This is becoming my personal form of psychotherapy. I've taken to regular outings near the airport fence where I plop myself into the grass with my camera and a cigar. It's very relaxing and I'll miss it in the Winter (where plopping yourself anywhere at 40 below means you probably won't get up again!).

Top photo set shows a CL-215 Waterbomber and three Snowbirds. Ironically, there are half a dozen Manitoba Government Air Service CL-215's based within spitting distance of my house and that's what I thought I was photographing. Looked at the finished pictures, I realised this was an Alberta based machine.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6166/htcompam8.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)


Next is just a nice shot of a Canadair Regional Jet and a very unusual Alpha Jet. I was very surprised to see a European Alpha Jet. We get a fair number of European military jets passing through but the Alpha Jet doesn't have very long legs for a transatlantic flight. When I zoomed in on the image, I was stunned to see the Canadian civil registration C-GGTA. This is a privately owned civilian Alpha Jet!

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1556/htscomp2rc5.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

Ya know, I'd be afraid to be seen snapping random pics of airliners at Newark or Teterboro. In the current atmosphere donw here, I'm imagining it would be followed by a cavity search.... :freak:

I took pictures at Long Beach Airport last year and got the full interview by security. They took down my name, address, phone number, where I work, etc. They didn't stop me but there isn't a doubt in my mind that I now have an FBI file (more likely they just added to the one I already had from my un-scheduled visit the the SR-71/A-12 storage facility, back when those planes were still a hot subject for security...).

My philosophy: "always get the picture" (No matter what the circumstances).

(I did get pictures of the SR's/A-12's, I was just lucky that I didn't have my camera with me the day that the FBI talked to me)

The airport in Winnipeg was established in this location in 1927. The city grew around the airport and butts righ up against the airport fence. The location I take these picture from is technically called the "Legion Memorial Sports Park" and it's about 75 yards away from a public baseball diamond. It's also a "leash-free" dog park! So, whether they like it or not, the airport authority has to to tolerate people at the fence. There is no room to create a buffer zone.

The results of today's therapy session:

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/5844/f181tl8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Also from today...something you probably don't see much of outside of Winnipeg. These are DeHavilland Dash 8's used by the air navigation school here. These actually use the call sign "Gonzo". Seriously, they've used that call sign since they were first delivered (as in: "Gonzo 3, you are number 2 following a Metroliner on short final for runway 31")

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/2468/gonzoka0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

So you have been to Groom Lake?



I took pictures at Long Beach Airport last year and got the full interview by security. They took down my name, address, phone number, where I work, etc. They didn't stop me but there isn't a doubt in my mind that I now have an FBI file (more likely they just added to the one I already had from my un-scheduled visit the the SR-71/A-12 storage facility, back when those planes were still a hot subject for security...).

My philosophy: "always get the picture" (No matter what the circumstances).

(I did get pictures of the SR's/A-12's, I was just lucky that I didn't have my camera with me the day that the FBI talked to me)

The airport in Winnipeg was established in this location in 1927. The city grew around the airport and butts righ up against the airport fence. The location I take these picture from is technically called the "Legion Memorial Sports Park" and it's about 75 yards away from a public baseball diamond. It's also a "leash-free" dog park! So, whether they like it or not, the airport authority has to to tolerate people at the fence. There is no room to create a buffer zone.

Brent, I don't think John wasn't talking about taking pictures from an unauthorized location. With current security climate here in the states, if you were standing in a public park near an airport and taking pictures of airliners (especially on a regular basis), you would eventually get a chat with an FBI agent (or someone similar). I don't know if it's overkill or not, but it would happen, and I can see the reasoning behind it. The US authorities are rather paranoid about airline security, and with all the attempts to blow up US airliners, I really can't blame them for having that attitude.

Yeah well this ''paranoia'' will eventually cross the border. Brent seems to have a passion with planes, but airport security don't know that. Expect a visit one day. Until then, have fun and enjoy the nice view....... BTW, if you EVER see RL-206, take a picture will ya!!! That would solve a BIG mystery................. :)

Here's why I don't sweat a lot about security.

Look on the lower right quadrant of this map. The small white cross is my house. It's about 400 yards from the airport fence. The small white circle to left of it is where I shoot most of the photos. My girlfriend's house is about 200 yards from the fence. The closest house is about 10 yards from the fence. the only reason I don't shoot more photos from my backyard is because of the location of the afternoon sun.

But all the "white" in this map is a dense housing development.

