How can this be improved? (Page 2): I prefer the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th. I always like a focal point, and they all have one. The third is my favorite, not because it focuses on the cockpit so...

coj Loc: NJ, USA

I prefer the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th. I always like a focal point, and they all have one. The third is my favorite, not because it focuses on the cockpit so much but it is a good focal point, but because you have that nice reflection of the wing on the side. The fourth puts the prop and engine in your face, seems to say that you're ready to go.

coj Loc: NJ, USA

I prefer the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th. I always like a focal point, and they all have one. The third is my favorite, not because it focuses on the cockpit so much but it is a good focal point, but because you have that nice reflection of the wing on the side. The fourth puts the prop and engine in your face, seems to say that you're ready to go. I don't think your pix are suffering from being made better so much in PP, as the plainer ones just don't pop. The colors on the prop, the reflection on the wing gives those two impact. In the first photo, for example, there is a very neutral color palate, nothing grabs you and says "look at me". When you composed the frame highlighting the prop, the colors stand out and draw your eye to them. It "pops".

GeneV Loc: Lampasas, Texas

Check www.faa.gov. Look for the little box in upper right, enter the "N" number (NXXXX) and you will find the info as to the plane's owner.

Great looking T-6. Nave never seen one so polished.

Geme

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

GeneV wrote:

Check www.faa.gov. Look for the little box in upper right, enter the "N" number (NXXXX) and you will find the info as to the plane's owner.

Great looking T-6. Nave never seen one so polished.

Geme

I know about that website, being a formerly active private pilot and A&P (whose career lasted only about 9 weeks - it's a long story). I don't recall off the top of my head, but I think the aircraft record only gives the name of the owner (individual. corporation) and the town or county, not the physical address. I'd probably have to use the White Pages and maybe pay $1.00 or whatever to get the info. My brother owns a plane, a 182....I stand corrected - I just looked up his N#, but apparently he and his partners formed corporation with an address I'm unfamiliar with - probably one of the other two partners. I might run into the same problem if I try to contact the owner of the T-6. As an experiment, not sure what I'd find, I Googled the N# a month or two ago and I found a whole pile of pics of it. Check out my pics on FB if you have an acct and tell my what you think (some stink but some are pretty good).

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

To me it looks like I'm looking at the tail of the plane too much. I think if you had shifted over to the right to show more of the fuselage it would have been more interesting. As far as adjustments - contrast, black point & bringing down the highlights just a tad. Hard to say without playing with it myself. Maybe just a curves adjustment????

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

DanielB wrote:

To me it looks like I'm looking at the tail of the plane too much. I think if you had shifted over to the right to show more of the fuselage it would have been more interesting. As far as adjustments - contrast, black point & bringing down the highlights just a tad. Hard to say without playing with it myself. Maybe just a curves adjustment????

Are you referring to the OP? I had added 4 or 5 other pics about 3/4 of the way down the page. What is 'black pointing'

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

planepics wrote:

IMHO if one wants to emphasize a particular feature of a plane (nose art, weaponry) you don't need an entire wingspan in the pic...wings are a given but some are too cool to ignore (F4U Corsair). I just e-mailed AOPA's chief photographer for his opinion if has the time or the inclination. I hope to hear back within a few days.

Update...I just got an e-mail back from Chris Rose. He talked about he shoots the cover and how they used to prefer the pic. He says generally either show the entire wing or make a crop look intentional.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

gvarner wrote:

Not much else you can do. The colors in the plane blend too much into the sky colors so there isn't a place for the eye to focus on the subject. Nice angle on the plane though.

Slight tint shifts can help to differentiate two areas that are too close colour-wise. The effect is usually slight and subtle, but better than nothing. In this case the sky could be selected and tint-shifted towards green a little using the Tint slider, plus shifted towards blue using the WB slider. Warm colours advance whereas cool colours recede.

redron57 Loc: Fairfield, Ca SF Bay Area

Hi
the easiest way to merge photos or learn anything is by seeing it
youtube has everything in the world Catch a video or two and look at merging photos if that is what you want to do.
hope this helps
be specific like merge photos with photoshop elements
also check out
Just for Laughs
for hours of fun
ron

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

planepics wrote:

I took this pic of an AT-6 on the last day of Oshkosh last year. So far I've removed the N # lightened the shadows and adjusted the sky and ground color using PSE. I have no idea how to merge pics together, but it seems something else could be done. I have several other angles of the plane, too.

First thing I noticed was the naked Texan! Paint it, it was at Oshkosh, it wore numbers to get there. "Honest Abe's Used Airplanes? This shot just won't fly!

AlohaJim Loc: Retired. Hawaii >> N. Arizona.

On location: Use dynamic angles to accentuate or exaggerate the lines of the aircraft. Almost as if it were flying but standing still, banking into a turn. Use the wings and fuselage and other parts to cover up distracting background.
Have a focal point. Tell a story.

Post Processing: bring to the foreground what is important and vs vs. Bring out the dynamic lines and shapes of the subject. Give it energy. As previously stated, "snap". Such that the reaction to the photograph will be "wow!" on a visceral level.
Some random thoughts.
Thanks for posting.
Great pics.
Aloha
j

10MPlayer Loc: California

I wouldn't have taken the N number off the plane. Or any other markings for that matter. They are part of the plane, same as the emergency stickers and access panels. A better picture would have shown the whole plane. Also, shooting it from behind is kind of like shooting pictures of people from behind. Sometimes it can be effective but we humans tend to want to the front end of things. We want to see the person's eyes and smiling face. Same with a plane or a car. We want to see the engines and the props and that thing that makes this aircraft different from a 747. Just a few thoughts. You have a nicely exposed image but it could have been a lot more effective.

10MPlayer Loc: California

planepics wrote:

Here are a few more angles I haven't played with yet.

Now this is more what I was talking about in my previous post above. I really like the second image where you show the engine. That's a cool looking bird from that angle. I like the shiny.

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

I hadn't been expecting comments on my post 3 months after...glad you liked the other angles. I'm going back to Oshkosh next month (because I can't afford to go on a safari or to the Far East :)) and will be taking lots more pics. Last year I took a bit over 5k, most I still need to toss, but this year I'll be taking some from a B-17 in flight I bought a ticket on - about 2 weeks pay)! Unfortunately it probably won't be in formation with a P-51 or any other cool bird. If I'm really lucky, but likely won't be, maybe I can get a ride with Team Aeroshell. A pic of them I took last year at Oshkosh got picked as a Picture of the Week in a daily aviation e-newsletter I subscribe to.