Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: From 35,000 feet  (Read 13713 times)
mikeseb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 482



WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2006, 06:14:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The window washing picture is a JAL 747-300, Our Honolulu base (non Japanese crews gets the left overs! They will be retiring in the next couple of years) 

Midway Atoll, photo taken by one of our pilots Mario Azpura:
[attachment=1014:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So that's where it all happened, June 1942--turning point in the Pacific war!
« Last Edit: October 04, 2006, 06:15:15 PM by mikeseb » Logged

michael sebastian
Website  |  Blog
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2006, 07:26:04 AM »
ReplyReply

quote=mikeseb,Sep 29 2006, 03:28 AM]
Guys, really enjoying the aviation-photography chat here; the pictures are a nice side-benefit!

Keep 'em coming, and thanks for sharing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78256\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

31N 150E,  38,000 ft,  13 Oct 06,  Sun Dog (halo)
Marc
[attachment=1037:attachment][attachment=1038:attachment]
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1684


« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2006, 01:22:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Fantastic shot of Midway and four-holer.  Compliments to Mario.  Give that guy a union card  

Peter
Logged
Tubas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2006, 02:09:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Another question.

 I took this photo the other day. In very low light conditions. It is of the moon with the sun setting behind me. iso @ 200. 1/50s @f/4.5.



The rings? I assume it is my lens?  But why, and can I do anything about it?
Logged
scott kirkpatrick
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2006, 06:12:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I tried removing the blue cast and expanding the high key restricted tones from an airliner window seat shot of Greenland recently and got warm toned rocks and slightly green sea.  I like the effect, don't know if that is what it really looks like from closer.  See the result at
North of Godthaab.

scott
« Last Edit: October 16, 2006, 06:13:26 PM by scott kirkpatrick » Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2006, 10:30:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Another question.

It is of the moon with the sun setting behind me. iso @ 200. 1/50s @f/4.5.



[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wasn't there so it is just conjecture, but isn't the moon a half moon (not a full moon) with the sun coming from the right?  Hard to figure how the sun was behind you.  But then you were there.

The moon looks over exposed.  Solid white.  No detail.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2006, 10:33:36 PM by howiesmith » Logged
Tubas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 17, 2006, 02:07:17 AM »
ReplyReply

howiesmith:

The picture was taken last week or so, about 100 miles south of Stockholm. I was tracking North East going to Tokyo. So the sun was setting behind my left shoulder.

You are correct. The sun was not behind me. It was almost behind me.

As for the phases of the moon with reference to the position of the sun. No idea. But I seem to remember a half moon at night, with no sun at all.

I agree it is overexposed. I did that to show up the rings better.
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1684


« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2006, 10:41:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Those rings are unusual. They're centered on the frame, not the moon, so it's not connected to just that subject matter. It's remotely possible they're interference rings (Newton's Rings)

Does this problem appear on this frame only?
Did you have a filter right next to the lens?  Or two filters installed at once?
Is this a JPEG?  Or a RAW conversion?  
If it's a RAW conversion, did you do considerable processing on the image?  ie large density or colour adjustments?

I'd try and duplicate the problem by shooting again under similar conditions.

IME, the only time you can corrrectly expose both the moon and the foreground in the same shot is a full moon right on the horizon when the sun has just set and the moon's not yet at full brightness.

P
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2006, 11:34:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I have cleaned several telescopes in the past but have yet to take a lens apart. Perhaps they are the internal baffles. I shined a flashlight into my 24-105 IS and you can see some of the internal baffling.  Perhaps the light was just right to expose the baffles?
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2006, 12:05:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
howiesmith:

I agree it is overexposed. I did that to show up the rings better.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80818\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry.  I thought it was a photo of the moon, in which case its proper exposure might be important.  ("I took this photo the other day. ...  It is of the moon with the sun setting behind me.")

You said the sun was setting over your left shoulder.  I have no reason to doubt you.  Did you turn toward the moon when you took the photo?  The sun was definetly about 90 degrees to the right of the moon in this image.  Doesn't seem to go along with flying north east at sunset.  At sunset, the sun would have to be to the west.  That might put it over your left shoulder as you fly north east.  So were you facing north east, looking at the moon being lit by the sun coming from the west at sunset?  Maybe you turned almost around to shoot south, which makes sense with the sun in the west and the moon lit from the right.  I'm all turned around now.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 12:09:59 PM by howiesmith » Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2006, 01:08:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi people,

Images get very blue, and very washed out. The light can be very harsh, ... . I am also shooting through 4 inches of "glass" and that acts like another filter.

Colour balance: At altitude, all is blue. I manage that in PS. But could I make better selections in camera.

Any advice would be gratefully received.

