On 5/31/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/05/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/31/07, Mark Wagner
<carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/29/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Last air show I went to, photographers kept bumping into each
other--took
> > some fun pictures of that after a
while. Be sure to shoot the
display tags
alongside the planes or whatever you shoot (I assume
you're shooting
digital), as it may make accurate identification and use in articles
easier.
When I'm shooting airplanes, I try for a square-on front view, a
square-on side view, a front corner view, and close-ups of any
significant markings (tail number, nose art, and anything else that
looks interesting).
Don't worry too much about ID, for that stuff; anyone who reads AvWeek
will be able to ID the photos on sight.
Indeed. And if there's a tail number in frame, we can get pretty much
all the necessary specific metadata off that as well :-)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Yeah, there are millions of folks who can identify things later. Except
that it's much easier to do it up front.
I take photos of specimens I've planted, and always put an id frame in. I
work with people who are better at id'ing my plants than I am, but still I
get mine done faster than they get their done, because I don't have to look
for ids, I don't have to think, I don't have to find one of the million
readers of AV week who can do, I don't have to post it and ask anyone. I
don't have to do anything about the identification, because it is all right
there on my camera.
It's a freebie. Do as you like, but sometimes it's nice not to have to
think or seek, especially when the information is right there at hand just
for the clicking. Even when I'm not dealing with 16,000 images at a pop,
it's easier.
KP