Opinions about rocket photos

[rstaff3]

Well, as they say on r.m.r., I'm donning my flameproof long johns....

After viewing about a billion rocket photos, I've decided that, except in a few rare cases, I really prefer good static shots over launch photos. I like to see the details of the finishing and construction. The typical launch photo is just a fuzzy generic-looking rocket at the end of a smoke trail. A clear close-up launch photo is a rarity.

Opinions?

 

[Milo]

I like static's but I like flames man.

Actually I prefer launch movies. But when movies can't be made a picture will do just fine.

 

[eugenefl]

Originally posted by rstaff3
After viewing about a billion rocket photos, I've decided that, except in a few rare cases, I really prefer good static shots over launch photos. I like to see the details of the finishing and construction. The typical launch photo is just a fuzzy generic-looking rocket at the end of a smoke trail. A clear close-up launch photo is a rarity.

Opinions?

I would have to agree with you. I too prefer static shots to liftoff shots. I especially love, and I think I speak for most of the TRF folks, the shots that show the progression of a project from start to finish. There's nothing better than a well documented project.

Every now and again there is a pretty good liftoff picture that I like to call a "money shot". Basically, the rocket is in focus, the distance is close enough to where the colors or detailing can be made out, and the flame looks good enough to make noise.

<a href="https://www.gbrocketry.com/Pictures/Jayhawk_1st_Flight_In_Flight.jpg">MONEY SHOT</a>

Of course, this is merely opinion based since we all like pictures of our babies, but sometimes a bad picture is just a bad picture.

Just a quick note, I don't believe that this is an attempt at discouraging anyone from taking pictures. I just think this is merely a voicing of opinion on the types of photography one likes best. So, to rephrase a post, what's your favorite type of rocketry picture?

 

[rstaff3]

Well, eugenefl, that is one of those rare shots I mentioned

I had no intention of discouraging anyone, I just wanted to generate some discussion Even great photographers don't get 100% good shots (and in my case the number is more like a tenth of one percent).

 

[Milo]

That is a great shot.

rstaff,
I know what you mean when it comes to great photographers. I'm no great photographer but people tell me my pictures of my dogs are really good. What they don't see is that I took about 50 shots of my dog just to get one good picture I could work with. I then bring it into Photoshop and crop and color, etc., etc. This is one reason I like my digital camera. Finding the money shot is a lot cheaper than real film.

 

[KenParker]

Every article that I have ever read on photography has had one common theme, and that theme is what Milo was talking about - the fact that professional photographers take, on the average, 50 to 100 shots to get one good shot. Digital cameras have certainly been a boon to photography, for again, as Milo says, taking those 50 or 100 shots is now just a matter of time, and saves one from burning a lot of expensive film and costly processing.

The hardest thing for me to learn since obtaining my digital camera has been to go ahead and snap photos like crazy since I don't have to worry about expensive film and processing. If the pic is no good, just delete it and forge ahead. The camera I have gets 400 pictures on its memory stick at the 640 X 480 resolution, and it gets 100 pictures at 1280 X 960 resolution - and this on a 64mb memory stick. One of these days I'm going to buy the 128mb memory stick, and those figures will double. The camera has 3 other higher resolution settings (1600x1200, 2048(3:2), 2048x1536), but I have just not found a need for those yet.

Now, having said all of that...... it's no wonder that most launch photos are blurry general representations of the subject. You usually only get one chance at a launch photo, so with those 50 to 1 or 100 to 1 odds working against you, most launch photos are just not as good as the still photos. Using my digital camera, I know that I retake a still photo now as many times as I have to to get something that looks good before I post it here, so what is seen is the "money shot." Launch photos are the luck of the draw.

I really like and enjoy the photos on the build articles here, and although I've been a modeler since the early 60's, and have built plastic models, balsa control line planes, balsa radio control planes, and rockets from tiny to L2 (so far, someday I hope to get to that L3), I have learned so much here it amazes me. Human ingenuity knows no boundaries.

But.... I still want to see that launch photo, whether it is the typical 49 of the 50 bad one, or that 1 in 50 money shot. I want undeniable proof that the bird flew.

Soooo... I'm greedy - I want both.

 

[swimmer]

Sorry, Dick, about the generic pics in my "Events" post. I'm glad you mentioned this subject, however. I thought about this subject yesterday while taking pictures regarding the merits of static pictures compared to launch pictures. With having to stand behind a safety fence some 40 feet away a prize winning photo is a rarity and most of the time you don't know whose rocket it was and what rocket it was. As I walked around the prep area there were many rockets that would have made good static pictures and I did get a few.

I really don't like watching my rockets launch through a viewfinder. It makes me feel somewhat seperated from what is going on and at some point I have to take my eye off my rocket. In that split second it is possible to lose site of it. I prefer to take someone with me who will take pictures and leave me to concentrate on flying.

