B-17

[Patriot]

I used Takumar lens for this shots on a D7000 body.


The Crowd by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

28mm 3.5 at f5.6 or f8


Memphis Belle by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

Takumar 135mm 2.5 at f5.6


Taxi down the ramp by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

Takumar 200mm 3.5 at f5.6

I included one photo from every Takumar lens that I own at the moment.

any C&C would be welcome so that I might improve.

 

[Trever1t]

Love me some WWII Aircraft. Nice!

 

[timor]

It's a Takumar preset lens, or Super Takumar ?
Pictures are quite crisp.

 

[Patriot]

It's a Takumar preset lens, or Super Takumar ?
Pictures are quite crisp.

The Tak 28mm 3.5 and 135mm 2.5 or both S-M-C while the 200mm 3.5 is the preset. I do have other preset Takumars however, but didn't use them at this moment.

 

[SCraig]

Beautiful, elegant lady. I'd like to see a bit more prop blur in the last, but we can't have everything. Well done!

 

[Patriot]

Beautiful, elegant lady. I'd like to see a bit more prop blur in the last, but we can't have everything. Well done!

It was so bright that I couldn't lower the shutter speed like I would have wanted. I'm looking into getting a ND filter. This plane comes to the city quite often because the pilot that flew it is said to be from this city. Next time it comes back I'll get that blur for you.

 

[SCraig]

It was so bright that I couldn't lower the shutter speed like I would have wanted. I'm looking into getting a ND filter. This plane comes to the city quite often because the pilot that flew it is said to be from this city. Next time it comes back I'll get that blur for you.

Fair enough! I'm looking forward to it.

When I was learning to fly I hung around the airport a lot, and there was a man there who flew B-17's during WWII. Given some of the stories that he told it's amazing any of them survived

 

[KmH]

They look good.

I like the WWII war birds too. The B-17 is one of those airplanes that just looks 'right', and as a result are 'pretty' airplanes.

I had an uncle that restored a North American T-28 Trojan in 1978/1979 and later did a much bigger project, a Martin B-26 Marauder. Once restored, it cost $2000 an hour to fly the B-26 back in 1990. FAA rules prohibited anyone being in the nose when landing or taking off.
It was fun to go up with him in the T-28 and fly 'crooked' (do aerobatics). He taught me how to fly and do some of the basic aerobatics, but I never solo'd.
He also had a Pitt Special and a Cessna 340A.

Did you convert from color, or shoot as monochrome in the D7000?

 

[Patriot]

I like WWII plane also, hopefully I get see more while here. I talked to the locals and it seems that a lot of WWII planes stop by this city. I work at Fairchild AFB fixing the planes so hopefully they let me photograph those kc-135's too. I converted all to B/W since I shoot RAW. I wanted to ride it so badly, but $450 was too expense for a 23 year old. Next time it stops by I'll hope on it. It flew out to Saudi Arabia that day where it is sure to pick up money. No shortage of it there.

 

[amolitor]

They all look kind of dark to me. I think the plane may be a little underexposed to try to keep the sky? But the sky is gone anyways, let it go.

The first shot does nothing for me. It's just a bunch of people standing around. Perhaps if you were on the other side and we could see faces, we'd get more connection with the crowd? As it is, it looks like a picture of an airplane, but there's a bunch of people in the way. I think you wanted the picture to be about the people?

The second one's pretty nice. It's a good detail. I think stepping back a hair, to make it obvious that you wanted the prop in-frame, rather than letting it look like an accident might have improved this one a bit.

The third one is also pretty good. I think a bit of work in post to separate the plane from the background would improve this. Getting the propellor blades separated is going to be tough, but I'd muck around with curves and some burning/dodging to see what could happen. Also, the framing looks a bit accidental again. You've lost hunks of the wings on both sides, and it's not clear that you *meant* to.

In general, all three feel a bit casual, as if you were paying some attention to framing and timing, but not enough. I don't know how attentive you actually were, of course, it's just the way the pictures feel to me.

 

[The_Traveler]

^+1

and why chop off the bottom of the decal in #2?

 

[SCraig]

^+1

and why chop off the bottom of the decal in #2?

They aren't decals. Decals are for models. That is painted on.

The fact that it's clipped off is much like people chopping the tops of heads off in portraits and using the excuse that they were unimportant to the shot.

 

[The_Traveler]

^+1

and why chop off the bottom of the decal in #2?

They aren't decals. Decals are for models. That is painted on.

The fact that it's clipped off is much like people chopping the tops of heads off in portraits and using the excuse that they were unimportant to the shot.

sorry about the 'decal'.

 

[timor]

^+1

and why chop off the bottom of the decal in #2?

They aren't decals. Decals are for models. That is painted on.

sorry about the 'decal'.

It is called a "nose art" I think.

 

[SCraig]

It is called a "nose art" I think.

Except when it isn't on the nose

Most A-10's have "Door Art" because some of the squadron CO's squawked about nose art. The crews started putting them on the inside of the boarding ladder door. The B-2 Spirit has them on the bottom of the airplanes, on the crew access door. The B-1 Lancer (BONE) has them somewhere else to, but I can't remember where.