Shooting into the valley

[daz1]

Comments appreciated

[Mistral]

Looks good Daz, colours blend nicely , wouldnt like to be the pilot though, because i reckon he's got about .... 1 second of life left  ;D

Good Job

[Hyperion2]

Lighting and composition are spot on, but the blur is off.  A) It's too "defined" and B) both objects can't be blurred.  Your "camera lens" is either following the airplane, in which case the background would be blurred, or it's stationary, in which case the glider would be blurred.

Like I said, composition wise, it's awesome...with some tweaking you'd have a much better shot!

[daz1]

thanks for the comments guys- ill do the blurring in my next shot, a dc3

daz

[Sytse]

Wow! that's the best wind-effect-outcome I've ever seen! (you used the wind-effect didn't you?)

Oh and Hype...
[quote]B) both objects can't be blurred.

[Hyperion2]

As a photographer who has been using cameras for the better part of 15 years, I assure you.  A camera can not be both stationary and moving.

Sure, you could pan the camera counteractively, that is, against the motion of the aircraft, which would blur both subjects, however not one to TRY to blur photos so far out of focus they're incomprehendible, it wouldn't make much sense to do so.

[chrisco17]

I would agree with Hype about the Lighting and composition, but the blur is off.
If they are both blurred, they wouldn't be both blurred the same.
As an example;
If you are following the plane with your camera, the background would tend to be blurry, but if, as you are following the plane, you are not locked on to it (ie. shaky hands, adjusting center etc.) the plane would also be blurry, just not as blurry as the background.
It's just a matter of perspective.  :)

[Rifleman]

I think this will show what is being talked about.....

First the original shot without any blurring........


Then following the plane........


....and finally slow shutter and not following the plane.....