The Valley. Anglesey. 19.2.09. Hawks and a Tornado.

Matt Sayle

Matt Sayle

2017MSA Young Photographer of the Year(Motorsport)
Messages
18,976
Name
Matt Sayle
Edit My Images
Yes
Me, Spcomp and his son hutch93 had planned on going up into the loop but due to the poor weather, frozen, slippery path, we never made :( Ah well, next time! However, we did head over to the Valley which was awesome. I want a jet plane. Before you winge about the watermark, I have moved it around the images AND lowered the opactiy.
Anyway.

1.
4373638764_9646420da7_o.jpg


2.
4372883397_dfe99fa072_o.jpg


3.
4372882649_4ee6cb8c69_o.jpg


4.
4372883019_2a7089788a_o.jpg


5. Big bird, little birds
4373637310_938afe6a13_o.jpg


6.
4372881999_4b34741011_o.jpg


C and C please,

Thanks,
Matt
:)
 
sorry ..but that sig is a right pain for me - total distraction

why not go smaller, darker maybe and it could be tucked into a corner of every one one of those - splendid - shots
 
I like the comps on the shots mate, really like #6 great shot but is that a big dust bunny in the right hand side, also agree the hawks look a tad under exposed (y)
 
WHAT were you doing on Anglesey,I did not hear you ask for permission,who signed your passports well indeed what is the world comming to Matt Sale passes within a mile of my house and does not call in for a cup of tea,well I never


Dave...........................running for cover
 
All ok but they are well under exposed apart from the last one, When I shoot aircraft in the sky I dial in+1 over compensation.
 
malla1962 said:
All ok but they are well under exposed apart from the last one, When I shoot aircraft in the sky I dial in+1 over compensation.
Click to expand...

I`m no expert on aircraft, but I would imagine it is like shooting birds in flight, so I agree with the above,just IMHO of course.

Edit to add, number 6 is a corker Matt,best of the bunch.
 
fracster said:
I`m no expert on aircraft, but I would imagine it is like shooting birds in flight, so I agree with the above,just IMHO of course.

Edit to add, number 6 is a corker Matt,best of the bunch.
Click to expand...
It is like shooting birds in flight, mind you the birds can be a little harder as they are small targets.
 
Numebr 6 is very good but the others do look a little dark, with regards to the signature i dont see what the fuss is, if its so people cant nick your pics then fair play, good idea, if its in one corner its very easy to clone out or remove.

Good work!
 
Great to see you trying something completely different from Oulton and track stuff. Sorry to hear you didn't make it up to the hills, but theres always next time!

As has been mentioned the Hawks do look a little underexposed, you could try spot metering them, seems to work well for me.

Love the Tornado shot, gives the impression its waiting to go and rip up the mountains. The processing and composition really work. :cool: :clap: Only thing it needs is the dust bunny removing on the right.
 
Lev67 said:
Same you didn't manage to make it up a hill Matt..
#6 is a cracker, the Hawks against sky seem under exposed. I always dial in anything from .3 to a full stop +EV when shooting in the sky..
Click to expand...

Thank you very much Neil.

Thank you for the tip as well. To me they didnt look underexposed :LOL: Shows what I know about aircraft.

Yardbent said:
sorry ..but that sig is a right pain for me - total distraction

why not go smaller, darker maybe and it could be tucked into a corner of every one one of those - splendid - shots
Click to expand...

Thank you very much. Watermark. Staying.

Corsa said:
WHAT were you doing on Anglesey,I did not hear you ask for permission,who signed your passports well indeed what is the world comming to Matt Sale passes within a mile of my house and does not call in for a cup of tea,well I never


Dave...........................running for cover
Click to expand...

LOL. I didnt relise we were going to end up there Dave!!

malla1962 said:
All ok but they are well under exposed apart from the last one, When I shoot aircraft in the sky I dial in+1 over compensation.
Click to expand...

I will bear that in mind for next time.

fracster said:
I`m no expert on aircraft, but I would imagine it is like shooting birds in flight, so I agree with the above,just IMHO of course.

Edit to add, number 6 is a corker Matt,best of the bunch.
Click to expand...

