Diamondback Six Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 That old farce, AGAIN?! :P Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MR BLUE Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Via Wired Edit: I presume in this last photo, the opening aft of the weapons bay, that's where a chaff/flare dispenser goes? I honestly don't mean to shoot down anyone's work, but except for the last pic showing the open door, these seem pretty unremarkable. They look slightly overexposed and lacking in detail, and as far as composition, they are just like any quick point and shoot pics one would see at any airshow. I'm not getting the artsy component that was evident in the Blair Bunting shoot of the Raptor. http://blog.blairbunting.com/f22-raptor/ if that was the intention, nor any shots showing the jets lines to best effect. I'm no great photographer, but I'm just a bit confused at the buildup of the old school tools used for the shoot and the results. Perhaps I was expecting a bit more, even with the time limitation given the shoot setup explanation sounded a little High FooFoo. No harm intended so dont flame me,I just wanted to know how others see it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gregg B Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 That old farce, AGAIN?! :P/>/> Sorry, couldn't resist... :whistle:/> Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I honestly don't mean to shoot down anyone's work, but except for the last pic showing the open door, these seem pretty unremarkable. They look slightly overexposed and lacking in detail, and as far as composition, they are just like any quick point and shoot pics one would see at any airshow. I'm not getting the artsy component that was evident in the Blair Bunting shoot of the Raptor. http://blog.blairbunting.com/f22-raptor/ if that was the intention, nor any shots showing the jets lines to best effect. I'm no great photographer, but I'm just a bit confused at the buildup of the old school tools used for the shoot and the results. Perhaps I was expecting a bit more, even with the time limitation given the shoot setup explanation sounded a little High FooFoo. No harm intended so dont flame me,I just wanted to know how others see it? Agree 100%...I'll even go one further...these pictures look like hammered dog shoot. (I believe that was the intention of the OP) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 I'm just glad someone pointed out it was art. I totally missed that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I honestly don't mean to shoot down anyone's work, but except for the last pic showing the open door, these seem pretty unremarkable. They look slightly overexposed and lacking in detail, and as far as composition, they are just like any quick point and shoot pics one would see at any airshow. I'm not getting the artsy component that was evident in the Blair Bunting shoot of the Raptor. http://blog.blairbun...com/f22-raptor/ if that was the intention, nor any shots showing the jets lines to best effect. I'm no great photographer, but I'm just a bit confused at the buildup of the old school tools used for the shoot and the results. Perhaps I was expecting a bit more, even with the time limitation given the shoot setup explanation sounded a little High FooFoo. No harm intended so dont flame me,I just wanted to know how others see it? Looks like he used a phone camera. And as an amateur photographer myself, I'll be bold and say his supposed composition is really non-existent. I agree on your points as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MacStingy Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Glad I'm not the only one. I wanted to write about this photography yesterday, but I held back (polite Canadian, eh). I saw nothing remarkable about those pics. If they were taken as advertising for a new car, for instance,the client would throw you out on your ear. CheersPaul Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 If they were taken as advertising for a new car, for instance,the client would throw you out on your ear. Maybe that's not the point of his shoot? If you want pictures that make you want to buy a F-35, you can go to the Lockheed flickr site (because - guess what - they want you to buy the F-35). I like some of the picture a lot, particularly this one: It isn't so much about the aircraft itself as being in that location looking at the aircraft. The heat, the silence, the desolation. You'd never want those high-contrast shadows or the post or overlapping equipment on a picture emphasizing the aircraft, but you do if you want to emphasize the aircraft's place. And you don't have distant mountains or structures to ground the image, but instead have the line of shelters wash away into a sort-of infinite airfield. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 The picture just looks like it's over exposed/washed out and taken using 400 speed film.. And showing only part of the a/c in that way makes it look like an amateur/inexperienced photographer's work. Makes it look like something is missing or incomplete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I like em because as Spejic points out, they're not posed. It's Arizona, it's bright, sunny and hot there ... They also appear to be the raw images, no manipulation. -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MusicOn Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Do the weapons doors always hang open when they're parked? Seems like an invitation for a critter to find a home in there... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 The picture just looks like it's over exposed/washed out and taken using 400 speed film.. And showing only part of the a/c in that way makes it look like an amateur/inexperienced photographer's work. Makes it look like something is missing or incomplete. This isn't documentary or advertising photography. Artistry is about emotion. You can't convey the feeling of heat and glare without that exposure, and you can't create the "being in a desert" quality without washing out the distance. If you adjust the image to the "correct" exposure, you will find an ugly concrete barrier and a windowless brick building in the background closing things off when the photographer obviously wanted to open things up. The image becomes flat, losing the feeling that the aircraft is waiting for something. Look at this photograph: It's similar to that F-35 picture in many ways. You only see the "top half" of the subject. You see it from slightly behind. The level of contrast is unconventional. The emphasis is on the structure around the subject and the distant detail is washed out. This would make a terrible school yearbook photo, but unlike a school yearbook photo it is evocative. Not everything should be a school yearbook photo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Maybe that's not the point of his shoot? If you want pictures that make you want to buy a F-35, you can go to the Lockheed flickr site (because - guess what - they want you to buy the F-35). I It isn't so much about the aircraft itself as being in that location looking at the