Spitfire low pass...............

erding

erding

Messages
11,424
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
_G2G7055_zpsce8e3f43.jpg


Thanks for stopping in and looking C&C always welcome and appreciated. :)
 
I like the shot, you've cought the low pass really well with the all important prop blur.
Just a minor point, I know it's all dynamic and you have to grab the shot at it happens, but it would be enhanced if there was a degree of clearance between the plane's under belly and the bushes (trees?) but I know you can't say, good but could you do that pass again, but about 10' higher please!
 
very nice shot but if you had dropped the shutter speed down a spot you would of got some nice blur in the background and more propeller rotation but hay what do i know
 
pelliott1954 said:
Very nice catch, sharp, good colour and well positioned too.

Regards Paul
Click to expand...

Mqta said:
I like the shot, you've cought the low pass really well with the all important prop blur.
Just a minor point, I know it's all dynamic and you have to grab the shot at it happens, but it would be enhanced if there was a degree of clearance between the plane's under belly and the bushes (trees?) but I know you can't say, good but could you do that pass again, but about 10' higher please!
Click to expand...

hellkef said:
very nice shot but if you had dropped the shutter speed down a spot you would of got some nice blur in the background and more propeller rotation but hay what do i know
Click to expand...

Thanks for stopping by and commenting, much appreciated.

@Mqta - those were small trees in the bg, and he was about 30ft above the runway as he was doing a low pass.

@hellkef- true would have worked better on the bg, but the prop blur would have been a continuous circle, rather than the 3 segments here which I prefer.
 
Nice, but when they're that low I think actually getting the ground in the shot is a nice touch. As also mentioned a lower shutter speed is also beneficial when they're that low.

Here's a shot of mine at 1/100 to illustrate both points. Each to their own I suppose!
 
Nice moment. I was at Bristol Airport the other day when one went out on a run but not that close.
 
Nicely taken, at 30 ft I should imagine that the ground speed would have pretty nippy. I like the ground being in the picture, I sometimes feel that you can lose something when the subject, plane in this case, is in isolation from the surroundings.
 
Hazza said:
Nice, but when they're that low I think actually getting the ground in the shot is a nice touch. As also mentioned a lower shutter speed is also beneficial when they're that low.

Here's a shot of mine at 1/100 to illustrate both points. Each to their own I suppose!
Click to expand...

It is a different kettle of fish shooting a Spitfire coming straight at you than the side on example you have linked
the original image posted is not full straight on but panning the side on's like you have linked is 20x easier I have shot dozens of prop aircraft side on at 1/30 1/40 1/60
coming at you is a different ball park

as for this image it is very nice although I think a slightly different crop would improve it bt cutting off the bottom foilage/soil pile and adding a little more sky so the plane is not at the top of the image
my 2p for what it is worth
 
blatman said:
Lovely shot!
I do like this.

Salut!
Click to expand...

jondc said:
Nice moment. I was at Bristol Airport the other day when one went out on a run but not that close.
Click to expand...

merv said:
Great shot.
:clap:
Click to expand...

Mike54 said:
Nicely taken, at 30 ft I should imagine that the ground speed would have pretty nippy. I like the ground being in the picture, I sometimes feel that you can lose something when the subject, plane in this case, is in isolation from the surroundings.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments ;)

Tom
 
Buttkicker said:
It is a different kettle of fish shooting a Spitfire coming straight at you than the side on example you have linked
the original image posted is not full straight on but panning the side on's like you have linked is 20x easier I have shot dozens of prop aircraft side on at 1/30 1/40 1/60
coming at you is a different ball park
Click to expand...

:clap: very true words.

Buttkicker said:
as for this image it is very nice although I think a slightly different crop would improve it bt cutting off the bottom foilage/soil pile and adding a little more sky so the plane is not at the top of the image
my 2p for what it is worth
Click to expand...

That is an option, but by leaving some ground in you are illustrating the low pass, with just tree tops that impact is lost.

