Northrop F-5 Tiger II

[Anna M. Wood]

Thank you Harvey....   

[Jeff D. Welker]

Very nice shot Anna, I like the angle you shot it from, great light also.

I concur Anna - well done.

[Anna M. Wood]

Thanks Jeff....

Here they are under the lights.

[yipDog]

Hard to believe this airframe was developed 58 years ago! Still one of the best looking planes out there!
Mesa Gateway Open House 2014

[trmphoto]

[Tower Guy]

Very nice shot Tom, this has always been one of my favorite camo schemes.

[Jeff D. Welker]

Both Anna and Jay have encouraged me to try the 2.35:1 crop ratio. Gave it another try on this image. Not sure if it works? Thoughts?

CINEMASCOPE SNIPER

[Dave S.]

Both Anna and Jay have encouraged me to try the 2.35:1 crop ratio. Gave it another try on this image. Not sure if it works? Thoughts?

Jeffe,

My $0.02: The ratio seems to work, but the top & bottom seem a little tight on this image for my taste.  Not trying to re-hash the leading/room to move theory, just my personal taste.

Killer shot, by the way.

[Scott Youmans]

I like the image's tonality and most everything about it quite a lot.  A question for Anna and Jay.  Why 2.35:1 exactly?  Why not just crop to suit the subject?  I agree with Dave on the height.  I don't think I'd have left much more room but maybe a little more at the top.  We're talking minor tweaks here.

[John B.]

Wonderful shot, Jeff!  It feels a little cramped, but the subject is so compelling that it can be overlooked.

[Anna M. Wood]

Scott,

The 2.35:1 is a CinemaScope aspect ratio from the big screen.  (I suspect you knew that already)....

For Jeff....  Jay and I where encouraging trying that type of aspect ratio over maybe a more traditional 16:9 type wide screen crop (1920 x 1080) on a shot Jeff was working with a few weeks ago.  Less dead space above and below the subject.  Can work for many images.  The crux of the conversation was to really stretch the image in X and keep it shorter in Y when an image would work with that type of crop.  Not so much hitting a particular aspect ratio standard, such that are out there for anamorphic cinema type shooting.

[Jeff D. Welker]

Thanks Dave, Scott, John and Anna for the kind words and interesting comments. I always felt the 16:9 was a wide pano-type crop. The 2.35:1 makes the 16:9 look square. I think it only works on certain images and needs special attention on the top/bottom margins. Not sure if this image suits the crop, but I wanted to try. Thanks again.

[Scott Youmans]

Anna, agreed, a useful direction to go in many instances.  I tend to resist anything that resembles a formula!  I understand you were simply suggesting a wider format in general.  Good call!

[Joe Copalman]

I've been having an affair with 2:1 lately and am absolutely loving it for certain subjects.

Killer shot, Jeff.

[Jeff D. Welker]

I've been having an affair with 2:1 lately and am absolutely loving it for certain subjects.

Killer shot, Jeff.

Thanks Joe.