Fighter planes pictures

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jankins, Sep 18, 2003.

  1. Jankins

    Jankins Guest

    Jankins, Sep 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jankins

    Zol. Guest

    Planes3.jpg - is probably the better of the 3 - there`s a lot of horrible
    image artifacts in the sky - maybe to do with compression when you saved the
    images - minimum I usually go for when compressing is 70% Normal or 30%
    compression - do you have the original on-line? Zol.

    " Jankins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.emscoelectric.com/~androidinal/planes/
    >
    > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    >
    > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed. .
    > ..
    >
    > Dan
    >
    >
     
    Zol., Sep 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jankins

    PiZzazZ Guest

    Be careful of taking picutres of an airebase with a long zoom. I would not
    be surprised if someone questions your motivation.

    You would be better off to shoot some birds or wildlife. With regard to the
    pictures themselves, there are a lot of shakes in them.

    " Jankins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.emscoelectric.com/~androidinal/planes/
    >
    > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    >
    > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed. .
    > ..
    >
    > Dan
    >
    >
     
    PiZzazZ, Sep 18, 2003
    #3
  4. Jankins

    RustY© Guest

    " Jankins" <> wrote

    > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    >
    > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed. .


    Well it certainly looks hazy. The shots with this lens would normally show
    those unit badges on the tail quite clearly and the colours are not quite
    right these planes are a few shades lighter than this. Looks a good spot
    for number crunchers though - where is SL ?

    --
    For Welsh Military Flying visit .......
    www.groups.yahoo.com/group/V-A-S/
     
    RustY©, Sep 18, 2003
    #4
  5. Jankins

    FOR7b Guest

    >Be careful of taking picutres of an airebase with a long zoom. I would not
    >be surprised if someone questions your motivation.
    >


    Or if you get arrested.


    >You would be better off to shoot some birds or wildlife. With regard to the
    >pictures themselves, there are a lot of shakes in them.




     
    FOR7b, Sep 18, 2003
    #5
  6. Jankins

    Jay Beckman Guest

    "RustY©" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > " Jankins" <> wrote
    >
    > > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    > >
    > > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed.

    ..
    >
    > Well it certainly looks hazy. The shots with this lens would normally

    show
    > those unit badges on the tail quite clearly and the colours are not quite
    > right these planes are a few shades lighter than this. Looks a good spot
    > for number crunchers though - where is SL ?
    >
    > --
    > For Welsh Military Flying visit .......
    > www.groups.yahoo.com/group/V-A-S/
    >
    >


    Not "SL" but rather "SJ" = Seymour/Johnson AFB...Goldsboro, NC

    Probably TDY to get away from Hurricane Isabell...

    :eek:)
     
    Jay Beckman, Sep 18, 2003
    #6
  7. Jankins

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > http://www.emscoelectric.com/~androidinal/planes/
    >
    > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    >
    > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed. .
    > ..
    >
    > Dan


    Very hazy, very bad quality especially with an L lens. Also, please
    reduce the pixel dimensions of your images rather than compressing the
    hell outta them before uploading to the web. If you resize your 10D
    images to 25%, you will get files that are 768x512, perfect size for the
    web. This will allow you to use light compression and still get good
    file sizes while at the same time allowing the viewer to see the whole
    picture on their screen rather than having to scroll around.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Sep 18, 2003
    #7
  8. Jankins

    BudMan Guest

    Langley AFB??
    " Jankins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.emscoelectric.com/~androidinal/planes/
    >
    > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    >
    > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed. .
    > ..
    >
    > Dan
    >
    >
     
    BudMan, Sep 18, 2003
    #8
  9. Jankins

    Frank ess Guest

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, says...
    > > http://www.emscoelectric.com/~androidinal/planes/
    > >
    > > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    > >
    > > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed.

    ..
    > > ..
    > >
    > > Dan

    >
    > Very hazy, very bad quality especially with an L lens. Also, please
    > reduce the pixel dimensions of your images rather than compressing the
    > hell outta them before uploading to the web. If you resize your 10D
    > images to 25%, you will get files that are 768x512, perfect size for the
    > web. This will allow you to use light compression and still get good
    > file sizes while at the same time allowing the viewer to see the whole
    > picture on their screen rather than having to scroll around.
    >


    Todd, what do you mean by "good" file sizes?

    Thank you,

    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Sep 18, 2003
    #9
  10. Jankins

    Todd Walker Guest

    Todd Walker, Sep 18, 2003
    #10
  11. Jankins

    Just Me Guest

    "BudMan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Langley AFB??
    > " Jankins" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://www.emscoelectric.com/~androidinal/planes/
    > >
    > > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    > >
    > > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed. .
    > > ..
    > >
    > > Dan
    > >
    > >

    >
    >


    Damned lot of very poor pictures from an expensive camera and lens combo. Scrap
    it and pick up a good throw away point and shoot.
     
    Just Me, Sep 19, 2003
    #11
  12. >Damned lot of very poor pictures from an expensive camera and lens combo. Scrap
    >it and pick up a good throw away point and shoot.


    He was hand-shooting a long zoom on a hazy day. the pics would
    probably have been a lot better if he was using a tripod.
     
    Paul Fedorenko, Sep 19, 2003
    #12
  13. Jankins

    Jankins Guest

    They'd also be a lot better if I had uploaded the original files, didn't
    compress them, didn't enlarge them, and was trying to win a photography
    contest.

    I only uploaded because it was pretty damn cool to see hundreds of fighters
    lined up on a runway like they are. . .

    Geesh - didn't know I had to win a photography contest to share pictures. .
    ..

    Dan


    "Paul Fedorenko" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >Damned lot of very poor pictures from an expensive camera and lens combo.

    Scrap
    > >it and pick up a good throw away point and shoot.