You have some excellent fotos in your link :clap:

Tom
 
erding said:
:clap: very true words.



That is an option, but by leaving some ground in you are illustrating the low pass, with just tree tops that impact is lost.
Click to expand...
In a lot of cases I would agree with what your saying but with this image there is a pile of soil at the bottom of the picture and the main subject should be the aircraft - but the soil pile is distracting and in this case I think it would be better cropping it out
 
Hazza said:
Nice, but when they're that low I think actually getting the ground in the shot is a nice touch. As also mentioned a lower shutter speed is also beneficial when they're that low.

Here's a shot of mine at 1/100 to illustrate both points. Each to their own I suppose!
Click to expand...

The ground is in that image. I would say that the example you have linked to and my shot are two different styles - and as such personal preferences are always going to come in contention. Akin to a landscape tog taking a waterfall shot, or seascape as a long exposure whilst another will go for 1/125 :)

Tom
 
Buttkicker said:
In a lot of cases I would agree with what your saying but with this image there is a pile of soil at the bottom of the picture and the main subject should be the aircraft - but the soil pile is distracting and in this case I think it would be better cropping it out
Click to expand...

_G2G7055_zps7c8f7f96.jpg


OK a slight re-crop
 
but you don't get a perception as to how low he actually is - the tree tops may be 20ft or 120 ft.
 
erding said:
but you don't get a perception as to how low he actually is - the tree tops may be 20ft or 120 ft.
Click to expand...

why is it so important to show how low he is?

surely a clean uncluttered image with no distraction to other 'items' is better than one with something that leads the eye from the main subject

at the end of the day photography is about opinions and I have added mine and yours is different which is fine
if all the men in the World were as handsome as me it would be boring:LOL:;)
 
Buttkicker said:
why is it so important to show how low he is?

surely a clean uncluttered image with no distraction to other 'items' is better than one with something that leads the eye from the main subject

at the end of the day photography is about opinions and I have added mine and yours is different which is fine
if all the men in the World were as handsome as me it would be boring:LOL:;)
Click to expand...

because its in the title.....whereas with these the emphasis is on the aircraft, as you are suggesting:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=499061

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=499896

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=500687

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=497189

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=499664

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=498544

as for the last bit of your comment,...well where are the fotos then :D
 
Geeez...there's some Willey waving in this thread... My planes higher than yours, ive got a better prop...and so on.
Great image Tom, a special part for me is how the eye seems to be drawn towards the pilot.
 
Martyn D said:
Geeez...there's some Willey waving in this thread... My planes higher than yours, ive got a better prop...and so on.
Great image Tom, a special part for me is how the eye seems to be drawn towards the pilot.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about there is not one single comment in here saying mines higher than yours

and as far as I can see their is not a single comment with any willy waving about anything

so I suggest you go back to bed and get out on the other side
the forum is for critique - not back slapping with nothing but how wonderful we all are at photography
no wonder people moan about getting no feedback with folk like you jumping shouting about willy waving:bonk:
 
Oh dear ...............:wave:
 
Oh, now that is tasty, cracking shot.
 
I grew up watching aircraft like this as I lved 3/4 hour from duxford & although modern jets are nice you cant beat 1,2, or 4 merlins . At that time I had some pics of a flying mosquito that subsequently crashed , although I believe one has now been restored to airworthiness. Your shot really takes me back - thanks.
 
hicksy94 said:
Great light!
Click to expand...

Les McLean said:
Oh, now that is tasty, cracking shot.
Click to expand...

Focalsteve said:
I grew up watching aircraft like this as I lved 3/4 hour from duxford & although modern jets are nice you cant beat 1,2, or 4 merlins . At that time I had some pics of a flying mosquito that subsequently crashed , although I believe one has now been restored to airworthiness. Your shot really takes me back - thanks.
Click to expand...

Cheers for your comments. ;)
 
Great shot Tom, well done!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top