My point being that we (the St.James suburb) live at the airport fence. I can see the control tower from my backyard. There was a junior football game at the fence today without about 200 camera toting parents.

The WORST thing that could happen is that I have to take the picture from my own backyard which means I'd have to photograph in the morning instead of the afternoon.

But the authorites have no place to move people away from the fence because our houses are at the fence.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4890/airpfm4.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

So I bet you have one of those 'I love aircraft noise' stickers on your car?

What a crappy time for Google Earth to encounter clouds! -

http://www.inpayne.com/temp/brents%20house.jpg

http://www.inpayne.com/temp/brents%20house%20close.jpg

No fair hiding, Brent! :lol:

Ironic that the cloud cover clears about half a block from my house!

But you got the location virtually perfect. I can see my house in both photos just very slightly to the right and down from dead center.

I really have to get high speed internt so I can access these neat things easier...I'm waiting for my HDTV channels so that I can get a decnt TV/Net deal from the cable company !

And I really do love aircraft noise. It gets creepy when I can't hear things at night. My buddy grew up in the same neighborhood and moved to quieter suburb about 10 years ago. Says he has trouble sleeping at night because all he can hear are the creaks of the house settling and tree limbs rubbing against the siding.

Even as far as we are from Newark, we get jumbos in approach overhead all the time. When they shut down the airlines after 9/11, it was WIERDly quiet here.

In answer to the question, "What if I was forced to take pictures from my backyard instead of the park?", I took this picture this morning from my patio:

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/6832/herc3ty3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The main drawback is that the angle of the sun is such that the planes are back lighted after about 11:00AM so the photography has to be done in the morning for best results.

I hope that you're not facing a blast fence where Air Canada is doing engine run ups! Here in YUL, the CTRL tower always gets phone calls from pissed off people that lives around the airport (kinda weird '"cause the airport was built in the mid '50's !!!!) . AC had the habbit to do their engine run in the middle of the night. That changed over time. Now it's rare that they do one after 12.00AM. The noise on a take off is high but when all 4 engines of an A340 or 747 are screaming at the same time for 10 minutes, that is HELL. I can ear them sometimes doing those test and I live 30 minutes from the airport.

Brent lives on the Genesis Planet!!!! :eek:

Pull back from his neighborhood and you get different weather patterns in every map grid!

http://www.inpayne.com/temp/brentsplace4.jpg

:lol:

I guess the satellite photos were taken at different times of the year - I love the neighborhood to the upper right where it's eternally covered in snow.

Genesis Planet!!!!! That's a good one..... :D

Hey, I need a shoulder to cry on.

I thought it might be neat to submit a photo to airliners.net and see if I could get it accepted in their database. They have high standards and a high rejection rate but it doesn't cost anything to try. Your chances of getting a picture accepted are higher if there aren't too many of the same type from the same location. I checked their database and found 8 CL-215 pictures from Winnipeg (a fairly low number) and I THOUGHT I might have a chance.

Well, I got my REJECTION letter earlier today :(. Oh well, it happens.

When a photo is rejected, they tell you why. That's good...some constructive criticism. Apparently my photo was poorly centered and too dark. Hmmm. Art is subjective. Fair enough.

But here's the thing...look at this pair of photos below. The top one is my rejected photo. The bottom one is one that they accepted from another photographer and put in their database. I even left the copyright notice on it.

Is my photo really worse than his? If it is, then I better rethink my artistic sensibility.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5118/betterox3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

So what they're saying is, their people are too damn lazy to crop and adjust brightness on an electronic photo? :freak:

Yeah, Brent. Your pic is much better and more representative of the craft. I think a lot of times, they just stop wanting to get more of the same subject even when it would behoove them to upgrade/update their photographs. Just call it laziness on their part.

Oh, well. I actually feel a bit embarrassed about griping. Airliners.net has a boatload of posts from people with the same , "I can't believe you rejected my picture" cry.

But it is an interesting study on the subjectiveness of vision. I actually cropped the photo specifically to place the aircraft as I did. Airliners.net has a very literal interpretation of "centering". They spell it out as having the subject being the same distance from the frame on both the right and the left. There's no question I broke the rule so I can't argue the point. Unfortunately (for me), my idea of centering is less literal as I give more weight to significant portions of the aircraft: the cockpit, landing gear and engines. So I located those more centrally.

In other words, they don't want art, they want snapshots and reference photos. Oh well.