    >
    > He was hand-shooting a long zoom on a hazy day. the pics would
    > probably have been a lot better if he was using a tripod.
     
    Jankins, Sep 19, 2003
    #13
  14. Jankins

    EF in FL Guest

    > Geesh - didn't know I had to win a photography contest to share pictures.
    ..
    > .


    Well this IS a photography minded newsgroup. Those pics are cool, and might
    go over well on a fighter jet newsgroup, but they aren't especially good
    photography. Sorry.

    EF
     
    EF in FL, Sep 19, 2003
    #14
  15. Jankins

    Spam Blocked Guest

    " Jankins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.emscoelectric.com/~androidinal/planes/
    >
    > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    >
    > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed. .
    > ..
    >

    http://tinyurl.com/myaw This is what fighters should look like, same camera
    and lens
     
    Spam Blocked, Sep 19, 2003
    #15
  16. Jankins

    dragon1964 Guest

    That is a "shitload" of jets.....hazy and grainy as you stated...but did I
    mention that is a "shitload" of planes!!!
    mms


    " Jankins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.emscoelectric.com/~androidinal/planes/
    >
    > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    >
    > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed. .
    > ..
    >
    > Dan
    >
    >
     
    dragon1964, Sep 19, 2003
    #16
  17. Jankins

    Frank ess Guest

    Re: File-size question from Fighter planes pictures thread

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <Rmpab.247$>,
    > says...
    > > Todd, what do you mean by "good" file sizes?
    > >
    > > Thank you,
    > >
    > > Frank ess
    > >

    >
    > Around 100-200k each.
    >
    > --


    Thank you.

    I ask because my early learning about web display suggested a much smaller
    file was desirable, viewer download time the determining factor. I guess
    high-speed connections are proliferating, but I wonder how many are still
    dial-up bound.

    I have made three 768x5?? copies of one of my photos. They are
    JPG-compressed at Photo Shop 30, 84, and 100. File sizes are ~40K, 150K, and
    311K, respectively. I blunked-out a couple of hot-pixel-like spots;
    otherwise, in-camera auto-sharp in CoolPix 5700 Fine Full, and nothing else.

    http://www.fototime.com/inv/FCC10C099E8645F

    I further wonder how many of those dialing up will have the patience to see
    the 150K and 311K files.

    I realize this is a photo list, and that people who come here are more
    likely to be connected at high speeds, so they would not even blink at a
    300+K file. It just seems to me that there is some point of diminishing
    return, where the curves of view-quality and download time cross.

    So I ask you, and anyone else who would care to comment:

    Where is that point, compression-wise?

    Would you rather have a 1024x7?? photo to view, for the same bandwidth
    investment?

    Any preferences as to absolute maximum dimensions you want to have
    available?

    Any absolute maximum file-size you will consider downloading?

    What do you reckon is the maximum compression (lowest PS level number)
    you think is worthwhile?

    Are you high-speed connected by satellite, cable, DSL?

    Am I asking worthwhile questions? What others are there to be asked in
    this area?


    Thank you again,

    Frank ess
    --
    Forecasting is difficult. Particularly about the Future.
    —Deepak Gupta
     
    Frank ess, Sep 19, 2003
    #17
  18. Jankins

    Charlie D Guest

    Re: File-size question from Fighter planes pictures thread

    "Frank ess" <> wrote:

    > I ask because my early learning about web display suggested a much smaller
    > file was desirable, viewer download time the determining factor. I guess
    > high-speed connections are proliferating, but I wonder how many are still
    > dial-up bound.


    Most on-line photo contests suggest 800 pixels max width so that people
    with small monitors can see the whole thing. I have a 22" Cinema display
    set at 1600 x 1034 and 800 wide is still large enough to appreciate. An
    image of that size compressed to around 100 K is of very good quality.

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Sep 19, 2003
    #18
  19. Jankins

    Ray Guest

    Should be no problem shooting F-15's as they are a rather old and well known
    aircraft. If you tried to approach them, then there would be problems. This
    is assuming that you do not look Arabic....J/K.

    Ray
    (Retired Military)

    "PiZzazZ" <> wrote in message
    news:Jslab.147990$...
    > Be careful of taking picutres of an airebase with a long zoom. I would not
    > be surprised if someone questions your motivation.
    >
    > You would be better off to shoot some birds or wildlife. With regard to

    the
    > pictures themselves, there are a lot of shakes in them.
    >
    > " Jankins" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://www.emscoelectric.com/~androidinal/planes/
    > >
    > > Took these today - couldn't get as close as I'd like, but still neat
    > > pictures. . .hazy, overcast :(
    > >
    > > Handheld 100-400mm L IS lens / 10D body / Cropped, enlarged, compressed.

    ..
    > > ..
    > >
    > > Dan
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Ray, Sep 19, 2003
    #19
  20. Jankins

    FOR7b Guest

    >
    >That is a "shitload" of jets.....hazy and grainy as you stated...but did I
    >mention that is a "shitload" of planes!!!
    >mms
    >


    And alot of work there. Looks like at least two full squadrons worth. Cringing
    at the thought.


     
    FOR7b, Sep 19, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. J.D. Parker

    Fighter Planes (yeah more of them)

    J.D. Parker, Sep 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    593
    Steve
    Oct 3, 2003
  2. Mike

    Cameras and planes

    Mike, Aug 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    454
    Views:
    5,439
    no_name
    Aug 20, 2006
  3. Cynicor

    Third bag on planes

    Cynicor, Mar 22, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,391
    Richard
    Apr 1, 2007
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Planes, Trains and Infrared Photography

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 25, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    432
    Guest
    Jun 26, 2007
  5. Dan C

    Re: What happened to these planes?

    Dan C, Nov 17, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    523
    Dan C
    Nov 17, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page