Abandoned Airfield Landscapes 5

[horrocks]

From two further walks at Willingale. I learned that ND8 (3 stop) Grad ND filters are great for grey or cloudy skies, but can make blue skies seem as if you have taken the photo on the edge of space. I must get 1 and 2 stop filters. I learned that the viewfinder on the D80 does not show the full picture - the amount of vignetting on the Cokin P series holder at 12-15-ish mm is horrendous, and much more than you see when you look through the finder. I also found that if you go within half a mile of an operating combine harvester, be prepared to subsequently clean your sensor. Some of the later photos were almost destroyed by spots all over the skies, and required lots of PP correction. Where does that dust get in? My 12-24 Tokina is an almost permament fixture, so it wasn't from lens changing.

1. Tractor on the peritrack at Fyfield Hall. I should clone out that funny cloud. It keeps distracting me.

2. Self portrait. I couldn't resist this, because the shadows made it a bit weird.

3. Farm equipment and skies, Fyfield Hall. This is the only surviving full-width part of the peritrack.

4. Another view.

5. The track that is all that remains to indicate the main runway. It was huge - 150ft wide, and 6000ft long, it takes at least half an hour to walk its length, and you can't see one end from the other. A great vindication of man's ability to undo the damage that he has wrought, when it suits.

6. Footprints in the concrete at Wardens Hall. I often wonder what came of the young men who left these marks, over 65 years ago.

7. Broken up concrete from the hardstands at Forest Hall.

8. The fuel store, Forest Hall. Two of the giant fuel tanks that were hidden behind the earth walls still exist, sitting forlornly on a section of runway. The little building housed the pumping gear.

9. Oak trees at Forest Hall. They saw the airfield come and go, and much besides.

10. Evening skies over the wood at Fyfield Hall.

If you are still here, thanks for your indulgence. C&C extremely welcome.

 

[Andysnap]

On all of these the skies have added a great deal and the colours and tones are lovely, however on some the horizons could do with a straighten (5 & 6) and on 1 or 2 of the others a little more foreground interest would perhaps have improved them (4, 9 & 10). Altogether though a really nice set.

Andy

 

[Michael Frodsham]

Great set of shots there. Soon there will be plenty of disused airfields for us to visit. More disused than operational I think

Michael
www.mf-images.com

 

[chilliz]

I have to say there seems to be some really terrible noise in most of the skies which spoil the images for me.

 

[horrocks]

I have to say there seems to be some really terrible noise in most of the skies which spoil the images for me.

I am using a semi/pseudo HDR package which introduces quite a lot, and sometimes excessive, noise when only a single base image is used. I have found that a way to improve this is to copy the original image twice at different EV levels, then process it as a true HDR, but I haven't done this on any of these pics. I suspect I would if I printed them. I have to say though that I am less worried about noise than seems to be fashionable, a legacy of always having used high ISO films and enjoyed the grain. But I am a bit worried now that my rather average PC 15" screen isn't showing me the true extent of this noise, because I can hardly see it - does anybody else find it really too excessive?

 

[Marcus Geezer]

I can see the noise on a rather average 17" TFT and in some of the pics it adds to it, in others, it detracts. Very nice pics all the same and regarding your learning points for the day, they say every day is a school day!

 

[horrocks]

Oh! dear. I had a decent 17" Sony screen, but it died a month or two ago and I bought a s/h 15" Dell screen, ex Met Police as a temporary measure. I remember thinking how awful it was at first, but of course you adapt.

I am probably posting some terrible pictures that I think look great, without realising it.

I think the photo with the two trees was made up of two images - how is the sky in that one for noise and artefacts?

 

[chilliz]

I am using a semi/pseudo HDR package which introduces quite a lot, and sometimes excessive, noise when only a single base image is used. I have found that a way to improve this is to copy the original image twice at different EV levels, then process it as a true HDR, but I haven't done this on any of these pics. I suspect I would if I printed them. I have to say though that I am less worried about noise than seems to be fashionable, a legacy of always having used high ISO films and enjoyed the grain. But I am a bit worried now that my rather average PC 15" screen isn't showing me the true extent of this noise, because I can hardly see it - does anybody else find it really too excessive?

I have on occasions used a program called dynamic HDR which can introduce loads of noise, I find the best way to combat it is to use the blur tool in Photoshop and "paint" the sky out of focus. I must agree with you about grain in the days of film, can look fantastic, but I think noise in digital images spoils pics more often than it enhances them. Just my opinion though.

 

[chilliz]

Oh! dear. I had a decent 17" Sony screen, but it died a month or two ago and I bought a s/h 15" Dell screen, ex Met Police as a temporary measure. I remember thinking how awful it was at first, but of course you adapt.

I am probably posting some terrible pictures that I think look great, without realising it.

I think the photo with the two trees was made up of two images - how is the sky in that one for noise and artefacts?

The images are not terrible, I can promise you. The image with the 2 trees is probably the least noisy, on my monitor anyway.

This has always been a bugbear for me with digital photography, everyone is looking at the images with different monitors and different settings. :|

 

[Mikebert4]

Loving the set - #10 being my favourite, closly followed by #8

On the noise issue, I'm on a 17" (wide) laptop screen at 1440*900 and it's blaringly obvious in all the images - I like the effect it adds to #8 but I'm a bit of a nut for smooth, clean skies so I'm not sure I go for it in the other pics.

Still a lovely set though - keep it up

Mike

 

[Marcus Geezer]

Oh! dear. I had a decent 17" Sony screen, but it died a month or two ago and I bought a s/h 15" Dell screen, ex Met Police as a temporary measure. I remember thinking how awful it was at first, but of course you adapt.

I am probably posting some terrible pictures that I think look great, without realising it.

