Thankfully, yes... my absence is entirely due to good things. Throughout the last two years, Daniela and I have quietly reexamined all of our priorities and major decisions in life; and though we're generally very happy with our choices, we've decided to modify a few large ones and that's caused a lot of work. I also completely reinvented the nature of my work early last year, and have been at a full gallop since then trying to make it a living, breathing reality as soon as possible.
I'll cheerfully admit that I miss my photography, and my flying, quite deeply. Heck, I've had to take up chess as a hobby just because I need to relax like everyone else, and I'm simply not wired to have hobbies like TV... I want to be learning something always. But in the end, those are all first-world problems. I'm starting every day with the most important things and working down from there, and I get as far as I can. So I'll come back to photography and I'll come back to flying as soon as I can, and as much as I can, but I'm certainly not complaining!
I also never lose hope or silly optimism. I have the Fort Lauderdale Airshow on my calendar, for example.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
That being said, I took a look at the two images in question here; and while I'm certainly not one of the most experienced shooters around here, I am at least old enough to have developed an opinion on nearly anything.
I would classify the two finished images you posted as "digital art" rather than photography. It is abundantly clear to any but the most untrained eye that the airframes have been digitally placed onto completely different backgrounds. The small pools of light below the fuselage help to underscore this effect, since those would never exist in real life. Now, if this was the effect you are going for, it was the kind of image you promised the client, and the client liked it, then hey… I have nothing against digital art.
Now let me switch gears into photography. To me, perhaps the single most defining characteristic of a photograph is that it looks realistic; and based on that metric, I'm not fond of these two images at all. The effect is so dramatic and so exaggerated that the realism is largely lost. The post-processing work done on these images is also very aggressive… which is a personal choice, but again one with which I disagree because it tends to reduce the realism of the image even further. The whites are too white, the contrast is pushed too far, and so on. These images would improve a great deal with an injection of subtlety....Show more →
Thank you Rodolfo for your comments and critique, I appreciate it very much. The client loved both of the images (different clients, I might ad) and were happy with the results. I completely understand your point of view, or at least I think I do, and I agree with you about the photos ending up as "digital art". I will say this concerning your comments, there are a lot of "purists" on this forum, I get that. A friend of mine being one of them. Yet, my clients are not "into" airplane photography the way most of us on this forum are. They just want a gorgeous image and don't really care how it happens. They want the plane to stand out from a very crowded and sometimes very boring field.........I see both sides of this equation quite often.
On the other hand, I can't see why anyone would put up a shot of a G-650 for example, with a hangar in the background, a tug, at car, etc...behind it and then place that photograph in AvBuyer magazine, either.
I do appreciate your comments and welcome others to chime in.........the more we can all learn, the better.
Yes, Jim, thanks! I do miss y'all but one does what one can. Big hug from the tropics!
To underscore the point, and out of respect for the TOPP tradition, here's a SOOC (Straight Out Of Cellphone) unretouched image from a recent Sunday dinner with the family. We'd love to have any of y'all as our guests if you're visiting...
Jay, I don't know what to tell you from here so don't take my absence from this discussion as a slight. As I said, my clients have come to trust that following my suggestions results in the finished product they desire, so they comply in most cases. When someone is ponying up five to fifteen thousand dollars for a photographic shoot they have considerable skin in the game and want the results to justify the expenditure. I've yet to find an airport where there are zero locations that provide at least a reasonable clean setting, and many have a beautiful skyline.
This community is filled with, firstly, wonderful people who are willing to share just about anything that they know about the craft we all love so much. Secondly, the talent pool here is rich and deep and each member of this group has the toughest critic around, themselves. Interestingly, unlike just about everywhere else on the web, you'll not find nasty, self serving dialogue that is largely meant to drive people under their beds or to eBay to sell their gear, on the other hand everyone here has a significant life outside of MA2A, so it is not a webinar. The knowledge is here, in spades, Glenn Watson arrived here a few years ago with a prosumer level kit with a couple of lenses, obviously a ton of talent and motivation hidden in his pocket, and the student has become the teacher. That is the story here, it's not for everyone, but we've found it to be a wonderful place.
You, by your own admission, have indicated that you have a style that is in demand and your subjects have numerous logistical and lighting challenges so you have developed that style and it pleases your clients, so take the cookies when they're passed and keep on with what you're doing. Short of working with someone in the field of aviation photography to learn new techniques that you may or may not want to incorporate into your work flow, and understandably most at the upper levels of the industry don't really want to give anyone the keys to the kingdom. I honestly don't know what else to advise you to do but continue and if you're busy and the cards and letters are coming in, be happy.
