Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Transportation 
Thread started 20 Jan 2010 (Wednesday) 01:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

AUSSIE C130's

 
macca172
Senior Member
Avatar
267 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 20, 2010 01:07 |  #1

Aussie Air Force C130J and a C130H doing laps around my place this afternoon.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon 5D MkII, 50D and 400D with Grip: Canon 70-200 2.8L: Sigma 120-400: Tamron 18-200and a few others!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
RadAL
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,633 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Spanish Fort, AL
     
Jan 20, 2010 01:14 |  #2

*before all the slow your shutter speed comments*

Omfg, I hope they got all the Engines going again, did they crash? lol


Equipment: Canon PowerShot A650IS (semi retired) and Canon Powershot G10 (primary) and Rebel XT 350D w/18-55mm kit lens and Quanterey 18-200mm-- www.youtube.com/alexan​der1485 (external link) (has links to some of my pictures on the main page)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macca172
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
267 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 20, 2010 01:21 |  #3

The Aussie's have been operating C130's since 1958. They were the first country outside the USA to have them...A,E,H and J models! They have never lost one yet.


Canon 5D MkII, 50D and 400D with Grip: Canon 70-200 2.8L: Sigma 120-400: Tamron 18-200and a few others!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelbasher
Goldmember
Avatar
1,827 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lake Macquarie, AUS
     
Jan 20, 2010 01:28 as a reply to  @ macca172's post |  #4

I think he's taking the piss macca ;)

Radal, really,how much prop blur do you want? Surely the first one has enough?


50D. 7D. 24-105L. 100-400L. 135L. 50 1.8 Sigma 8-16
flickr

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 150
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Jan 20, 2010 01:33 |  #5

Exposures look pretty good but I'm guessing there's some pretty significant cropping being done here maybe? 50% ?

For the shutter speed used to get this result (again guessing but I'd wager around 1/500 or maybe even 1/750) I'd expect the overall image to be sharper.

I'd call the amount of blur on the low end of acceptable. It's not the be all and end all but if your going to come even close to freezing the props, at least get the airframes sharp.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Desertraptor
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,550 posts
Gallery: 212 photos
Likes: 388
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia
     
Jan 20, 2010 01:34 |  #6

I take my Herc shots at 1/200th front on but side on like these this speed isn't too bad


Peter
Canon 6D|60D|40D
Lens 10-22mm f2.8|50mm f 1.8|100mm f2.8 Macro

24-70mm f2.8|L100-400mm f4.5-5.6L
Flash 430EX II
Telescope Skywatcher 600mm ED80 f7.5 GEM EQ3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RadAL
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,633 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Spanish Fort, AL
     
Jan 20, 2010 01:41 |  #7

yes, I was kind of joking...


Equipment: Canon PowerShot A650IS (semi retired) and Canon Powershot G10 (primary) and Rebel XT 350D w/18-55mm kit lens and Quanterey 18-200mm-- www.youtube.com/alexan​der1485 (external link) (has links to some of my pictures on the main page)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macca172
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
267 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 20, 2010 02:11 |  #8

Radal, Its ok mate I took it as a joke, no probs at all, my reply was purely for educational purposes only.
FlyingPhotog, Great advice and yes crop was roughly 50%. They(both aircraft) were approx 3/4 mile abeam my place and hence the aircraft took up roughly only 15% of the whole frame.
The J Model was taken at TV400, F13, ISO400 and EV +1/3. The H model was taken at TV640, F11 ISO400 and again EV+1/3. Sigma 120-400mm lens.


Canon 5D MkII, 50D and 400D with Grip: Canon 70-200 2.8L: Sigma 120-400: Tamron 18-200and a few others!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RadAL
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,633 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Spanish Fort, AL
     
Jan 20, 2010 02:29 |  #9

thanks, hope you show more in the future.


Equipment: Canon PowerShot A650IS (semi retired) and Canon Powershot G10 (primary) and Rebel XT 350D w/18-55mm kit lens and Quanterey 18-200mm-- www.youtube.com/alexan​der1485 (external link) (has links to some of my pictures on the main page)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
75,941 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2576
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Jan 20, 2010 09:07 |  #10

These are acceptable 'grab shots' shooting from a less than ideal distance, but we always try to push the limits, don't we? That's how we get better at anything, so...

Radal, really,how much prop blur do you want? Surely the first one has enough?

"Want" vs. need vs. reality... tough question! First, a given speed of 1/200 sec will give a different amount of apparent blur depending on the angle you are to the AC, if all other things are equal (RPMs, etc.) In profile shots you get the least amount of apparent blur, so you have to at least try a bit harder which it doesn't look like you took the time to do.
Why do I say that? If you had shot at even 1/200, I'd think, "The guy gave it a try, & that's the best you can do." And because...

doing laps around my place this afternoon.