I cant do that either LOL. Thank you Ade.

rich315 said:
Numebr 6 is very good but the others do look a little dark, with regards to the signature i dont see what the fuss is, if its so people cant nick your pics then fair play, good idea, if its in one corner its very easy to clone out or remove.

Good work!
Click to expand...

Thank you very much indeed Rich!!

Jim B said:
Great to see you trying something completely different from Oulton and track stuff. Sorry to hear you didn't make it up to the hills, but theres always next time!

As has been mentioned the Hawks do look a little underexposed, you could try spot metering them, seems to work well for me.

Love the Tornado shot, gives the impression its waiting to go and rip up the mountains. The processing and composition really work. :cool: :clap: Only thing it needs is the dust bunny removing on the right.
Click to expand...

We are hoping to go again at Easter time.

Will try that next time as well.

Looks like another trip to Manchester Airport is in order to practice LOL.

Thank you very much, I knew there was something I forgot to do!!

kevshore said:
Number 6 for me Matt. Nice shot.(y)


Kev.
Click to expand...

Thank you kev.
 
The sky shots are a bit dark for me but the final tonka image is stunning but I think a few extra pixels on the left side might help.

Do you sell images Matt? If you do, pm me the details, I'd be interested in a print of that final image.
 
it's harder to focus (manual or AF) on something that's doing 400+ knots.
Especially if it's coming straight at you.
Click to expand...

While a jets path is relatively predictable (certainly in the loop) the path a bird takes in flight is often quite eratic, having tried my hand at both I can say that keeping up with a BIF is most often harder than panning with a jet.........try achieving AF on a swallow its damn near impossible :LOL:

And Matt, shame you didn`t get up the loop, I was down there the day before and pulled a blank......which was understandable considering the weather. Of the shots the Tornado is brilliant certainly different (y)
 
They all seem pretty dark to me. Like I mentioned in the other thread it seems to be down to your choice of metering techniques. Using Center weighted is a bit of a hit or miss affair (for me anyway). There doesn't seem to be any kind of adjustment to compensate for the sky either. I would suggest spot metering on manual if the lighting is consistent. This will give you the best results (from my own experience). Take a bunch of light readings around the area and balance it out. Figure out how the sun/shade will effect the aircraft given its path, if at all. There is a substantial amount of information missing in these images.

Keep practicing and I hope to see some more.
 
Metering can be tricky, everyone has their own techniques, I prefer to use spot metering on multi-point AF (its a nikon trick :p) when I'm in the loop.

Matt:
I still love the Tornado shot but can you clone out the dust spot on the right side (bottom right third) ?
 
hyakuhei said:
The sky shots are a bit dark for me but the final tonka image is stunning but I think a few extra pixels on the left side might help.

Do you sell images Matt? If you do, pm me the details, I'd be interested in a print of that final image.
Click to expand...

Oooooh PM on way!!

MarkEvan said:
While a jets path is relatively predictable (certainly in the loop) the path a bird takes in flight is often quite eratic, having tried my hand at both I can say that keeping up with a BIF is most often harder than panning with a jet.........try achieving AF on a swallow its damn near impossible :LOL:

And Matt, shame you didn`t get up the loop, I was down there the day before and pulled a blank......which was understandable considering the weather. Of the shots the Tornado is brilliant certainly different (y)
Click to expand...

Aye, it is a shame about the loop :(

Thank you

King_Boru said:
They all seem pretty dark to me. Like I mentioned in the other thread it seems to be down to your choice of metering techniques. Using Center weighted is a bit of a hit or miss affair (for me anyway). There doesn't seem to be any kind of adjustment to compensate for the sky either. I would suggest spot metering on manual if the lighting is consistent. This will give you the best results (from my own experience). Take a bunch of light readings around the area and balance it out. Figure out how the sun/shade will effect the aircraft given its path, if at all. There is a substantial amount of information missing in these images.

Keep practicing and I hope to see some more.
Click to expand...

I will keep trying :LOL: Thank you!"

hyakuhei said:
Metering can be tricky, everyone has their own techniques, I prefer to use spot metering on multi-point AF (its a nikon trick :p) when I'm in the loop.