Would love to kick back on that beach with you for a couple of days! Would probably do wonders for my blood pressure! All the MA2A best to you and yours!
We had a “set subject” competition in our camera club. Subject was “Interiors”. I try hard to show stuff that is a little different. I did OK, and scored 10/10 with a print of the Potting Shed image I put up on here about a year ago. Lots of folks happy to see it – so mission accomplished!
I got an email from an old buddy who I know from our time living in the north east of England. He is an active and committed member of my old camera club (Alnwick). Gerry has MS, is wheel chair confined, and has recently been through a very rough time. So when he asked for help in finding some judges for an upcoming – remotely judged - competition at my old club, I was keen to oblige. Turned out that one of the names I put forward very swiftly replied and was delighted to accept the judging invitation. Walter Benzie is a very personable and approachable guy and a good competition judge IMHO. Walter is also the current President of the Royal Photographic Society! So Gerry is well pleased.
Here in the UK, the Royal Photographic Society offer members the opportunity to submit some of their work for assessment with a view to being awarded a distinction and the privilege of using the distinction after their name. There are three levels and the assessment requirements and standards are tough. Last Tuesday, one of the club members of my camera club (Havant) gave a presentation that included his panel of fifteen prints that he will have assessed for a second level distinction (ARPS), in a few weeks time. It was a pleasure to help Alan “on the night” ,with simple tasks – fetching and carrying, putting prints on the stand and so on. The prints where all B&W and the subject was small church interiors – mainly details – rather than complete views. IMHO the quality of the work was wonderful, and I should be very surprised if the assessment is not positive. The subject mater and it’s portrayal is in no way unusual, difficult to understand, or extreme in it’s treatment or presentation. Imagine my surprise then, when Alan related how there was real difficulty at his pre-assessment event, in placing his panel in the correct category. Apparently the RPS have got their underwear in a real twist with trying to accommodate “alternative” forms of “photography”. Alan’s gentle, quiet, and powerful B&W prints of (old) English church interiors ended up in the Contemporary and Conceptual category. The mind boggles!
As we have discussed before Nick, there is no way to figure those things out. Subconsciously, I think that's why I have stayed away from competitions. When I'm asked to be a judge, I'm extremely cautious not to be, um, well polite company dictates that I remain lost for the word
Great news gang, been on a new regimen since Saturday and this morning I'm 122/80, and haven't grown a third thumb or anything so I'm feeling better about all of this.
In reading the comments about Jay's jet pics I would have to say I agree with all of you guys...Jay included.
It seems to me that Jay has developed a niche in the jet selling market. His photos go in those glossy Corporate jet's for sale magazines that we see scattered about the FBO tables. I liken those to the Sears catalog (no offense Jay) of airplane photo books. And he's right...99% of people in that industry don't need a high art photo spread of the outside of the aircraft. I have seen Jay's interior photos and they are well done and convey to the prospective buyer all that they need to see, enough to get them to look into it further.
Are Jay's exteriors high art? No, but he's making a living with a camera and a computer...flying all over the place, hanging out at airports....I'd trade him my 10x10 office and 4x6 desk @ 8-5 , M-F for that "work" environment any time!
DanNehmer wrote:
Say, does anyone of this brain trust remember if the USS Lexington was stationed in Pensacola, FL for a while? I have a memory in my youth of touring an aircraft carrier in the 1978-1980 time frame in Pensacola and thought it was the USS Lexington. Now I see she is a museum ship in TX. Would be nice to know either my memory is still good or I need to find new marbles!
Thanks,
Dan
Dan ....I was going through Flight School down there in 78-79.....the "Lady Lex" was homeported in Pensacola during that time all the way up until 1984 when I went back there as an Instructor pilot. She eventually was sent elsewhere (overhaul and scrapped) and the Student Naval Aviators started carrier quals on regular Fleet boats.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Lord, Jan-Arie, what you could do if they'd let you bring a ladder up a little closer to that fence. Beautiful as always.
Shooter, what's this about blood pressure? You OK?
Rodolfo, welcome back! I don't think we've heard from you since the week before you and your family were scheduled to meet Pope Francis. We've been waiting for an update!