What I do like in pictures are photos of projects no matter how simple or complex. There is something to learn or some technique in these type photos. I like ALL photos, just some more that others.

And, this is my opinion. Remember, "Opinions are just like noses, everyone has one".

Swimmer

 

[KermieD]

I like the static shots as well. I do agree with Ken though as I like the evidence that the rocket has launched. I'm still dying to get a launch photo of my Black Brant X in flight, even if it is just a blurry generic shot. I'd know it was mine.


Here's a static shot of a great rocket I'd love to have gotten a launch photo of. I don't think you'd have been able to mistake this for a 4FNC bird!

 

[Milo]

Ken,

I have a 128MB card and although I like the fact it holds lots of pictures I have found that the more pictures it has on it the longer it takes to process a picture. Not sure why that is but that is the way my Kodak works.

What kind of memory does yours use? If it is the square memory card type (not the stick type) I can let you borrow my 128MB card and let you see if that big of a card works well with your camera or if it will drive you nuts as you wait for the picture to be saved. You may decide that a couple of 64MB cards work better for you.

I take pictures at the highest quality and resolution my camera allows and I get anywhere from 190-210 pictures on my 128MB card depending on the details the pictures has in it.

 

[KermieD]

Accidentally pasted a pic from my brother's wedding in there. Here's the real one:

 

[KermieD]

OK...who knows why it did this to the pic???

 

[rstaff3]

Ken,

You bring up a point (re: taking lots of digital pics) that should be obvious to me but isn't. I have loved having access to a digital camera on trips. I take pics of many things that I would have skipped on roll film. Not that the results are 'great' photos, but they capture a lot of memories. Still, I go to a launch and I take a handful. Don't know what's up with that. Maybe I'm in too big a rush to prep the next one

Swimmer,

My comments really were not pointed at you. I went to several sites recently and there were mostly launch pics. I'd read a description of some cool rocket I wanted to look at, but there were no static shots. If they were as good as eugenfl's example I could have seen the details I was interested in, but they weren't that close up. Some of this is the digital camera's ability to zoom and catch motion. Anyway, keep taking the pics and post them! (It's for your own personal safety, really. It's been rumored that Carl tracks members down when they fall below a pre-determined, top-secret threshold of posts-with-pics/posts-without-pics!)

Milo,

If your numbers are accurate, I'll have to LOWER the percent of my shots that are 'great'

 

[Milo]

Originally posted by rstaff3
Milo,

If your numbers are accurate, I'll have to LOWER the percent of my shots that are 'great'

I see two ways you can look at those numbers.

1. I'm such a crappy photographer I need to take fifty just get a good one.

or

2. I'm so anal about details that I need to take fifty just to get a good one.

I'd say I'm somewhere in the middle. Which is tough to live with since I can't live up to my own anal retentive standards.

 

[KermieD]

Originally posted by Milo


I see Which is tough to live with since I can't live up to my own anal retentive standards.

Ack! It's contagious! First Carl, then Sand, and now Milo has fallen!

 

[KenParker]

Milo - thanks for the offer to loan me the 128mb memory card, but my camera is the Sony DSC75 and it uses Sony's proprietary Memory Stick. That's probably about the only thing that I don't like about the camera.... but hey, the price was right - Dad gave it to me for a Christmas gift. I would probably have never bought such an expensive camera on my own.

You know, I haven't noticed it taking longer to store a picture as I get more pics on the memstick. Maybe I'm not really paying attention to that.

On the other hand, I really don't think the pic storage time changes as the memstick fills up on my camera. My camera does have the capability to take mpeg clips, so I am betting it's storage time is pretty fast and consistent.

Gotta run, time to go grill some steaks for din-din.

 

[eugenefl]

Swimmer,

I'd like to reinforce the fact that Milo wasn't picking on you. I think he's just tired of surfing the web in general. There are so many rocketry sites that collectively, he's gotten tired of seeing bad pictures and so have I. This is just about the only site I surf anymore.

I support ANY rocketeer that posts a picture on this site, good or bad. The point that Ken made regarding "evidence" is one I forgot to post. For the most part, if you come to this site talking about rockets or a rocketry project, it is so entirely refreshing to see a finished product despite the photo quality.

To summarize, I believe our community is small enough and friendly enough that lesser than perfect photos are acceptable. In my opinion, I enjoy anything anyone here posts. I'm sure each individual enjoys the amount of attention and feedback their project is given.

So, to rephrase the post once more, what is your favorite type of rocketry photo?

 

[SPONGE]

I like to look at good static shots that show the detail well, but I like to take launch pics better. For those of you that like launch pics the best, you will love my next thread.

 

[swimmer]

Dick,

No offence taken.

Swimmer