Matt:
I still love the Tornado shot but can you clone out the dust spot on the right side (bottom right third) ?
Click to expand...

PM on way, removed dust spot for you!
 
hi matt
was it you who got half way up cad west and bailed. if so, the weather cleared up but only a single harrier showed. see you out there another time.
 
From what I heard they spent more time sliding down than going up cadwest :LOL: And from what you said they took the better option of going to vally.

:exit:
 
Like No 6.
Hawks are always a bugger to expose for in the begining, the more you go the quicker youll learn.
Matt, you really must lose that watermark:shake:
Good days shooting though.
Dean:)
 
My print has arrived and I'm really pleased, it always strikes me how much better photographs look in print, they almost seem unfinished by comparison when viewed on a computer. I'll be getting it framed soon.

Its really nice to be able to show appreciation of someone's work in a monetary way rather than the usual of forum posting. (Its a good job Mark Jayne doesn't sell prints though - I'd be broke!)

Thanks Matt, Good luck in the future.
 
Good Tornado, different and interesting, it invites your brain to question where has it been or where is it going, excellent.
 
Lev67 said:
I always use centre weighted, when at bases and up the hills, with centre focus point. Virtually impossible to manual meter up the hills, light can vary to much. Aircraft and hillside in and out of shade..
Click to expand...


Um that's all I use;). Manual metering is almost second nature now. It's helped on a few tricky occasions.
 
I have adopted a new water mark strategy for the future ;) Thanks for your comments everyone!

hyakuhei said:
My print has arrived and I'm really pleased, it always strikes me how much better photographs look in print, they almost seem unfinished by comparison when viewed on a computer. I'll be getting it framed soon.

Its really nice to be able to show appreciation of someone's work in a monetary way rather than the usual of forum posting. (Its a good job Mark Jayne doesn't sell prints though - I'd be broke!)

Thanks Matt, Good luck in the future.
Click to expand...

Fantastic :D I am really glad to hear that you like the print and are getting it framed :) I must admit, I wanted to keep it myself :p

Thank you very much!
 
I'm off to Anglesey in a weeks time, is it easy access to where you were Matt? i wouldn't mind grabbing a couple of shots here if Cad West fails on me!
 
I used to live right next to RAF Valley and it's very easy to get near Will. You can sit right at the end of the runway if you like, or it's surrounded by beaches and dunes on most sides, so just pick your spot. :)

Really like the last shot Matt, makes me wish I'd had a camera while we had the house there. :)
 
NUmber 6 is the pick of the bunch for me, great pic Matt very dramatic
 
Sorry for butting in on this thread but I'm researching Cad West for our togs' holiday trip in June and came across this thread. Without wishing to labour the point, I have to agree with the comments about underexposure. I've taken the liberty of borrowing one of the photos to jiggle with in Lightroom. Even with a +2 stop adjustment to exposure and +10 to fill, the highlights are not clipped and the shadows still are. Also, the fill has caused posterisation in the shadow region.

Even if aesthetically this didn't need a full 2 stop adjustment, in terms of capturing more image data (raw I hope) from which to produce the final product, another 2 stops on the exposure would have done no harm at all, even if only by increasing ISO. That would still be better than leaving things underexposed at capture and then brightening in post.

20100311_112219_16_LR.jpg


Here's the original and the version after my adjustments....

20100311_113949_47_LR.jpg


I rarely shoot aircraft, but I do often shoot BIF, and for me it would be a no brainer to use manual exposure, set up for the incident light rather than for the variable reflectivity of the subject. A light plane vs a dark plane will reflect different amounts of light, as will metering off the shadow side vs the sunny side. But in the same lighting the exposures should all be pretty much the same, perhaps optimised slightly to deal with extremes of dynamic range such as the sunny side of a light plane vs the shadow side of a dark plane. I'd set up a manual exposure to hold highlight detail in a light/bright aircraft and then bump the ISO by a stop for the darker ones, bringing it back down again for light aircraft once more. I wouldn't want my exposures thrown off by specular reflections and other lighting anomolies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top