagery out there these days that you need to do something special to stand out. Your ground stuff is lovely and well seen, but the pylon stuff so far, while technically competent, seems kind of generic.

I would love to see what you can come up with with as a next step in working with some of your shots. I always felt that the files out of camera at Stead were only the beginning of the journey to a shot like the one of Tom. Pylon shooting is difficult to do really well, but the hardest part happens after you get home...

Neal

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

So here's another eye contact shot. This is a long way from what came out of the camera. It would print natively at about 3 inches by 5 inches, because of the deep crop. But, however, because of the reduction for the internet, this image looks just as good onscreen as the shot of Tom Camp, which was enlarged much less. The Wildcat shot is great as either a big print or a web image, but the shot of Dan and his Mustang is only really useful as an internet image. It's a really good internet image, though.

I'll post the original file that this came from in another post.

Neal

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

Nice shots!

I miss Art!

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

Nice shots!

I miss Art!

I have always liked that Dan has kept Art's name on the airplane. That plane took years and many dollars to get flying. It was Art's dream.

[RAD2LTR]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography











Yep, most of these could be cropped closer for more of an effect. That said, I'm always looking for eye contact in my pylon shots.

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

So I'm not the only one. These look really nice, and have a different feel from a lot of the material in your galleries. They get my attention. I especially like the L-39 shot. I like the mix of angles and looks.

Neal

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

Getting eye contact is more difficult to do with the Biplanes. This is a very interesting Pitts -- a Gold racer from the start and for some time the fastest Pitts on the field. Three very interesting pilots over the years. This airplane was one of the most interesting aircraft at Stead to a photographer when Dennis and Karl were campaigning it. They both had a truly unique style...

[RAD2LTR]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

So I'm not the only one. These look really nice, and have a different feel from a lot of the material in your galleries. They get my attention. I especially like the L-39 shot. I like the mix of angles and looks.

Neal

I really try and get a variety of shots, but it depends on the light/sky conditions, as well as the angle. I got a shot from P4 a couple years ago where I can actually read some of the instruments on Bob Mill's panel when I zoomed in. I have another of Andy Findley that I can make out every line on his knee board, but can't quite read the lines. Its also fun to see if the pilots are making faces as they go past. Andy Findley has been known to do that, as well as Bernie V. I have tons of shots I could crop super close, but

Yes, shooting under the top wing on the Bipes is tough, but I have a few of those shots as well.

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

I really like some of these, and as a group they look so much better to me than the more generic side on shots of an airplane going by. The latter are obviously necessary, but the more dynamic shots will always get my attention in a whole different way.

The next thing we need to get you thinking about, Will, is some of the local adjustment capability that is built into recent versions of Photoshop and Lightroom. There is a lot that can be done these days to bring up and enhance details in faces, cockpits and such. It has to be subtle, and is very easily overdone, but can really transform an image.

Neal

[RAD2LTR]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

I really like some of these, and as a group they look so much better to me than the more generic side on shots of an airplane going by. The latter are obviously necessary, but the more dynamic shots will always get my attention in a whole different way.

The next thing we need to get you thinking about, Will, is some of the local adjustment capability that is built into recent versions of Photoshop and Lightroom. There is a lot that can be done these days to bring up and enhance details in faces, cockpits and such. It has to be subtle, and is very easily overdone, but can really transform an image.

Neal

I only have LR6, I will NEVER pay Adobe's monthly ransom fee. I keep looking for another program, but so far I can't find anything better.

Will

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

I only have LR6, I will NEVER pay Adobe's monthly ransom fee. I keep looking for another program, but so far I can't find anything better.

Will

Unfortunately, there is nothing better. Nobody will be able to top what the Photoshop programs can do after nearly 40 years of intensive development. Real problems are creeping into Adobe Land -- it's all getting bloated and sluggish. They seem to be bringing in a lot of AI functioning with some of the new tools and that is not going well at all from a user standpoint.

But nothing else does all that Photoshop does. The newer masking tools and local adjustment tools are ridiculously good, and themselves almost make the subscription model bearable.

So I play the game and pay the freight, for now. It's not a great deal of money (especially compared to buying a $1000 program and having to buy a $250 update every couple of years when a new version came out).

Actually you and most everybody else pay cell phone companies for the privelege of being able to call anybody anywhere anytime. What's the difference between paying too much to Apple vs too much to Adobe?

Neal

[wadeh]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

Regarding a Photoshop replacement, my main hobby is astrophotography. There was a time when I used Photoshop for much of my processing, but when they went subscription based, I stopped upgrading to the latest. I'll forever be at CS5. I eventually switched to astronomy specific imaging editing software, which suits me better than a "normal" image editing package.

There are quite a few astrophotographers, though, who want to keep using a general purpose image editor. They are largely moving away from Photoshop, and switching to Affinity Photo.

Affinity Photo is not quite a complete replacement for Photoshop, but it's under active development and is getting closer all the time. It even runs Photoshop plug-ins. It has a one-time purchase cost that's quite reasonable at $70.

If you've not seen it yet, it might be worth a look.

[wadeh]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography

Actually you and most everybody else pay cell phone companies for the privelege of being able to call anybody anywhere anytime. What's the difference between paying too much to Apple vs too much to Adobe?

There is a HUGE difference!

With your cell phone, you are paying for use of their communication network. That represents an ongoing cost to them. I can't imagine a cell phone model where you pay a one time fee for unlimited and forever use.

With Photoshop, you are paying rent to use what you already have. It costs Adobe exactly zero dollars for you to start up and work with Photoshop. Regardless of what Adobe may say about making things more affordable, their subscription model is designed from the ground up to extract as many dollars as possible from your wallet, and to continue doing so forever.

I spent 30 years in the software industry and have some strong opinions on how some of this should work. Rental software actually makes some sense for business licenses, but for private users it is nothing more than a scam. I will NEVER rent software, ever. At any price. I will live without before I tolerate that kind of abuse.