# B-17



## Patriot (May 15, 2013)

I used Takumar lens for this shots on a D7000 body. 




The Crowd by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

28mm 3.5 at f5.6 or f8




Memphis Belle by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

Takumar 135mm 2.5 at f5.6 




Taxi down the ramp by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr

Takumar 200mm 3.5 at f5.6

I included one photo from every Takumar lens that I own at the moment. 

any C&C would be welcome so that I might improve.


----------



## Trever1t (May 15, 2013)

Love me some WWII Aircraft. Nice!


----------



## timor (May 15, 2013)

It's a Takumar preset lens, or Super Takumar ?
Pictures are quite crisp.


----------



## Patriot (May 15, 2013)

timor said:


> It's a Takumar preset lens, or Super Takumar ?
> Pictures are quite crisp.



The Tak 28mm 3.5 and 135mm 2.5 or both S-M-C while the 200mm 3.5 is the preset. I do have other preset Takumars however, but didn't use them at this moment.


----------



## SCraig (May 15, 2013)

Beautiful, elegant lady.  I'd like to see a bit more prop blur in the last, but we can't have everything.  Well done!


----------



## Patriot (May 15, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Beautiful, elegant lady.  I'd like to see a bit more prop blur in the last, but we can't have everything.  Well done!



It was so bright that I couldn't lower the shutter speed like I would have wanted. I'm looking into getting a ND filter. This plane comes to the city quite often because the pilot that flew it is said to be from this city. Next time it comes back I'll get that blur for you.


----------



## SCraig (May 15, 2013)

Patriot said:


> It was so bright that I couldn't lower the shutter speed like I would have wanted. I'm looking into getting a ND filter. This plane comes to the city quite often because the pilot that flew it is said to be from this city. Next time it comes back I'll get that blur for you.


Fair enough!  I'm looking forward to it.

When I was learning to fly I hung around the airport a lot, and there was a man there who flew B-17's during WWII.  Given some of the stories that he told it's amazing any of them survived


----------



## KmH (May 15, 2013)

They look good.

I like the WWII war birds too. The B-17 is one of those airplanes that just looks 'right', and as a result are 'pretty' airplanes.

I had an uncle that restored a North American T-28 Trojan in 1978/1979 and later did a much bigger project, a Martin B-26 Marauder. Once restored, it cost $2000 an hour to fly the B-26 back in 1990. FAA rules prohibited anyone being in the nose when landing or taking off.
It was fun to go up with him in the T-28 and fly 'crooked' (do aerobatics). He taught me how to fly and do some of the basic aerobatics, but I never solo'd.
He also had a Pitt Special and a Cessna 340A.

Did you convert from color, or shoot as monochrome in the D7000?


----------



## Patriot (May 15, 2013)

I like WWII plane also, hopefully I get see more while here. I talked to the locals and it seems that a lot of WWII planes stop by this city. I work at Fairchild AFB fixing the planes so hopefully they let me photograph those kc-135's too. I converted all to B/W since I shoot RAW. I wanted to ride it so badly, but $450 was too expense for a 23 year old. Next time it stops by I'll hope on it. It flew out to Saudi Arabia that day where it is sure to pick up money. No shortage of it there.


----------



## amolitor (May 16, 2013)

They all look kind of dark to me. I think the plane may be a little underexposed to try to keep the sky? But the sky is gone anyways, let it go.

The first shot does nothing for me. It's just a bunch of people standing around. Perhaps if you were on the other side and we could see faces, we'd get more connection with the crowd? As it is, it looks like a picture of an airplane, but there's a bunch of people in the way. I think you wanted the picture to be about the people?

The second one's pretty nice. It's a good detail. I think stepping back a hair, to make it obvious that you wanted the prop in-frame, rather than letting it look like an accident might have improved this one a bit.

The third one is also pretty good. I think a bit of work in post to separate the plane from the background would improve this. Getting the propellor blades separated is going to be tough, but I'd muck around with curves and some burning/dodging to see what could happen. Also, the framing looks a bit accidental again. You've lost hunks of the wings on both sides, and it's not clear that you *meant* to.

In general, all three feel a bit casual, as if you were paying some attention to framing and timing, but not enough. I don't know how attentive you actually were, of course, it's just the way the pictures feel to me.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 16, 2013)

^+1

and why chop off the bottom of the decal in #2?


----------



## SCraig (May 16, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> ^+1
> 
> and why chop off the bottom of the decal in #2?



They aren't decals.  Decals are for models.  That is painted on.

The fact that it's clipped off is much like people chopping the tops of heads off in portraits and using the excuse that they were unimportant to the shot.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 16, 2013)

SCraig said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > ^+1
> ...



sorry about the 'decal'.


----------



## timor (May 16, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


It is called a "nose art" I think.


----------



## SCraig (May 16, 2013)

timor said:


> It is called a "nose art" I think.


Except when it isn't on the nose 

Most A-10's have "Door Art" because some of the squadron CO's squawked about nose art.  The crews started putting them on the inside of the boarding ladder door.  The B-2 Spirit has them on the bottom of the airplanes, on the crew access door.  The B-1 Lancer (BONE) has them somewhere else to, but I can't remember where.


