A few from RAF Mildenhall

Z

Zymurgy661

Messages
113
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

Thought some people might be interested in seeing some shots from a recent trip to RAF mildenhall. First time out with my 7D and am very impressed with it so far. More available on my flickr - www.flickr.com/zymurgy661

1.
5556909784_186849f409_b.jpg


2.
5556326799_3cc6cf45c4_b.jpg


3.
5557607859_98c2dd8639_b.jpg


4.
5558192488_3efab2d3bc_b.jpg


5.
5557609229_bd2d017ed0_b.jpg


6.
5558193776_020702dc2c_b.jpg


All C&C welcomed!
 
Last edited:
Nice shots, must get over to Mildenhall sometime. I'm just down the road, and the E-3A has been doing circuits non-stop lately
 
Nice shots - what lens(es) did you use?

Can anyone go down there and be able to take shots like these, or do you need access to the base or what?
 
Last edited:
Except for No.4, I think they all need just a little more space for the aircraft to be flying or Taxying "Into".
Other than that, White Balance (Personal choice), Exposure (Personal choice), and distracting backgrounds (Timing and Differential focusing).

Like the way you remember to call it "RAF" Mildenhall. Never let the Yanks forget their only borrowing it! :naughty:
 
Thanks for all the comments people

Stumpy said:
Except for No.4, I think they all need just a little more space for the aircraft to be flying or Taxying "Into".
Other than that, White Balance (Personal choice), Exposure (Personal choice), and distracting backgrounds (Timing and Differential focusing).

Like the way you remember to call it "RAF" Mildenhall. Never let the Yanks forget their only borrowing it! :naughty:
Click to expand...

Would you be able to expand a bit on your White Balance and Exposure comments please?
 
Yes sure.
1 & 2 the colours could be either more or less and you could make each lighter or darker. Your shots your choice, not bad as they are, just saying you could make them a little different.

3,4,5. A touch too - "blue". It looks sunny but they don't have that - "Sparkle"? USAF grey always hard to balance.

All. To my eye just a little bit too contrasty. I would turn it down a couple or three notches in camera. You can always add it later. Sharp though, - "Cutting"!(y)

And really thats the trouble with digital and Adobe. Take one shot and you can spend the rest of your life fiddling with it. Bet they all look just as the light did when you took the shots. At the end of the day, if no one else is paying, than its YOU who has to be pleased with them, and I bet you are! I would be.

By the by, shot 5. When did they add the wing pods to KC's, new to me? (Go on say it was about 20 years ago and I'm just a daft, blind, old duffer :thinking:).
 
Ahh home sweet home :(

A nice set of shots.. I like the atmosphere in the first couple :)
 
Thanks for your comments Stumpy. Having looked at again i see what you mean about looking a little 'blue'. I'm shooting using AWB but wonder if thats having issues with the colors? A tweak in lightroom to a cloudy WB gives a much greyer image and tones done the blues of the sky as well. Will keep that in mind for the next set!

As for the wing pods, they are 'optional extras' and only get fitted when needed. The tankers are being used overseas alot at the moment i believe hence why they are probably fitted

Thansk everyone else for your comments as well :D
 
The pods are drogue refuelers, allowing two receiving (small) aircraft to fuel at a time, instead of the single tail boom method (although its still fitted).

Remember that flying molotov was designed to refuel strategic bombers originally, one at a time!

Not sure they are optional, might be I suppose, but thats what they are for sure.
 
desantnik said:
Not sure they are optional, might be I suppose, but thats what they are for sure.
Click to expand...

Can confirm optional. I have quite a few photo's with KC's with/without these pods. There is also an optional drouge system for the tail boom but less common to see that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top