Editing Choice: Poll

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Which version do you prefer?

  • Wide shot with smoke trail

    Votes: 18 51.4%

  • Tighter crop

    Votes: 17 48.6%
  • Total voters
    35
DavidT

DavidT

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Not wildlife so not sure if it is allowed however I have an editing question for you all.

Which version do you prefer?

_A1B0701-Edit-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


_A1B0701-Edit-Edit-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I find the way the right wing of the aircraft is cut off very distracting in both. It doesn't look like it's hidden by the smoke, it looks like it was pasted in over the smoke with the wing tip missing.
 
Member's gallery
Somewhere between the two.
It looks like something is missing off the end of the right wing.
There is too much dead space in the first AND the 2nd is far to tightly cropped - the image quality is not up to it and part of the wing is cropped out. You should seek to keep at least 10-15% space on each side around the subject. Given the smoke trail I would look at one halfway. BUT - with the plane over to the right.
My preference would be a crop like the attached - however there is little detail in the image and so I assume you had already cropped in a long way to generate your 2 examples


_A1B0701-Edit-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
While the right wing doesn't have an antenna on it like the left wing, I'm not sure that means that something is missing on the right wing. That may just be how that aircraft is configured.
 
Member's gallery
I like the in-between best as well; more dynamic overall
And yes, the antenna on the left wing is distracting and giving the impression that the right wing is clipped. It's one of those cases where you might want to clone out the antenna to "restore balance"
 
Member's gallery
bfs208 said:
I find the way the right wing of the aircraft is cut off very distracting in both. It doesn't look like it's hidden by the smoke, it looks like it was pasted in over the smoke with the wing tip missing.
Click to expand...
That is not the case. It’s as it happened no photoshop.
 
Member's gallery
ajm057 said:
Somewhere between the two.
It looks like something is missing off the end of the right wing.
There is too much dead space in the first AND the 2nd is far to tightly cropped - the image quality is not up to it and part of the wing is cropped out. You should seek to keep at least 10-15% space on each side around the subject. Given the smoke trail I would look at one halfway. BUT - with the plane over to the right.
My preference would be a crop like the attached - however there is little detail in the image and so I assume you had already cropped in a long way to generate your 2 examples


View attachment 45924
Click to expand...
Nope first version is full frame no crop, second is cropped. The point of the crop is to allow you to see the pilots face better. Keep in mind the images are scaled down to be able to upload to this forum.
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
I like the in-between best as well; more dynamic overall
And yes, the antenna on the left wing is distracting and giving the impression that the right wing is clipped. It's one of those cases where you might want to clone out the antenna to "restore balance"
Click to expand...
I didn’t manipulate anything and you’re correct it’s how the plane is but nothing is being blocked by the smoke.
 
Member's gallery
The point of cropping in more was to show off the pilot more. Here is a crop using my phone to demonstrate.
9AD8DD20-09E7-43B5-9704-518429E89D1A.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
It’s interesting to see for those who have voted it’s a dead even 50/50 split. Gives merit as to why I posted this as I can like it either way.
 
Member's gallery
Because of sky is is monotonous blue and the smoke itself is not very interesting visually, I would vote for tight crop, but there is a problem with motion blur visible on rudder and other small parts which is accented by the crop. So it is a tough choice IMO.
 
Member's gallery
Tibor Hrnko said:
Because of sky is is monotonous blue and the smoke itself is not very interesting visually, I would vote for tight crop, but there is a problem with motion blur visible on rudder and other small parts which is accented by the crop. So it is a tough choice IMO.
Click to expand...
Well to have a prop blur it’s at 1/100th. The rudder is off center because he’s using it to turn and you’re seeing it through a prop which is obviously in movement.
I don’t think motion blur is a problem as it shows the subject in motion. To fix the “problem” would freeze the prop and plane and make it look like a toy hanging from a string.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
Well to have a prop blur it’s at 1/100th. The rudder is off center because he’s using it to turn and you’re seeing it through a prop which is obviously in movement.
I don’t think motion blur is a problem as it shows the subject in motion. To fix the “problem” would freeze the prop and plane and make it look like a toy hanging from a string.
Click to expand...
I understand your choices, I just wanted to explain why I do not see a clear winner for the poll.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
Nope first version is full frame no crop, second is cropped. The point of the crop is to allow you to see the pilots face better. Keep in mind the images are scaled down to be able to upload to this forum.
Click to expand...
Thanks David -- the question then arises as to why the image looks somewhat cartoon like.
I would LUV to hear more about how you took this shot -- were you in the back of a Herc or similar open ramp aircraft?
Sure at 1/100th to give a nice prop blur is great but there will also be significant subject motion blur as well leading to a softer than ideal outcome.
AND at ISO 160 - 2/3rd of a stop above the base ISO 100 (although you can drop this to ISO 50 1 1/3rd stops slower than you choose). You probably had only limited choices on what seems to be a bright day to get a good exposure. Unless you also had ND filters available -- the lens you used takes a 95mm screw in filter.
If I am correct, the camera you were using has a 50mp sensor and you shot a 1/100th but using F/32 -- using such a closed down aperture is an issue on a high-res sensor in that you are deep beyond the diffraction limit for this system. Is the aperture value you quoted correct?

