Photo taken in the last moments of visible light at dusk - hand-held. The sun\'s effect on that day was incredible, making everything glow orange and other spectacular colours.
Thanks for your kind comments and suggestions. You raise an interesting point about aperture and shutter speed to which I will add a couple of thoughts. In answer to your question regarding motion blur, there were a couple of photos in the batch showing some blur - used a shutter speed of 90. :)
As Jeroen already mentioned panning is all important in capturing a faster moving object. However, my objective in using the slower shutter speed was to capture the full yet subtle sunset effect on an otherwise white jet. Over many attempts at photographing moving subjects with the sun (as opposed to against the setting sun) I found that slower shutter speeds result in a softer tone. I suppose it's like playing with fire in the strive for perfection, but good results speak for themselves. Similar techniques using shallower DOF would offer similar results in terms of overall colour effect but then the lighting on the main subject would be more harsh.
For comparison's sake, I did try larger apertures and faster shutter speeds on other aircraft that evening but the final product just wasn't the same - but they definitely were in focus.
My main concern at the time was to capture the incredible orange/red hue and this white jet offered me a great opportunity to show the effect of light. (Helped me practice my panning technique as well...)
I agree that not all photography is meant to be artistic. Just look at the medical and forensic fields. Those certainly record events and are legitimate fields of photography.
The thing with those fields -- outside of a lab, or courtroom etc., is they are not filled with imagination or surprises. They are very straightforward (and for a good very reason).
I have been a working photojournalist for more than 16 years. currently I am page designer for a newspaper in the Phoenix, Az area and I believe there is a time to photograph something in the straightforward manner in which you speak and a time to have fun. This is a great time to have fun. If ya mess up it is only film and there will be another plane along shortly.
I also realize the speed of the aircraft. Before I worked in newspapers, I was a jet engine mechanic in the military. Planes fly fast.
My line of thinking in regards to shutter speed is that if you go waving a 200mm lens around at 125th of a second you may be taking a chance with unwanted motion blur. The sweet thing about the lens that Stephen is used is that it is made to be shot at 2.8.
I don't think that opening up to f4 or 5.6 would have made that shot anymore difficult. It wasn't like he was so close that the wing tips or tail would have been out of focus (even if he would have shot it at 2.8).
On a couple of occaisions I have been assigned to photograph the Concord for newspapers I have worked for. One of those times it was very overcast which forced me to make the best of the situation. I had to shoot it with a pretty wide aperture (and not the best shutter speed). I admit that (before autofocus cameras) I had to work the focus and I had quite a few that were out of focus. The image I turned in for publication was as crisp as Stephens.
By the way Jeroen, I love your airplane picture titled "Speed." That image illustrates exactly what I am talking about when I mention developing a point of view. You were able to show me what I wouldn't have been able to see even if I were there. -- Tony
P.S. Stephen, I apologize to you for taking so much space to address Jeroen.
Not necessarilly Tony. Not all photography is meant to be artistic. Especially aviation photography is more about recording events and showing things as they are/were at the moment than about leaving an impression of something. Using a faster shutterspeed and opening up would have made focussing correctly difficult, remember the aircraft at this stage (takeoff) is travelling at about 200 knots, which equals to about 300mph. Panning becomes essential at such speeds, and especially given the low light focussing bevomes tricky so you need DOF to have a good chance at a sharp picture. Loosing frames is expected in such conditions, I've shot rolls of film to get a single good frame sometimes. It's part of the game.
Nice exposure and nice light -- but -- with the equipment you shot this with exposure shouldn't be an issue. At the distance the plane was from you, you may have been able to take a chance and shoot at f4 or even 5.6 to give yourself a faster shutter speed. When you got your film back were some out of focus because of motion?
I think a photographer's job is to show the viewer something they couldn't have seen even if they were there. Develop a point of view and show me something unusual about the plane.
Forgive me for not reading the criteria of the project but you can still apply the previously mentioned guidlines.
Now for the good news: I like how you were able to recognize great light -- a lot of people don't see it. Light is one of the most important things in photography yet it is often overlooked.
You've got some good things goin'. I can hardly wait to see what you do next -- Tony
0 
{K:25317} 5/13/2002