aircraft. The heat, the silence, the desolation. You'd never want those high-contrast shadows or the post or overlapping equipment on a picture emphasizing the aircraft, but you do if you want to emphasize the aircraft's place. And you don't have distant mountains or structures to ground the image, but instead have the line of shelters wash away into a sort-of infinite airfield. I was looking at the fuel truck in the background of one of the shots & trying to determine wheather it was white or nat metal. Luke is an odd place - they have all 180 +/- jets really bunched together (at least from an AF perspective). And having been there TDY many times I never associated the word 'silence' with Luke. Hot, yes. Desolate, not as much as it used to be. Edited June 11, 2015 by Alan in Yorktown Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 Can't agree with the above. I spent a bunch of time at Edwards, and it is a big flat bowl. There is no reason for those pictures to be so washed out. There are plenty of pictures that capture the vast wasteland around the airfield. Some of the best captures the bones of wrecked aircraft with the near infinite desert rolling off into blurriness but not into over washed blinding light. The picture you posted of the child makes this point even more so. The child is in near silhouette. The bright window background is washed out. But in the F-35 shots, the lighting on the jet is already washed out. So of course the desert is a meaningless blur. Sorry, but this is just bad overexposed film based photography. I've seen a lot of it lately scanning in old 35mm slides, and this has the near identical hallmarks of a badly taken film picture when you have no idea how it looks unti it is developed. I'll go one further and suggest the better composure would be like that of the kid in the window...the jet brooding in the relative gloom of the hangar, with the blinding distance, bright yet distinct, rolling off in the heat induced haze. But hey, what do I know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Cartwright Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I have to admit that I wasn't blown away by those photos, especially given all the build up. I tweaked one a little, and came up with this. Maybe not as artistic, but I just think it looks better to my simple tastes. http://www.techflyer.net/ARC/ModdedHasselbladF-35.jpg Here's what I think of as more of an artistic shot, one a friend of mine took: http://www.techflyer.net/ARC/SB-Corsair.jpg Edited June 11, 2015 by Ken Cartwright Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I liked em. They remind me of the "shoe box" photos people come across and post on ARC here. Its "retro" There are tons of highly detailed digital images you can find of F-35s, which I love but there is room from something like this too. They look like pictures I could take! Given my photog skills, This could be construed in a bad way!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ken's tweaked picture works really well from the retro perspective. You could swap his F-35 out for a F-105 picture at Edwards back in the 60s and not bat an eye. I realize what I just did there, BTW. Nomex underwear on... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 What I find most interesting isn't the photography itself, but how polarizing the reactions to it have been. I think that says more about people than it does the photos. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MR BLUE Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 What I found most interesting was also not the pictures, but the focus on the medium format hasselblad camera as opposed to the subject itself. and the mediocre results. I knew a guy who hated digital sound, worshipped vinyl recordings for their warmth, claimed with vinyl analog his gifted ear could tell the diff between zildjian cymbals and Sabian cymbals, zildjians being forged and flash quenched with the secret urine of yaks from tibet which were fed grass sprinkled with urine collected and flown in from the sherpas of nepal precisely at 4:32 in the morning. Seriously, they just look like pics I took back in the late 80s in okinawa of the sr-71 with my first pentax. just proved I was there. But to each his own I guess..from a modelers perspective, detail is king, and...... but anyway loved that last pic, just love all the other pics you post much more Trigger. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sarathi S. Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 What I found most interesting was also not the pictures, but the focus on the medium format hasselblad camera as opposed to the subject itself. and the mediocre results. I knew a guy who hated digital sound, worshipped vinyl recordings for their warmth, claimed with vinyl analog his gifted ear could tell the diff between zildjian cymbals and Sabian cymbals, zildjians being forged and flash quenched with the secret urine of yaks from tibet which were fed grass sprinkled with urine collected and flown in from the sherpas of nepal precisely at 4:32 in the morning. :rolleyes:/> Seriously, they just look like pics I took back in the late 80s in okinawa of the sr-71 with my first pentax. just proved I was there. But to each his own I guess..from a modelers perspective, detail is king, and...... but anyway loved that last pic, just love all the other pics you post much more Trigger. Hey too be fair Zildjian cymbals are AWESOME. Although I'm pretty sure they're forged in Turkey, not the Himalayas. XD Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Hey too be fair Zildjian cymbals are AWESOME. Although I'm pretty sure they're forged in Turkey, not the Himalayas. XD Norwell Massachusetts actually...my cousin used to live down the street from their plant/shop. Though they do certainly trace their history to 17th century Turkey. The alloys and manufacturing process is indeed a closely held family secret...who knows, maybe yak urine is involved! B) Edited June 13, 2015 by 82Whitey51 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-06-12/lockheed-martin-follows-blueprint-drive-down-f-35-costs Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Norwell Massachusetts actually...my cousin used to live down the street from their plant/shop. Though they do certainly trace their history to 17th century Turkey. Funny, I met one of the Zildjian sons back when I was a kid (Andy?). Seemed like a pretty good guy. Nice spread they had in Norwell, I drive by their factory on my way to work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2015-06-12/lockheed-martin-follows-blueprint-drive-down-f-35-costs So, invest more $$$ in a program we're already paying up the wazoo for to make it cheaper? Brilliant! -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 So, invest more $$$ in a program we're already paying up the wazoo for to make it cheaper? Brilliant! -Gregg http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1605 Thats ok man. I have a hard time comprehending net savings and long term investment too 1. complain about cost 2. complain about cost reduction measures Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.