Random discussion thread

[Tico Rick]

That's a nice photo, Willie Kool.

[Factorial]

I, for some reason, thought TR was a journalist. Maybe a radio journalist? Now, I'm having second thoughts.

[Tico Rick]

I did a tax return for a CIA employee this week. I kinda figured they'd be more covert and not put CIA on their W-2s to be honest.

I once had a friend who applied for a CIA job and used me as a reference. So a CIA guy came by and interviewed me about him. My friend got the job, and then I never heard from him again.

[Willie Kool]

That's a nice photo, Willie Kool.

Thanks. I was zoomed out to 44 mm and honestly wasn't expecting much. It was a nice surprise.

[columbia]

I did a tax return for a CIA employee this week. I kinda figured they'd be more covert and not put CIA on their W-2s to be honest.

I once had a friend who applied for a CIA job and used me as a reference. So a CIA guy came by and interviewed me about him. My friend got the job, and then I never heard from him again.

I once had a brother, who applied for a job requiring a specific security clearance. So a FBI guy came by and interviewed me about him. My brother didn't get the job and he speculated that it was because of the time he walked into a McDonalds in Morgantown with no clothes on.

[ulf]

I did a tax return for a CIA employee this week. I kinda figured they'd be more covert and not put CIA on their W-2s to be honest.

I once had a friend who applied for a CIA job and used me as a reference. So a CIA guy came by and interviewed me about him. My friend got the job, and then I never heard from him again.

I once had a brother, who applied for a job requiring a specific security clearance. So a FBI guy came by and interviewed me about him. My brother didn't get the job and he speculated that it was because of the time he walked into a McDonalds in Morgantown with no clothes on.

I worked with a girl, kinda sorta dated for a minute. She went to work for USIS and I got interviewed by an FBI agent since I was a reference. I didn't answer his first call and about pooped my pants when the vmail was from joe shmo, federal agent wanting to talk to me.

[Shyster]

I once had a brother, who applied for a job requiring a specific security clearance. So a FBI guy came by and interviewed me about him. My brother didn't get the job and he speculated that it was because of the time he walked into a McDonalds in Morgantown with no clothes on.

Did he lose a bet? It shouldn't count if you lose a bet.

[columbia]

He did not lose a bet.

[meow]

That's hardly a crime in West Virginia.

[blackjack68]

I would have had non-hd channels in the final four. Ouch.

Yup. Versus Upper Bowl Seats.

[shmenguin]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. In my experience, you buy the fastest lens you can afford. While I haven't photographed planes in flight, the difference between faster and slower lenses has been noticeable in my photos.

Don't know if you're aware, but the guy you're discussing this with is a pro photographer.

And he's objectively correct. It's shooting into the presumably sunny sky. At 5.6 I'd wager tif could shoot at 1/2000th and still have light to spare. He has no need for faster glass in this situation.

And at that focal length, he'd be crazy to spend a couple grand on glass that shoots at 2.8 or thereabouts.

Now if he wants to get serious about other kinds of shots, it's worth looking into. You can get a cheap 50mm that goes to 1.4. but a telephoto lens, that's a lot of cheddar.

[Hockeynut!]

Don't know if you're aware, but the guy you're discussing this with is a pro photographer.
Now if he wants to get serious about other kinds of shots, it's worth looking into. You can get a cheap 50mm that goes to 1.4. but a telephoto lens, that's a lot of cheddar.

I definitely don't know everything. I shoot portraits so there's a whole world of photography I have little to no experience in.

If I had my choice, I'd shoot everything with a Nikon 200 2.0 but I don't have $5K laying around so I use an 85 1.4 lens. And super fast glass sounds great, but my keeper rate (and I think I have pretty solid technique) plummets below 2.8.

[shmenguin]

I found it impossible to shoot at 1.4 with a 50mm - especially with continual focus mode. I'd never hit my mark. So I switched to the 24-70 2.8 and life got a lot easier.

Weird thing is that I shoot at 2.8 with my 105 all the time and nail my focus with every shot. Even at 2.8, my 50 failed me (and my 24-70 on occasion). Is it more reliable to shoot on a longer lens in that regard?

[Hockeynut!]

It's probably just due to the 105 being a better lens.

[PensFanInDC]

BORING! Less lens talk and more hijinx...

[FreeCandy44]

Hush...this is riveting.

[blackjack68]

What was the cover of People magazine the week you were born?

[PensFanInDC]

Hush...this is riveting.

What kind of lens is on your Kia?

[tifosi77]

Okay..... runways are 6-24 (one end is heading 60°, the other end is heading 240°), so roughly east-west. Crowd was on the south side of the field looking north, so the sun was behind me all afternoon.

Spoilered for size.

Spoiler:

All images are ISO 1000.... which is stupid high, given the lighting. (Why did I have it that high? I don't even remember adjusting ISO....)

1) P-51 Mustang flying about 350 mph, 1/1600, F5.6, 300mm (shutter's fast enough to 'stop' the prop blades, but still with the blur)


Next two were chosen because they are flying at slow speeds, and therefore not hard to track.

2) F/A-18E flying under 100 mph in level flight, 1/1000, F8, 300mm


3) F-16C flying at 120 mph in level flight, 1/1250, F6.3, 135mm


Now we switch. After the day's flying, I put the short lens back on to take some more shots. The military crews were already prepping to leave, so I figured I'd shoot that, and then scoot.

Here are the Navy jets, 1/400, F13, 38mm


And here is a shot taken from the exact same position about four minutes after the previous photo once I put the big lens back on to shoot the actual departures, 1/320, F5.6, 300mm


Looking though all the images, sometimes it looks like a focus issue, other times it just looks like an exceptionally noisy image.

I don't know what's up. It's a simple rig that I've been able to get good photos with in the past.

F-22A honkin' along at 650 mph, 1/2500, F6.3, 300mm (ISO is only 300 on this one)

[FreeCandy44]

MOAR KIA TALK!

[Hockeynut!]

Noise definitely makes an image look soft. It's hard to tell for certain at these image sizes but I'd say this is mostly a focus issue. None jump out at me as "motion blur" caused by the camera moving. That said, on the close up of the pilot in the cockpit, 1/320 is pushing it for a 300mm zoom. General rule of thumb for amateurs is 1.5x the focal length. What camera body are you using? If it's a crop body then your 300 mm becomes about a 450mm.

[count2infinity]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-lO5cUu1Js[/youtube]

[Idoit40fans]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xR0z6khi824" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tifosi77]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZWLWxpBv5g[/youtube]

Fizzles out a bit towards the end, but this is still kinda wonderful.

[shmenguin]

Fizzles out a bit towards the end, but this is still kinda wonderful.

they could have had 8 minutes of him urinating and it would have been accurate.

i'm not being snarky. dude pees A LOT in his movies.