This says to me that you had a lot of time to set your exposure. But here's the EXIF from #1:

# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/400 second ===> 0.0025 second
# Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 13/1 ===> ƒ/13
# Exposure Program = shutter priority (4)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 400
# Focal Length = 400/1 mm ===> 400 mm

1/400 second is logical shooting a 400mm focal length, so I won't pick on that, this time.
f/13 is not. There's no need for that much DOF. See the DOF calculator at the bottom.
Depth of field and aperture selection question.
ISO 400 isn't necessary either. You had sunlight, & by lowering the f-stop, you could have used ISO 100.

Now look at the EXIF from the second shot:
# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/640 second ===> 0.00156 second
# Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 11/1 ===> ƒ/11
# Exposure Program = shutter priority (4)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 400

1/640 sec? Did the engine RPMs change that much? You changed the aperture to f/11 knowing(?) that that would increase the shutter speed, so it looks to me as if you were just pulling numbers out of your hat without considering the consequences. ;)

I don't always succeed either, but at least I do try to get an acceptable blur, knowing that it's probably not going to be anywhere near what the AC pros will get in the same shot. There's a lot of black magic involved in shooting prop jobs & one set of settings won't always work for the same aircraft even 30 seconds later. Experience makes a difference. An example would be in the pattern vs. landing with the throttles back, or climbing vs. diving. Experience makes a difference as well as reading other peoples experiences.
See the links in: Shooting airshows in Manual


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SMBPhotography
Senior Member
Avatar
521 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 20, 2010 10:59 as a reply to  @ PhotosGuy's post |  #11

Those bring back alot of memories from living on a base where they were stationed.


Steve
Gripped 30D, Gripped 7D, G9, 24-70L F2.8, 100-400L F4.5-5.6, 50mm 1.8, 18-135mm 3.5-4.6, 430EXII and a whole bunch of other stuff.
I'm no Jay Beckman but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snails
"I used the last of it to tip the strippers."
Avatar
1,517 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
     
Jan 20, 2010 11:44 |  #12

That 43-year old design is still pretty.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelbasher
Goldmember
Avatar
1,827 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lake Macquarie, AUS
     
Jan 21, 2010 05:17 as a reply to  @ snails's post |  #13

Hey photosguy, your quoting of two comments suggests the same person asked them. I didn't take the shots, I was merely the one questioning just how much blur is enough to stop the comments about frozen props!

As far as I'm concerned, and my point was, as long as they aint frozen solid, then surely that's enough? Sure, a perfect circle seems to be the ultimate challenge, but how many of us "norms" can consistanly shoot moving aircraft at 100th or less? I agree of course though, it is always better to push yourself to improve, that goes in any aspect of life. But if you don't see them that often, why risk getting nothing useable at 100th when you can grab a keeper at 400th, albeit with only a smidge of prop blur of course.

And not to sound rude to macca, but imho the prop blur isn't really the top C&C issue in these shots, I'd say it's more the big crop combined with 400 ISO
I was watching some hornets two days ago doing simulated bombing/strafing runs a couple of KM from the road, but I didn't even pull the camera out as they would have been just a little dot in the picture I would have had to crop the heck out of. Maybe I should have..... At least nobody would have niggled me about the prop blur on them! :lol:

Still, I do love hercs, so thanks for posting them Macca.


50D. 7D. 24-105L. 100-400L. 135L. 50 1.8 Sigma 8-16
flickr

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
macca172
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
267 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 21, 2010 09:00 |  #14

To blur or not to blur..surely that is the individuals choice?


Canon 5D MkII, 50D and 400D with Grip: Canon 70-200 2.8L: Sigma 120-400: Tamron 18-200and a few others!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelbasher
Goldmember
Avatar
1,827 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lake Macquarie, AUS
     
Jan 21, 2010 09:26 as a reply to  @ macca172's post |  #15

definately, but to be totally honest, more does look better than less.

IMHO the amount on your first one at 400th looks fine to me, you can see they are turning, so it doesn't look like it's going to fall out of the sky. The second one doesn't have as much, but once again, you know they are turning in the pic.

This is one reason I like taking RC model plane shots, I can shoot at 1/1000 and still blur the props into non existance :lol:


50D. 7D. 24-105L. 100-400L. 135L. 50 1.8 Sigma 8-16
flickr

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,857 views & 0 likes for this thread
AUSSIE C130's
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Transportation 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is zev
884 guests, 329 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.