Pixel Pushing - Which Version?

[Jeff D. Welker]

My better half is taking a well deserved Mother's Day nap. Accordingly, I'm pushing pixels around on an Extender image I took yesterday. Let me know which image you prefer and why.

Thanks.

Extender Color


Extender Monochrome


Extender Grunge

[scottcolbath]

I like the B&W.

S.C.

[Bill]

I like both the color and B&W images for different reasons. The color image shows the reality of the aircraft in its environment but the B&W removes the environment and puts the focus on the form and texture of the aircraft. If I had to pick one it would be the B&W in this case. The grunge image does not move me in any way.

Bill Todd

[Scott Youmans]

Jeff, I like the B&W best. The relatively mild applications of filters is enough to give it some snap without taking away from the composition.  The color shot is 2nd and like Bill I'm not a big fan of the Grunge, at least not on most aircraft photos.  Definitely could have some applications elsewhere.  Just my subjective view as of today!

[scottcolbath]

BTW, what is that symbol on the head of the plane? I have an example of that up this month in my aviation calendar that I'm looking at right now.

S.C.

[Scott Youmans]

BTW, what is that symbol on the head of the plane? I have an example of that up this month in my aviation calendar that I'm looking at right now.

S.C.

It's related to the refuelling receptacle. I think it's just aid for the boom operator to help line things up. Similar to what you see on the back of F-16s.

[Joe Copalman]

Agree with the consensus here - 1.BW, 2.Color, 3.Grunge.

The one thing I like about the color shot is that the landing lights really pop, but the rest of the image has me trying to figure out if it's too contrasty or not contrasty enough.  Almost like the contrast slider was jacked to the right and the clarity slider was jacked to the left.  Then again, I have a hard time moving much further beyond the "as-seen-by-the-naked-eye" presentation than cloning out distractions and some mild gradient work, so please factor my plain-Jane pedigree into my critique.

Piggybacking on Scott's comment about the grunge shot, I think that treatment might do well on macro shots of old, weathered aircraft.  Like, scrapyard or museum stuff.  It's almost more "ghostly" than it is grungy.  Might make for some cool effects on discarded aircraft.

[Scott Youmans]

Piggybacking on Scott's comment about the grunge shot, I think that treatment might do well on macro shots of old, weathered aircraft.  Like, scrapyard or museum stuff.  It's almost more "ghostly" than it is grungy.  Might make for some cool effects on discarded aircraft.

Yes indeed. Ghost towns, dead trees, and certainly old broken down aircraft could look really good with that effect, especially in monochrome.

[Jeff D. Welker]

I sincerely appreciate everyone taking the time to look and comment. Your thoughtful criticisms are very instructive and exactly the input I was hoping for. Interestingly, the "Grunge" effect appealed to me the most. Only drawback for me was the ghosting; otherwise, I really like the somewhat desaturated tonality - especially on the drab USAF paint scheme. Hopefully, a few more will comment. In the meantime, I'll be pushing a few pixels this evening and your input will definitely be on my mind.

Thanks.

PS/Joe: Don't apologize for your "plain-Jane pedigree". When all is said and done, a well exposed and composed image is as good as it gets. In my situation the "creative" work in post processing is nothing more than an attempt to find that little extra detail hiding in the shadows, a tone that helps convey how I was "visually" feeling, or some combination thereof. It is also how I hope to improve an image where my exposure and/or composition is lacking - something that happens all to often 

[scottcolbath]

It's related to the refuelling receptacle. I think it's just aid for the boom operator to help line things up. Similar to what you see on the back of F-16s.

Hang on........Isn't this a KC-10, which is a refueler? Why would that aircraft need this, when it is the "top" and not the "bottom" aircraft?

S.C.

[Jeff D. Welker]

It's related to the refuelling receptacle. I think it's just aid for the boom operator to help line things up. Similar to what you see on the back of F-16s.

Hang on........Isn't this a KC-10, which is a refueler? Why would that aircraft need this, when it is the "top" and not the "bottom" aircraft?

S.C.

Hey Scott; while I'm probably the least qualified to answer your question - here goes. It is my understanding that these particular KC-10's were at Willie to participate in an exercise which included transferring fuel from one KD-10 to another. In other words, the Extender is also designed to be the "bottom" aircraft when necessary. Hopefully, someone with more info will chime-in.

[scottcolbath]

That would make sense Jeff. Thanks.

S.C.

[Joe Copalman]

Jeff's spot-on for the most part.  There was no exercise going on, just on one of the flights the three McGuire birds from Willie met up with three Travis-based KC-10s and practiced formation flying and tanking from one another.  The day before, they fueled a bunch of F-16s, mostly from Tucson.  Not sure what they did on Sunday. 

KC-10s are pretty amazing.  The ability to take on fuel in flight gives them greater range and persistence than the KC-135 has.  They also have the ability to refuel Navy/Marine Corps/NATO aircraft without modification.  Definitely a workhorse, and I always wondered why we don't have more of them.