Recenter and resubmit. :) No matter how it's framed, it's a better photo.

They gotta be kidding. The two shots don't compare at all.Yours is the best by far!

Nice FA-18!!!

:thumbsup: ---Midnightrun--- :wave:

The F-18 pictures are really an important part of the learning curve for me. The plane was in the shadow of a cloud but the background was fairly well lit which resulted in a series of pictures with poor detail in the shadows.

I'm just now starting to seriously try and figure out the "digital darkroom". The whole idea is almost insulting to me because I had (still have...but don't use) a real darkroom that I used for 30 years (since I was a kid).

The big challenge is something like trying to pull detail out of the shadows without washing out the whole image. You can just turn up the brightness. I bought a book with info that explains some of the technical crap like reading histograms and adjusting tone curves. I'm making some slow progress. This F-18 picture (I think taken immediatley after the previous picture) was originally deemed to dark for posting. But I'm SLOWING figuring out how to salvage problem photos. I've managed to pull the details out of the shadows on this picture and still keep respectable contrast in the background.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5881/f18testrv9.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

Oh tell me about it! Every time we do an issue of the campany newspaper, I have the challenge of a dozen group photos taken in varying conditions (outdoors in the sun, outdoors in cloud, indoors under flourescents, in the photo studio with proper lighting, in the lobby with severe backlighting from the sun thru the doors ... ) and making them look reasonabley good together on the same page. I never manage to do it, really.

And I've long since gotten over the social-guilt feeling when I have to isolate a black person's face and adjust the contrast/brightness/gamma/etc so you can see their features as well as the fair skinned people.

Right now, I'm trying to research an affordable software package to handle the photo manipulation. At the moment, I'm using a hodge-podge of different programs because no single one has everything (ie, the one with adjustable tone curves doesn't have an unsharp mask function...the one with the unsharp mask does a lousy job of downsizing).

I have to say I was slightly taken aback when one of the reasons for rejecting my waterbomber picture was that it was "too dark". I have to assume that, again, that may be a reference to lost shadow detail. But, if you look at my earlier posted picture, it's obvious that I can't just crank up the brightness because the cloud will just blow out into a big white blob.

I'm working on the problem...which proves that rejection can be a character builder. I still have a way to go but I've managed to get out a bit more shadow detail and actually improve detail in the cloud at the same time.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/479/bombiuc8.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

Your picture is by far the best no questions asked... those people at the publishing place must be blind!!!

:thumbsup: ---Midnightrun--- :wave:

Brent - if you can't afford Photoshop (and who can?), get CorelDRAW Graphics Suite. It's only about $200-$250. Corel PhotoPaint (included) does everything Photoshop does. Version X3's new image adjuster lets you do a brighten/darken on shadows, midtones or highlight separately, which addresses your shadow problem above. I've been using it exclusively since about 1993. I used Corel to do everything on my website.

Thanks, John P...you'd definitely be the guy to ask about this. Yeah, Photoshop is slightly (!!) pricey :). I also hear complaints from people who us it that it's almost a lifetime project trying to figure out how to use all of the features.

On a related note: I don't know if anybody has noticed this but I've observed a strange phenomenon while looking for software in the last week. In my earlier computer days (10+ years ago) I remember stores with shelves and shelves tightly packed with software. Recently, I've gone to two big electronics stores as well as Office Depot and Staples where I found just a few shelves of software. There actually seems to be less software on the retail shelves around here. That seems odd.

Ahh...one of the nice things about being in academia...I got the entire Adobe suite for $200 on sale.

Yeah, Brent, i actually HAVE Photoshop on my computer at work, but every time I try to figure it out I run screaming from the room. I tought myself Corel almost completely without a manual. Plus, for the $250 (or whatever), you get the vector-based CorelDRAW, the raster-based PhotoPaint, plus a nice bundle of other handy utilities. PhotoPaint can use Photoshop plug-ins too. Pretty much all you'll ever need, IMHO.

And I've long since gotten over the social-guilt feeling when I have to isolate a black person's face and adjust the contrast/brightness/gamma/etc so you can see their features as well as the fair skinned people.At my job, we used to have a big problem with color degradation (it's mostly fixed now) when uploading digital image files to our color printer/copiers. Depending on the type of file, sometimes black people would come out looking mocha! And white people would look Irish. As for Irish people, they just disappeared altogether. :D Yeah, Brent, i actually HAVE Photoshop on my computer at work, but every time I try to figure it out I run screaming from the room. I tought myself Corel almost completely without a manual. Plus, for the $250 (or whatever), you get the vector-based CorelDRAW, the raster-based PhotoPaint, plus a nice bundle of other handy utilities. PhotoPaint can use Photoshop plug-ins too. Pretty much all you'll ever need, IMHO.I use Photoshop regularly in my work, but I still don't know half the stuff you can do with it. Expensive, yes, but it's a very powerful program. I've never used Corel — do they make a Mac OS version or is it exclusively for Windows?

