Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

[RAD2LTR]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

I agree -- more nice work here, Connor. You got really lucky with the light for most of these -- nice light on the pilots themselves -- so often they are in shadow and end up as black blobs. That is a great angle in that first shot of Race 44 -- that's a really muscular photograph.

I personally really like the closer look at these airplanes. The Biplanes and formulas are so small that it's easy to present them as toys flying around in a great big sky off in the distance. In fact they are very serious flying machines, and they are racing. I've always tried to present them as such. I want the viewer of my photos to take the machines and the men seriously.

So the question here is, Connor and Will, do YOU like doing some of your work this way? Do you like what you are getting after cropping better than what you were seeing after Reno in your first pass through your shoot?

Does it bother you to cut off wings and tails? There certainly are many who prefer a whole airplane, but I just don't care much about wings. Everything that really interests me visually is between spinner and tail -- the pilot,the engine, the prop -- and I want to see how it all works.

Thanks for showing these, Connor.

Neal

Sometimes I like the close crops, but I, as you have noticed, tend to go for the full aircraft. That said, I do my best to get the aircraft to fill the frame when I shoot. Still, in doing that, its hard to get the pylon, or another aircraft in the same frame. It really depends where I was on the course shooting the shot. I do agree the bipes and IF1s can get lost in the sky, so I end up cropping down to where the plane fills the frame, but even at 500mm the image can start getting small. I do like the close up cockpit shots, but when they come at the expense of image size to the point I can't print 20x30 without having image degradation, I don't bother.

Since I now have a 300 F2.8VRII and the 500 F4E with a TC14III and TC20III, I might try some shots at 600+mm and see how I do.

Will

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

Very very little of what I've shot over the years would print 20x30 without degradation. Who cares? Nobody is beating down my doors to buy 20x30 prints, so what does it matter? A great image is a great image no matter what the format. I certainly never paid any attention to trying to fill the frame in camera -- that's what the cropping tool is for. The final image in the final usage is what matters -- not some arbitrary definition of quality that I've dreamed up.

My orientation is different, though. From the beginning I was shooting with publication in mind. Shooting for magazines and books makes it hard to be a purist about this stuff. If you need a picture for the job great is wonderful, but good enough is good enough too. With 125 airplanes on site it is hard to be comprehensive and interesting in your coverage -- you need to do what you need to do.

I also am very willing to crop much deeper for web images than I would be for exhibition purposes. The web image is pretty small visually and you need different content and emphasis to make it work on screen...

Neal

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

For Nikon Photogeeks, this is copied from a thread on another site, but I thought it relevant to these equipment discussions.
The thing for me about the exotics like Connor's 200-400 or Will's 500mm is that they are huge, and they are very front heavy. I'm not strong or athletic and the big lenses are just too much for me to use all day. The 300mm F2.8 is different, though:


"This modern equipment was really pretty mindblowing. I had for years been using a 300mm F4 with TC-14 with great success (as in the first post). The F4 could not AF well enough with a TC-17 though, and I really wanted to try something longer. I had used borrowed 300 F2.8s and liked them, but never been willing to spring for one for once a year use. At first NPS was not bringing 300s to Reno because every body but me wanted the exotics. I had borrowed a 200-400 and a 400 F2.8 before from NPS and hated them -- so heavy and so front heavy that they were unusable for me for any length of time. I got the NPS guys to start bringing a 300mm F2.8 or 2 and immediately popped a TC-17E on one, and got this (and many more almost as good). With equipment like this the stars line up a lot more often than when you're shooting Kodachrome 64 with a manual focus 300 F4.5 and your subjects are going 350 mph. I don't think the guys handholding 500mm F4 lenses were getting much better than this, and I could hand hold my 500mm combination all day. The second image is a 100% crop.

The golden hue is actually the reflection of the sunlit desert below. You can actually see a smidgen of horizon at the nose. This image is backlit, with the desert providing this beautiful fill light. The highly polished metal surface helps too. The stars lined up that day."