I think the photo with the two trees was made up of two images - how is the sky in that one for noise and artefacts?

Not the worst by far.

 

[horrocks]

I have on occasions used a program called dynamic HDR which can introduce loads of noise, I find the best way to combat it is to use the blur tool in Photoshop and "paint" the sky out of focus. I must agree with you about grain in the days of film, can look fantastic, but I think noise in digital images spoils pics more often than it enhances them. Just my opinion though.

Yup, thats the programme I'm using!

Just as a matter of interest, I have redone one of the images as a 'true' HDR, and post the 'out of the box' original as well. How do they compare with each other and the original posting for noise?

1. Out of the camera

2. HDR from two copies of the same original at different EV settings.

Thanks for all the help and kind comments. It really does help.

 

[chilliz]

Yup, thats the programme I'm using!

Just as a matter of interest, I have redone one of the images as a 'true' HDR, and post the 'out of the box' original as well. How do they compare with each other and the original posting for noise?

1. Out of the camera

2. HDR from two copies of the same original at different EV settings.

Thanks for all the help and kind comments. It really does help.

The noise isn`t as bad as in the original post, but it`s still very noticable.

 

[horrocks]

The noise isn`t as bad as in the original post, but it`s still very noticable.

Even straight out of the camera?

 

[chilliz]

Even straight out of the camera?

No sorry, it doesn`t look bad at all straight out of the camera.

 

[horrocks]

Thanks Ian, and to everybody that commented. New screen, and perhaps Photomatix for any HDR treatment for starters....?

 

[chilliz]

Thanks Ian, and to everybody that commented. New screen, and perhaps Photomatix for any HDR treatment for starters....?

No probs mate, I`m sure you`ll get it sorted.

 

[Defiance]

This is a good set of shots which captures the abandonment well. Essex and Suffolk have so many of these abandoned and operational ex-WW2 airfields, many built by the Americans (including Stansted), which can make good subject matter The sheer number and scale of them is difficult to comprehend now as sadly very few remain sufficiently intact. I feel a trip out with the camera coming...

 

[horrocks]

This is a good set of shots which captures the abandonment well. Essex and Suffolk have so many of these abandoned and operational ex-WW2 airfields, many built by the Americans (including Stansted), which can make good subject matter The sheer number and scale of them is difficult to comprehend now as sadly very few remain sufficiently intact. I feel a trip out with the camera coming...

The creation of these airfields, almost all of them in 1943, was an engineering feat on a scale which I suspect is unequalled. The sheer size of them is difficult to comprehend unless you are there, and each took huge tonnages of concrete to build 3 runways, peritracks, all the service areas, together with accomodation for over 2,000 men. Landscapes were changed forever, and the destruction of roads, houses and vast acreages of woodland beggars belief. Many were built on country house estates, and several fine mansions were pulled down after the war due to deterioration and the lack of money and will. RAF Great Dunmow, for example, was built on the Easton Lodge estate, home of Countess 'Daisy' Warwick (mistress of Edward, Prince of Wales). More than 200 mature trees in the ancient deer park were cut down, and after hostilities the house was demolished. Today there is little left to warm heart or eye.

This link shows some 70-80 airfields, but it is by no means comprehensive. I think the USAAF built some 165 installations throughout the country, though not all were airfields. Most of them, like Chipping Ongar, were only used for a few months and then abandoned. Such that remains can be extremely atmospheric, or rather dull and depressing. Often the less that remains, the more atmospheric the place. Many now house industrial estates, and are horrid. The best offer lovely wide open vistas and huge skies for landscape photographers.

http://www.content-delivery.co.uk/aviation/airfields/usaf/

 

[chilliz]

The creation of these airfields, almost all of them in 1943, was an engineering feat on a scale which I suspect is unequalled. The sheer size of them is difficult to comprehend unless you are there, and each took huge tonnages of concrete to build 3 runways, peritracks, all the service areas, together with accomodation for over 2,000 men. Landscapes were changed forever, and the destruction of roads, houses and vast acreages of woodland beggars belief. Many were built on country house estates, and several fine mansions were pulled down after the war due to deterioration and the lack of money and will. RAF Great Dunmow, for example, was built on the Easton Lodge estate, home of Countess 'Daisy' Warwick (mistress of Edward, Prince of Wales). More than 200 mature trees in the ancient deer park were cut down, and after hostilities the house was demolished. Today there is little left to warm heart or eye.

This link shows some 70-80 airfields, but it is by no means comprehensive. I think the USAAF built some 165 installations throughout the country, though not all were airfields. Most of them, like Chipping Ongar, were only used for a few months and then abandoned. Such that remains can be extremely atmospheric, or rather dull and depressing. Often the less that remains, the more atmospheric the place. Many now house industrial estates, and are horrid. The best offer lovely wide open vistas and huge skies for landscape photographers.

http://www.content-delivery.co.uk/aviation/airfields/usaf/

That`s a great link.

 

[Defiance]

Thanks for the link, it's really handy being able to reference the aerial shots so easily. Many of the abandoned bases can only really be appreciated from the air and it's easy to distinguish them due to their common american design. You're right in that it's not comprehensive, but it looks like the compiler may have focussed on the 8th Air Force and not included the 9th Air Force bases. or got confused over some. There are some notable omissions e.g. Stansted, Boreham, Birch, Sudbury and Eye to name a few.

The USAAF were present at over 140 bases in the UK. However whilst the USAAF designed the layout of the new airfields, they only built 14 of them - 11 of them in Essex and Suffolk including Wilingale. The British actually built most of them - 53 of them, for example Rivenhall. The remainder were existing airports or airbases which were either upgraded or used as they were and some were shared with the RAF.