My Photos:

The Nomad
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The sky from the ground is blue because of scattered light, blue being more easily scattered.  Shadows are are lit by scattered light and appear blue or cool for that reason.

At high altitude, the sky above is blackish (even black if you go high enough), not blue.  From an F4 at 65000 feet, the upper sky is black.  Not much to scatter light from space back to your camera.  The moon and other objects in the upper sky are lit by pure sunlight, and shouldn't look blue.  Harsh, yes.  Unless you are shooting near toward the horizon and through some extra air.  It also depends on the direction relative to the sun you are shooting.  Sunsets are red beause the blue is scattered out by the air.  Shooting object toward the horizon and sun are redder.

There is a movie technique called "day for night."  The images are made in the day, under exposed to look dark and shot with a blue (passes blue) filter.  That is suppose to look OK because objects at night are illuminated by scattered blue light.  Dim and blue.

The blue stuff should be associated with shooting down and images being illuminated with scattered light.  A UV filter might help, but freuently they are "warmered" (added magenta) to reduce blue.  Not just UV.

I have taken images using only UV light.  There was a 10 stop filter factor and it was impossible to see thought the filter.  The images were fine, but I concluded not much of the total exposure is from UV (10 stop filter factor).  I think your problem is scattered blue light.

Have you checked your camera/lens/airplane window combo for sensitivity to UV?  You may need a magenta warming filter instead of a UV.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 01:17:47 PM by howiesmith » Logged
Tubas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2006, 03:09:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I think I may have found the solution to the rings.

When I apply the "Vignette" filter the rings appear. Not to sure why, but they do.

Quote
Did you turn toward the moon when you took the photo? The sun was definetly about 90 degrees to the right of the moon in this image.

The photo was taken out the right hand side window, and slightly behind us. So that angle would make the setting sun be behind my left shoulder. Left shoulder as I sit in the left hand seat....
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2006, 03:31:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think I may have found the solution to the rings.

The photo was taken out the right hand side window, and slightly behind us. So that angle would make the setting sun be behind my left shoulder. Left shoulder as I sit in the left hand seat...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Starting to make sense now.  You were flying north east and took the photo looking south.  That looks right with the image.  Sunset in the west and to the right.  Depending on how much you turned your head and in which direction (clockwise or counter clockwise) to look south (to the airplanes right and slightly behind), the sunset may have been almost anywhere with respect to your body position.

After looking at the image more, the entire image may be over exposed.  Was your camera set on auto exposure with no compensation for it being low light?  The image doesn't look like low light, but more normal or over exposed.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 03:34:00 PM by howiesmith » Logged
Tubas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2006, 04:24:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry all,  this is getting more complicated than intended.

Here is a copy of the original image.



As I said, whilst working on the image, the rings appeared. I fully appreciate that the image is pushed. And the image is not the finished image. My question relates to the rings.
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2006, 07:54:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Could the rings be flare caused by the very thick window?  Light might bounce between the front and back window surfaces several times before the flair becomes too faint to see.  When the image is dark, they are barely noticible.  When lightened im photoshop (increased exposure, sorta) they are easier to see.  Because the window is relatively far and unattached from the lens, no diaphram image is formed.

If so, I think you may be done, since rolling the window down seems to be out of the question.  The window, regardless of its price, may be acting like a cheap filter.  It may not be coated like a photo filter to reduce internal reflections.

Just a guess.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 07:57:14 PM by howiesmith » Logged
stanjan0
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #35 on: October 24, 2006, 12:33:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I really don't know why you are having trouble shooting through cock pit windows hell I open them get clear shots.  
Logged
Tubas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2006, 03:49:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Certainly you get reflections from inside the widow layers. Especially the front window. The heating elements also produce stripes. They also have a gold film to cut down reflections. It is  the more I think about it, not the best "lens" to be shooting through. But the view is worth it.  :-) I will experiment more and see what happens.

Thanks for all of your input.

Thanks to howiesmith. Some real thought provoking ideas.

stanjan0: Once apon a time I used to fly the Twin Otter. You could open the window! And did. Nice way to cool off in the summer.
Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2006, 03:28:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Certainly you get reflections from inside the widow layers. Especially the front window. The heating elements also produce stripes. They also have a gold film to cut down reflections. It is  the more I think about it, not the best "lens" to be shooting through. But the view is worth it.  :-) I will experiment more and see what happens.

Thanks for all of your input.

Thanks to howiesmith. Some real thought provoking ideas.

stanjan0: Once apon a time I used to fly the Twin Otter. You could open the window! And did. Nice way to cool off in the summer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I had a go at altering a couple of your images to try and eliminate the blue haze
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad