Bad weather kept me stuck in the house with my new camera for a few days so I rephotographed some old models.

I didn't really intend to use the new camera for model work since I don't have a good close-up or macro lens yet. Like most SLR's, the close focus is about 16" with a normal lens. Nevertheless, it seems to work quite nicely for these portrait style photos. I finally got an alternative to my famous (ugly) green backdrop. I'm trying this light/medium blue. This is my Academy P-47N...seen here before on a few occassions.

One thing I'm really enjoying is the feeling of becoming a photographer again. When I switched to digital a few years ago, I started to get terribly lazy. I took "snapshots". This is more like the old days...everything was done by hand...manual setting of F-stops and focus. Another things that is really handy about this camera is the ability to completely control the White Balance and even set your own Kelvin numbers. This photo was taken under three lights source: reflected sunlight , overhead fluorescents and four tungsten bulbs. Setting the temp to 4000K worked perfectly (that's where digitals sure have film cameras beat).

Of course, at native resolution, these photos would total almost 10megs and I've reduced them to 100k so you don't get the full effect. But they still look pretty good.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6123/tbolt5mm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

yer giving me itchy-wallet. must resist the temptation to scratch...

As much as I consider myself a photo buff (and I have been for 20 years), I'm still at the low-end of the scale of my understanding how this new-fangled digital stuff really works.

The photos above are an example of what I don't quite understand.

I have compared the above photos taken with my 8MP DSLR to my older P-47 photos taken with a 2MP or 3MP camera. Well obviously the pics from the 8MP camera should be better...you don't have to be an electronics wiz to figure that out.

What I can't figure out is: How come the new pictures are SO MUCH better even when drastically reduced in size? I was just looking at some old pictures of this model which I had sized to 600 pixels wide. Each picture was about 47K. Same as each of the P-47 pictures above.

I would have assumed that, once the photos were dramatically downsized to match the identical size of the older photos, that the quality would be similar between the two sets of pictures. The fact is that, even at IDENTICAL sizes...both file size and pixel count...the pics from the DSLR are obviously better.


EDITING IN EXAMPLE:

Old photo at the top and new photo at the bottom have both been sized to 500 pixels wide and are about the same file size.

Viewed at full resolution, I would expect the bottom photo to be better. But even when significantly downsized, it still obviously a better picture. The tone and shading is much more subtle. There is a full range from highlights to shadow. The old photo seems to have a "harshness" about it with details lost in the highlights and a lack of mid tones. I would have thought this would be lost when take a 5M picture and downsize it to 40K.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7506/tboltt0ji.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

Depth of field is better, which the camera is directly responsible for. I hate my coolpix and it's 3(?) f-stop settings.

The color tone is very different. How about taking one with the green backdrop and new camera?

How does the Olympus perform ergonometrically? I don't like the coolpix (it's 3 years old) because there is often a lag between clicking the "shutter release" and actually taking the picture, especially when taking multiple shots.

I actually had taken a couple of photos with the old background but, due to a misinterpretation on my part, they lacked sufficient depth of field. It was just after I got the camera and I left the camera on "Auto" because I thought the aperature shown was near the minimum. What I didn't realize (because I hadn't read the lens specs) was that the aperature could be stopped down much more than it was. So I put it on aperature priority and stopped down to about f20. I'll rephotograph it later.

There really is no noticeable shutter lag. Of course, I'm sure that the online reviews have measured it because there must be some lag but I haven't noticed it. I've already taken about 180 photos including some action shots (note the commuter plane in the DSLR thread) and I haven't been aware of lag. Just looking in the manual for the camera, they say it will take 2.5 frames per second in the sequential mode...can't be much lag there.

The setting of f stops also allows for a very wide range of settings. When I took some photos in this group, I had the lens stopped all the way down to f22 (the minimum for this lens). Then I thought that might be too much because the absolute minimum can sometime induce distortions (at least, it did in the old days) so I started adjusting it down through f20 and f18. Those are unusual numbers because (again, in the old days) you didn't see those numbers on a lens barrel. But those are the numbers that read out electronically. Checking my photos, most of them were done at f18. So there is certainly room to play with the f-stops.

EDIT: Found this in a review at Stevesdigicams...

"Shutter lag, the delay between depressing the shutter and capturing the image, was 1/10 second when pre-focused, and 3/10 second including auto focus time for a high-contrast subject."

OK...I just unfurled the old green background and re-shot the Tbolt picture with the new camera. Since I only see the link as I'm posting it, I can't make a direct comparison until this message is up.

So does THIS photo on green look better than the old photo above on green?

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6677/tboltg7vb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)


EDIT: I sure think it looks better (now that I've seen the two posted here). The detail is better. Note how the new photo captures the subtle panel detail on the wing. One the old photo, the only noticeable panel treatment was a slightly different color over the machine guns. In the new photo, I can make out more shades on different panels. And there is also more detail on the sides of the fuselage.

Also see how the new photo looks somewhat more realistice because of the subtle weathering...it's slight...but the old photo makes the plane look almost factory shiny.

Of course, I can't match the color tone exactly because I don't have a permanent light set up. Everytime I want to take a photo, I have to pull out the lights and position them by hand. But I think the new photo is better balanced in this sense: if you look at the old photo, the background is darker but the airplane is almost washed out. It appears that there just wasn't enough latitude in the exposure. In the new photo, the background is lighter but the aircraft is perfectly exposed.

Maybe it's my personal bias. I just spent some big bucks on a camera and I want to believe the pictures are better* but I'm not impartial.

*The pictures ARE substantially better when viewed full size on a monitor. They are 3264 pixels wide! Are they better at 600 pixels than the old camera? Other opinions are welcome.

Nice jugs! :)

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7506/tboltt0ji.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6677/tboltg7vb.jpg

The depth of field and color contrast is remarkably better on the new shots.

The blue background is a more interesting color; looks like twilight, but the green shows off the model better.

Wife just took a look: she couldn't tell the difference. Not to worry, she's the same one who can't tell hi-def from standard. Maybe they do that to annoy us.

I think that twilight effect is my fault...the result of playing with the White Balance combined with my color blindness. I just got a lecture from somebody who wanted to know if I realy painted the plane pink. That was followed by a speech about setting the White Balance. A bit rude, I thought but I get the point :).

So dialed out a few points of red and dialed in a few points of blue.

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/430/p47c9fe.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

I rephotographed the old Corsair model as well, moving it closer to the blue end of the spectrum as per my "lecture" :).

I actually had to crop this a fair amount because I couldn't get very close (shot with a 14-45mm zoom...not a great close-up lens) but it still better than previous images of this model. For some reason, the old photos ALWAYS showed this WAY too grey. I don't know why but it always looked like grey primer. It never looked like the proper USN BLUE GREY from the early days of the war.

This rendition is significantly more accurate.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2690/corsaira4zd.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

Seeing these wonderful pics brings two things to mind. One is that I have a good Canon SLR that I use for astrophotography. Now I have another reason to play with it. The other thing is that I think the P-47 is just a truly well-proportioned fighter and is about the most pleasing fighter design to my eye.

tom
(to)

The other thing is that I think the P-47 is just a truly well-proportioned fighter and is about the most pleasing fighter design to my eye.


You are a wise man, sir! :)
(and if you don't know why I say that: http://www.inpayne.com/dad/dadsplash.html )

btw, pick up the latest "Combat Aircraft" (It's a British mag) - there's a nice article on Dad's fighter group, with a few erroneously-captioned photos.

You are a wise man, sir! :)
(and if you don't know why I say that: http://www.inpayne.com/dad/dadsplash.html )

Fascinating site, thank you for sharing it with us. And an unbelievably interesting man.

Excellent work, Brent! Very impressive photography.

I think the P-47 is the most brutal looking fighter to come out of WWII. I mean that in a good way, however. It looks meaner and more massive than anything else going. IIRC, the P-47, the P-51, and the P-38 were the top scorers during the war.

I'm going to wear this darn model out just from taking pictures of it! I guess it just makes an irresistable test subject for some reason. I got the macro lens I wanted so here's ANOTHER new photo:

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9920/mjug1iz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The numbers are controversial and inexact but the P-51 is the American leader for aerial kills but all the planes are surprisingly close. Some sources list the P-47 and P-38 in a dead heat for second place. Interestingly, the P-47 was the MOST PRODUCED American fighter of WWII...it barely edged out the P-51. And the top American ace of WWII flew a P-38 (Richard Bong). So all the planes have a claim to fame.

That pic shows the model even more clearly than the rest. The only improvement I can imagine is using a secondary or tertiary fill light to eliminate some of the darker shadows.

You are a wise man, sir! :)
(and if you don't know why I say that: http://www.inpayne.com/dad/dadsplash.html )

Great site John. Enjoyed the stories! :thumbsup: rr