Cropping in too far is a problem -- anyone wanting to see the pilot is fighting with the prop-blur and motion blur and diffraction - so perhaps your image is better not cropped in too far. There is enough of a hint or the pilot in your first uncropped version and my mid-way solution. The close-up simply does not stand-up to viewing at 100%.
I suspect you could have dropped the ISO to 100 io 50 and used 1/320th to allow you to open up the aperture a bit, but adding say a 3 stop ND would have helped you move back to say f/8.
Moose Peterson has a whole series of vids and guidance on these types of choices/options.
 
Member's gallery
ajm057 said:
Thanks David -- the question then arises as to why the image looks somewhat cartoon like.
I would LUV to hear more about how you took this shot -- were you in the back of a Herc or similar open ramp aircraft?
Sure at 1/100th to give a nice prop blur is great but there will also be significant subject motion blur as well leading to a softer than ideal outcome.
AND at ISO 160 - 2/3rd of a stop above the base ISO 100 (although you can drop this to ISO 50 1 1/3rd stops slower than you choose). You probably had only limited choices on what seems to be a bright day to get a good exposure. Unless you also had ND filters available -- the lens you used takes a 95mm screw in filter.
If I am correct, the camera you were using has a 50mp sensor and you shot a 1/100th but using F/32 -- using such a closed down aperture is an issue on a high-res sensor in that you are deep beyond the diffraction limit for this system. Is the aperture value you quoted correct?

Cropping in too far is a problem -- anyone wanting to see the pilot is fighting with the prop-blur and motion blur and diffraction - so perhaps your image is better not cropped in too far. There is enough of a hint or the pilot in your first uncropped version and my mid-way solution. The close-up simply does not stand-up to viewing at 100%.
I suspect you could have dropped the ISO to 100 io 50 and used 1/320th to allow you to open up the aperture a bit, but adding say a 3 stop ND would have helped you move back to say f/8.
Moose Peterson has a whole series of vids and guidance on these types of choices/options.
Click to expand...
Taken from the ground at the KC air show this past weekend. Yes f32 is correct to be able to get such a low shutter speed in bright light and no ND filters and yes at 600mm. Motion blur is to be expected but it’s the paint on the plane that gives everyone this illusion as it shifts and changes colors from purple to silver to blue to green. So it’s not so much motion blur as an optical illusion of the paint itself. Yes, I’ve shot planes with moose and he would be happy with the results. It’s his technique that I used to capture this shot.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
Taken from the ground at the KC air show this past weekend. Yes f32 is correct to be able to get such a low shutter speed in bright light and no ND filters and yes at 600mm. Motion blur is to be expected but it’s the paint on the plane that gives everyone this illusion as it shifts and changes colors from purple to silver to blue to green. So it’s not so much motion blur as an optical illusion of the paint itself. Yes, I’ve shot planes with moose and he would be happy with the results. It’s his technique that I used to capture this shot.
Click to expand...
I apologize for not starting with "good job - a Nice shot"
I have attended only a few shoots at airshows in the UK and find the 600mm to be a wonderful choice.
I have not "yet" managed to get usable shots of prop aircraft.
 
Member's gallery
ajm057 said:
I apologize for not starting with "good job - a Nice shot"
I have attended only a few shoots at airshows in the UK and find the 600mm to be a wonderful choice.
I have not "yet" managed to get usable shots of prop aircraft.
Click to expand...
No worries and yes it’s about a 10% keeper rate applying slow shutter speeds. I shot 5k images and saved 1100 of them.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
No worries and yes it’s about a 10% keeper rate applying slow shutter speeds. I shot 5k images and saved 1100 of them.
Click to expand...
At 10% you are good IMO. My last airshow yield was 176 filtered photos out of 7000+ and 21 selected for proper post-process.
(I am still learning the mirrorless tricks and limitations of 800 mm focal length :))
 
Member's gallery
Tibor Hrnko said:
At 10% you are good IMO. My last airshow yield was 176 filtered photos out of 7000+ and 21 selected for proper post-process.
(I am still learning the mirrorless tricks and limitations of 800 mm focal length :))
Click to expand...
What lens are you using? This show I just took a 200-600 and I think if I shoot the KC show again I will take my 70-200 and my 400 2.8 as a combo. I shot a bit at 600 and do have a 600f4 but after a long day lighter is better lol. Oddly the 200-600 is a bit of a tank and can be harder to hand hold for long periods when compared to the two primes.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
What lens are you using? This show I just took a 200-600 and I think if I shoot the KC show again I will take my 70-200 and my 400 2.8 as a combo. I shot a bit at 600 and do have a 600f4 but after a long day lighter is better lol. Oddly the 200-600 is a bit of a tank and can be harder to hand hold for long periods when compared to the two primes.
Click to expand...
Z 800 PF, Z 100-400, Sigma 500 F4 Sports.
But the last airshow I used only the Z lenses to test their/my limits. Based on the results I will keep the Sigma for at least one more year until there is an affordable Z equivalent.

Current Z lineup limitations for me are:

Z 800 PF
  • single most important factor is atmospheric conditions (limited use in shimmering air)
  • difficult to avoid motion blur in slow rotating parts (helicopters and transport aircrafts)
  • problematic use if positioned near the center of the runway (uninteresting side view or too far away shots)
  • Vignetting when using Dehaze function of LightRoom (LR)
Z 100-400
  • Too short for approaching planes
There are a lot of benefits from Z9 + Z lenses. I like it a lot more compared to D850 + F500/F300. I would never go back. This is just a list of what I find difficult so far.
I realize this is nature shooters web so I keep it short . The problems of shooting tits in a garden are different :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top