DEATHly action at Fairford

Post by **Kjlmm2911** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:53 am

Some brilliant shots there chap!

Shot 3 is just great! And how was it that you managed to get that little bit higher than the rest of the crowd?!

RE the watermark - if you can't see past them, you shouldn't be looking.

Katie.

Post by **wokka** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:56 am

I think they are cracking watermarks. Beautifully framed, stunningly sharp, and the backgrounds are gorgeous. Puts some peoples watermarks to shame.

(come on people, what are you like!?)

Post by **effects** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:53 am

wokka wrote:I think they are cracking watermarks. Beautifully framed, stunningly sharp, and the backgrounds are gorgeous. Puts some peoples watermarks to shame.

(come on people, what are you like!?)

Post by **slogen51** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:59 am

yes but why does the watermark have to appear in the main subject of the photo?

I am a spotter not a photo judge and I come on here to get info and post logs if I have them - the photo section is just an added bonus. I must be 'shallow' because I like to see the aircraft serial in a photo - that is the whole point of taking the photo - it becomes a record of a particular jets activity. I usually try to avoid peoples heads in front of the jet!

if you don't want your image 'stolen' why post it on a web page?

Post by **Paulo** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:43 am

slogen51 wrote:yes but why does the watermark have to appear in the main subject of the photo?

I am a spotter not a photo judge and I come on here to get info and post logs if I have them - the photo section is just an added bonus. I must be 'shallow' because I like to see the aircraft serial in a photo - that is the whole point of taking the photo - it becomes a record of a particular jets activity. I usually try to avoid peoples heads in front of the jet!

if you don't want your image 'stolen' why post it on a web page?

I couldn't disagree with the statement "that is the whole point of taking the photo", have you ever thought that some people aren't out to count numbers and enjoy photographing & potentially earning money from it?

Cracking photographs, forget the watermark moaners - if they don't like it maybe they should get down there and photograph it themselves.

Post by **Supra** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:47 am

slogen51 wrote:yes but why does the watermark have to appear in the main subject of the photo?

I am a spotter not a photo judge and I come on here to get info and post logs if I have them - the photo section is just an added bonus. I must be 'shallow' because I like to see the aircraft serial in a photo - that is the whole point of taking the photo - it becomes a record of a particular jets activity. I usually try to avoid peoples heads in front of the jet!

if you don't want your image 'stolen' why post it on a web page?

So shallow indeed, I would guess around 0.000001 mm deep! If your entire ethos is to 'get the serial' & record that fact by taking a DSO (Dead-Side-On) then Hey Ho, whatever floats your boat??
Best not to 'out' yourself on a photographic topic proclaiming your total misconception as in the above... I think.
(Wow, those anti-Tourettes pills really work!)

Post by **condor** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:51 pm

Thanks to you and all who recorded the B2s . It's much appreciated by those of us who couldn't get there , and I'm sure by those who can not get out !

rgds condor

Post by **Nighthawke** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:25 pm

Lovely set there - thanks for posting. Great colours & clarity.

As for the watermark issue - other posts are available without such protective embellishments

Post by **NGAutoArt** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:43 am

slogen51 wrote:yes but why does the watermark have to appear in the main subject of the photo?

I am a spotter not a photo judge and I come on here to get info and post logs if I have them - the photo section is just an added bonus. I must be 'shallow' because I like to see the aircraft serial in a photo - that is the whole point of taking the photo - it becomes a record of a particular jets activity. I usually try to avoid peoples heads in front of the jet!

if you don't want your image 'stolen' why post it on a web page?

Really? I love aircraft, photography, art, and those five combined. I have absolutely NO interest in Mathematics or serial numbers though. There are many reasons why people love to take, share and enjoy photography, not just YOUR reason.

I never watermark my own photos, as they're never good enough to "steal". I can fully understand why a lot of people here DO watermark their own work. They pay a lot of money for their kit, spend thousands of hours learning everything about how to use it in the best way possible and some sell their work. Why would they want to give it all away, having put all the effort in? I only ever post photos of my artwork that are ok to view, but useless to anyone who'd try and steal it.

Back on topic, i still love No.3! Seems so surreal!

Neil

Post by **phoenixegmh** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:27 am

Thank you for the positive comments on the images.

For those of you that don't like the watermarks, I make no apologies, it was, after all, members of this forum who have previously praised my watermarks for being sufficient but not overly intrusive. And quite simply, if you don't like them, tough, they won't be being removed, they serve a purpose and those who are interested in viewing the image for what it is have the ability to look past it.

Evidently we all have different reasons for taking pictures, I personally couldn't give two hoots what serial number is on the aircraft or any of its components, I don't run maintrol or ops for these aircraft, nor do I have a list of which aircraft I've seen or not seen, so to me it is not significant. I include the information on my photos for those who wish to know that information and to trace things in the past.

Two special mentions for this thread. Firstly, Katie, thank you for allowing me to stand on your car to get the view point I wanted for #3, I owe you.

Slogen5, thank you for the vote of confidence, evidently those who have stolen my photos have a different opinion.

Post by **lozza** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:33 pm

slogen51 wrote:yes but why does the watermark have to appear in the main subject of the photo?

I am a spotter not a photo judge and I come on here to get info and post logs if I have them - the photo section is just an added bonus. I must be 'shallow' because I like to see the aircraft serial in a photo - that is the whole point of taking the photo - it becomes a record of a particular jets activity. I usually try to avoid peoples heads in front of the jet!

if you don't want your image 'stolen' why post it on a web page?

Bet your a blast to have at a party

Great shots fella

Post by **GummyBe4r** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:56 pm

well I think the watermark is fantastic...................

, and to be honest I cant even see it, for me number three is a corker of a shot, it is a very atmospheric shot, and yes there are the number crunchers, but there are the photographers and as I like to call them the "inbetweeners" the ones that do both, like me.

if he wants to put a water mark there then he has the right to put it there, and if that's all someone can notice then there missing the "picture" completely,

they are three cracking photos, but seriously all this palava over a watermark and the what should or should not be a reason for taking photos etc............. everybody is out to enjoy a hobby not have a go at each other over it, sorry admin

was nice to catch up mate yesterday,

cheers

Cal

Post by **gordyboy** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:27 pm

Superb set Alec, I can't believe the number of people there !. Not something you see everyday though.

Cheers

Neil

Post by **Flyingmonster** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:53 pm

Very nice mate! 3rd shot is spot on!

Post by **rockape** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:21 pm

crazydunc wrote:
slogen51 wrote:
Nice pics (much better than mine - I was there today) but I don't really think people would steal the image - they are not in that league.
Well, if I'm honest, it's the photographers choice to make. It's his intellectual property to protect how he wishes. Regardless of your uninformed opinions.

You can still see the picture, it's composition, the colours and the subject. So what is the big deal?

I stand by my earlier statement, if you can't see past a watermark on a picture, then that is a very shallow way to look at ANY image.

How very condescending. Great picture, composition, colours and subject. Utterly rubbish watermark. Why not drop it inside any sensible, standard print or pixel size. Anywhere else appears somewhat arrogant / precious.

By example there are hundreds of people taking that same photo. This set, as good as they are, will not be the best.

Watermarking heavily in the hope they will be sellable is cool. But only if you want to look at them properly yourself until you sell them.

Suggest the author uses getty images in the future. I don't agree with your view. Sorry

DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Re: DEATHly action at Fairford

Who is online