----------



## timor (May 16, 2013)

Yes, aircraft has to have a suitable nose for it, B2 does not, but A10 is perfectly suited for it and this plane usually flies slow enough and low enough for the bombed guys to enjoy the art . I think I've seen pictures of A10 with the hogs teeth right where Avengers muzzle is.


----------



## SCraig (May 16, 2013)

timor said:


> Yes, aircraft has to have a suitable nose for it, B2 does not, but A10 is perfectly suited for it and this plane usually flies slow enough and low enough for the bombed guys to enjoy the art . I think I've seen pictures of A10 with the hogs teeth right where Avengers muzzle is.


Yep, there are several squadrons flying the A-10 with teeth on them.  I built a model of one that flew with the 75 Fighter Squadron of the 23 Fighter Wing, USAF a few years ago.  The 23 Fighter Wing was originally the 23 Pursuit Group, and they were established on December 17, 1941 from the remains of the Flying Tigers.  Naturally the 23 Wing A-10's still carry the Flying Tiger teeth on them.

Individual "Nose Art" is relegated to the inside of the boarding ladder door on some of the A-10's.  Here is an example.


----------



## timor (May 16, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Individual "Nose Art" is relegated to the inside of the boarding ladder door on some of the A-10's.  Here is an example.


 It's not the same, isn't it? Well, looks like in this times there is no need of boosting morale in pilots.


----------



## FanBoy (May 16, 2013)

As others mentioned, your third photo is strongest. I have a similar shot in jpeg of the Lancaster bomber I took a few years back when it visited here in Reading, Pennsylvania at the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum. 

We have a P-61 Black Widow at the museum that's being restored to flyable status. It's taking painfully long, but once completed it will _sure_ be one of kind!


----------



## Patriot (May 16, 2013)

amolitor said:


> They all look kind of dark to me. I think the plane may be a little underexposed to try to keep the sky? But the sky is gone anyways, let it go.
> 
> The first shot does nothing for me. It's just a bunch of people standing around. Perhaps if you were on the other side and we could see faces, we'd get more connection with the crowd? As it is, it looks like a picture of an airplane, but there's a bunch of people in the way. I think you wanted the picture to be about the people?
> 
> ...



They may be a bit too dark. I calibrated my laptop's screen and wasn't use to the color change yet. So I might have made a mistake on that part. 

I tried to be the first person out there, but couldn't get there fast enough before the crowd rushed in after engine shut down. I also tried waiting, but they kept coming. I had no choice but to try to make it work with the crowd. The only thing I thought of was those giant aquarium photos with the people in it. I guess it didn't work here. I did want the prop in the shop. I believe you are right and I should have stepped back a bit to make it better. There wasn't much I could have done about the framing in the last shot. I was using a 200mm prime and plane was too close to get the wings in more. The taxiway was so small at this airport. I didn't switch to the 135mm for some reason. The 135 was a better choice to use anyhow for the small airport and distance from the point where the aircraft turned towards the crowd. 

Thank you for your honest feedback.




Taxiing In by Jarrett_Hunt, on Flickr
Takumar 135mm 2.5 

I increased the exposure on this photo to see if there was a difference.


----------



## amolitor (May 17, 2013)

That last one is wonderful!

The whole plane is there, and, somehow, the props are separated from the trees visually very well (and, of course, the rest of the plane -- the props were the problem area). I really like it.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 17, 2013)

Patriot said:


> I used Takumar lens for this shots on a D7000 body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Cool, I love WWII birds! I'm from Midland Texas where they had at on time an impressive WWII bird collection, including the only flying B-29 (FiFi, the B-29 pilots was a hoot to talk with). They flew over the house all the time as well. I used to work with a guy who flew P-51s (Mustangs) and you could tell how much h really loved th plane every time he talked about his days as a P-51 pilot.

So is that the real Memphis Belle restored back to flying status? I heard they was working on her bu people ran off with some of th parts?


----------



## FanBoy (May 18, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> Cool, I love WWII birds! I'm from Midland Texas where they had at on time an impressive WWII bird collection, including the only flying B-29 (FiFi, the B-29 pilots was a hoot to talk with). They flew over the house all the time as well. I used to work with a guy who flew P-51s (Mustangs) and you could tell how much h really loved th plane every time he talked about his days as a P-51 pilot.
> 
> So is that the real Memphis Belle restored back to flying status? I heard they was working on her bu people ran off with some of th parts?



The real Memphis Belle is being restored in Ohio, and yes, she had been extensively raided. The flyable model is actually a converted and more-produced G model.

In a few short weeks, Fifi is scheduled to roar over our skies once again here in Reading.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 18, 2013)

FanBoy said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > Cool, I love WWII birds! I'm from Midland Texas where they had at on time an impressive WWII bird collection, including the only flying B-29 (FiFi, the B-29 pilots was a hoot to talk with). They flew over the house all the time as well. I used to work with a guy who flew P-51s (Mustangs) and you could tell how much h really loved th plane every time he talked about his days as a P-51 pilot.
> ...




I was horrified to hear about the real Memphis Belle and really hoping she had been restored when I saw your photos. She is an inspirational piece of American history.  

As for FiFi, she must have a thing for me, we both moved to the Dallas area


----------