And I agree, Brent, your CL-215 pic is definitely the better one.

I appreciate the support my waterbomber picture is getting.

Reminds me of the time (20 years ago) when I got dumped by my girlfriend. I bumped into her father one day and he said to me, "I sure wish you had married my daughter instead of that other guy she ran off with". I told him I appreciated his support and I only regretted that his "vote" doesn't count :).

I wish you guys could vote for my waterbomber picture but only that damned anonymous "screener" gets a say about what gets accepted. They should have a "People's Choice" section where all of us rejects get another chance (kinda' like the "Lucky Dog" rule in NASCAR).

At my job, we used to have a big problem with color degradation (it's mostly fixed now) when uploading digital image files to our color printer/copiers. Depending on the type of file, sometimes black people would come out looking mocha! And white people would look Irish. As for Irish people, they just disappeared altogether. :D

I have an irsih friend who used to joke that a day at the beach would barely "neutralize the blue." :lol:

I use Photoshop regularly in my work, but I still don't know half the stuff you can do with it. Expensive, yes, but it's a very powerful program. I've never used Corel — do they make a Mac OS version or is it exclusively for Windows?

Yup, there's a Mac version. Luckily the printing bureau we use at work has it, so I can send her my Corel files directly and she can print from them.

OK, Zat any better??

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/251.jpg

Well, that may be better but that's the OTHER GUY'S picture and he doesn't need any help.

His original picture got accepted. Mine was the reject.

OH! Well, I can make yours look as CRAPPY as the other guys photo! LOL

OH! Well, I can make yours look as CRAPPY as the other guys photo! LOL

Brent doesn't need any help with that.
;)

Des Moines International used to have a place to park and watch the air port traffic, familys wood come and part, teen agers wood come and have fun in there steamed up cars. then after 9/11 they shut it down saying they needed the land to an exspantion project, they never supplied another local for people to come and just watch. HUMPHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I think plane watching is likely to continue to be quite popular as people lose access to the outside of aircraft. What I mean is: people only access planes through jetways and internal gates as observation decks and such things are closed.

This may seem unbelievable today, but I remember when our airport didn't have a fence! Everybody was on the honor system. When Air Canada got it's first 747 (1971?), I went to see it with a bunch of my junior high school buddies. We just walked up to the edge of the ramp and stood on the grass as did a few hundred people. There was a tacit understanding that it was OK to be on the grass but we should avoid walking onto the concrete ramp. However, there was absolutely no fence to stop us from going anywhere.

I often broke that rule when I was going from my house to a place on the north side of the airport. I used to just cut across one of the smaller ramps. I even remember walking under a DC-4 just as it was starting up!

Talk about "the old days"!

Well, I can still take pictures of the plane I'm about to board thru the terminal windows. Nobody's tackeled me yet doing that. Not to say it WON'T be banned some day! :lol:

Here's a picture from ANOTHER photographer in Winnipeg...I wish I had his vantage point. He must be in the air force because this pic was clearly taken from the C-130 tanker.

This is a CF-5 refueling over Winnipeg in June of 2003. At that time, the air force had retired the CF-5's but a local company (Bristol Aerospace) maintained the reserve fleet for possible sale overseas.

The interesting thing is that, when this photo was posted, people were more interested in the houses with swimming pools than the airplanes. There was speculation that they must be "melted hockey rinks"! As a guy who just LOVES this city, that used to annoy me but I've actually grown to appreciate the lack of respect. It keeps the undesireables from moving to town. I'm officially putting out the message that we a frozen wasteland in the winter and a mosquito infested bog in the summer. This town is just big enough for me and I don't need any more company :).

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/5584/f5kw5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Your picture is better, but maybe he submitted his when there weren't any others or only 1 or 2?

As for graphics programs, why not free? Look up the GIMP for a photoshop-like program. It is used by real graphics professionals that need it for their work, so it's not a poor substitute, although it isn't as good as the pricey commercial packages.