Neal

[RAD2LTR]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

Most of my stuff I've shot with either my 200-500 F5.6 or last year, the 500PF. I didn't get the exotic stuff till around christmas of last year. The 500 F4E is actually much lighter than the predecessor, and its well balanced with a D850 with a grip on it. it will still be a workout to shoot with. I actually had no intention of buying the 500 F4, but for some reason, the minimum possible bid on ebay won it. I was the only bidder. I threw the bid up simply because it was too cheap not to. The 500 is a beast however, but I think I'll like it a lot more than the 500PF. That was just too small ergonomically for me, and I found the wind would catch the lens hood and buffet the camera around. When shooting less than 1/100, a little wind can really ruin a shot. I bought the 300 F2.8 for a smoking deal as well. The thought there was, its a 300 F2.8, or a 420 F4, or a 600 F5.6 with the TC20III on it. I was ready to call that good and just be content with that. At worst, it would be as sharp as the 200-500, but likely better, and the 200-500 has proven to be a remarkable lens for the price. I'm excited to try both at Reno, but I bet I mostly shoot the 300 with some TC on it as its stupid sharp, and heavy enough but not too heavy.

As far as cropping, that is the beauty of digital. I can create a copy of the original RAW image and crop the hell out of it if I want. Typically, I process the large image and never go back and crop it down as I have better things to do. Nope I don't have anyone beating down my door for a copy either, but should someone decide to, at least I have the original RAW copy saved.

Will

[RAD2LTR]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued















I had lots of eye contact at PRS last year.

Will

[CJAM427]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

I agree -- more nice work here, Connor. You got really lucky with the light for most of these -- nice light on the pilots themselves -- so often they are in shadow and end up as black blobs. That is a great angle in that first shot of Race 44 -- that's a really muscular photograph.

I personally really like the closer look at these airplanes. The Biplanes and formulas are so small that it's easy to present them as toys flying around in a great big sky off in the distance. In fact they are very serious flying machines, and they are racing. I've always tried to present them as such. I want the viewer of my photos to take the machines and the men seriously.

So the question here is, Connor and Will, do YOU like doing some of your work this way? Do you like what you are getting after cropping better than what you were seeing after Reno in your first pass through your shoot?

Does it bother you to cut off wings and tails? There certainly are many who prefer a whole airplane, but I just don't care much about wings. Everything that really interests me visually is between spinner and tail -- the pilot,the engine, the prop -- and I want to see how it all works.

Thanks for showing these, Connor.

Neal

Thanks Neal!

Without your encouragement I'm not sure I would have gone through to crop that closely. I have found myself as of late going for more photos of the whole airplane. For my day job I shoot for magazines where that's what most of the viewers want to see. I do like to go after the closeup shots like this after I have my bases covered. I didn't feel that way at the event though which is why I didn't do it naturally. Like you said though modern digital cameras give you more than ample room to crop in post.

It's a good point about biplanes and F1s, the closeup photos definitely seem to raise the intensity level.

[CJAM427]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

For Nikon Photogeeks, this is copied from a thread on another site, but I thought it relevant to these equipment discussions.
The thing for me about the exotics like Connor's 200-400 or Will's 500mm is that they are huge, and they are very front heavy. I'm not strong or athletic and the big lenses are just too much for me to use all day. The 300mm F2.8 is different, though:


"This modern equipment was really pretty mindblowing. I had for years been using a 300mm F4 with TC-14 with great success (as in the first post). The F4 could not AF well enough with a TC-17 though, and I really wanted to try something longer. I had used borrowed 300 F2.8s and liked them, but never been willing to spring for one for once a year use. At first NPS was not bringing 300s to Reno because every body but me wanted the exotics. I had borrowed a 200-400 and a 400 F2.8 before from NPS and hated them -- so heavy and so front heavy that they were unusable for me for any length of time. I got the NPS guys to start bringing a 300mm F2.8 or 2 and immediately popped a TC-17E on one, and got this (and many more almost as good). With equipment like this the stars line up a lot more often than when you're shooting Kodachrome 64 with a manual focus 300 F4.5 and your subjects are going 350 mph. I don't think the guys handholding 500mm F4 lenses were getting much better than this, and I could hand hold my 500mm combination all day. The second image is a 100% crop.

