Sorry for my haste. I should have said Tim and he already answered.
Carry on.
Don Roberts wrote:
I have to answer for Roger. Read his message, please. He says
"compressor blades in a Jet turbine". Not propeller blades. He also
never said he wanted to stop the blades for the picture, just that he
could. Pardon me if I sound peevish; these digital vs. film, my
camera vs. your camera threads do that to me. Objective reports and
user forums abound for cameras if you look not very hard and the
digital/film bs is not arguable with any degree of usefulness. Nor is
the definition of art etc. George Santayana said that "Those who do
not know history are doomed to repeat it." That is this forum
sometimes. Don
I promise to be nicer tomorrow.
Rich Mason wrote:
What's more, why would you want to stop the blades (freeze them in
the photograph), assuming you are referring to propeller-driven
aircraft? I think that will lead to static pictures. Best to have
some blur to convey motion--especially if photographing air-to-air or
ground-to-air. Frozen propellers on a moving plane just look
unnatural to me.
Rich Mason
http://richmason.com
On Jun 13, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Roger Eichhorn wrote:
(which I intend to put to work at the EAA Fly-In at Whitman Field
in Oshkosh Wisconson this summer) -- at those speeds I can probably
stop the compressor blades in a Jet turbine
Hmm. It will certainly wreak some havoc, but it may not stop the
blades. Seems like a waste of a good camera!
Roger
--
--
============================================================
Don Roberts * Bittersweet Productions * Iowa City, IA
* *
And the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty,
but is it Art?". -- Rudyard Kipling
============================================================