The golden hue is actually the reflection of the sunlit desert below. You can actually see a smidgen of horizon at the nose. This image is backlit, with the desert providing this beautiful fill light. The highly polished metal surface helps too. The stars lined up that day."

Neal

Using the 200-400 really was not a great setup for me. It's a really sharp lens but the weight is not ideal for the rapid motion of panning at the pylons. I really wanted to use the new 100-400 for the Mirrorless cameras but the rental company I use didn't have one available. It sounds like your 300mm setup with the TC was great.

[CJAM427]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

A couple more...

CM4_2985-Edit by Connor Madison, on Flickr

CM4_3005-Edit by Connor Madison, on Flickr

CM4_3203-Edit-3 by Connor Madison, on Flickr

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

That Mustang shot is really pretty. I like the ground reflection in the polished metal. These are certainly seriously sharp -- that lens is serving you well, though as you point out it is not only heavy but is heavy in inconvenient places. A lot of mass out there beyond your left hand.

You did a nice job of opening up the shadow side of the backlit airplane. Can the sky brightness be pulled down at all? On my screen it is mostly bright white but in the Flikr version I can see some tone. Just a bit of tone would make a lot of difference if it can be done without affecting the rest of the image too much.

Neal

[T. Adams]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

Eye contact? Well that is what I was hoping for, but instead of looking at the pylon, Lee Oman is looking back over his shoulder!! Not cropped, Neal knows how I feel about cropping.

[RAD2LTR]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

Eye contact? Well that is what I was hoping for, but instead of looking at the pylon, Lee Oman is looking back over his shoulder!! Not cropped, Neal knows how I feel about cropping.

Awesome shot. I got one similar. I think this sort of stuff is far more interesting than simply looking at the pylon since it shows they are racing hard. Pylon awareness is one thing, pylon awareness and close competitor awareness takes it to another level.

[ZacYates]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

Agreed - that is a very, very cool photo!!

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

Eye contact? Well that is what I was hoping for, but instead of looking at the pylon, Lee Oman is looking back over his shoulder!! Not cropped, Neal knows how I feel about cropping.

Great photo, Tim, and a great moment captured. Somehow it doesn't surprise me to have Lee Oman in a moment like this -- he is quite the character. Lee has a long aviation history and was involved years ago in a famous situation where he fell off the wing of a Stearman while wingwalking. He spent a very unpleasant half hour dangling at the end of his safety cable 40 feet beneath the airplane at 80 mph before Bud Granley figured out a way to save Lee's life. Some remarkable folks up there in the Pacific Northwest.

I wish I could fill the frame regularly out on the pylons. I admire your discipline. It pays off.

Neal

[wingman]

Re: Eye contact, and pylon photography -- continued

Awesome shot. I got one similar. I think this sort of stuff is far more interesting than simply looking at the pylon since it shows they are racing hard. Pylon awareness is one thing, pylon awareness and close competitor awareness takes it to another level.

I totally agree. I've been working a bit with the T-6 Gold Racers in my archives and will do a thread on the great racers and great battles from the late 90s to 2010 or so. That was the era of Al Goss, Nick Macy, Dennis Buehn, and Mary Dilda, with a bit of Dwelle, Campau, and others. That first four especially had epic battles year after year. All people we knew, too, which helps the photography.

These two were actually mid Gold in 1998 (Jack Frost won that year in the airplane Sherman Smoot won in a couple years before). But they were racing hard. They finished 1/2 second apart.

Neal