Sony DSC-F828 shoots B-17 Flying Fortress

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Birk Binnard wrote:
> For those interested in WWII airpower I have just published 42
pictures
> of a B-17 Flying Fortress. The direct link is
> http://www.birkbinnard.com/photography/B17/.
>
> As usual all comments welcome. I hope you enjoy seeing this amazing
> piece of history.
> --
> Birk Binnard
> http://www.birkbinnard.com
Neat photos, thanks for sharing them.

Scott

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:54:54 -0700, Birk Binnard
<birkb@nospambirkbinnard.com> wrote:

>For those interested in WWII airpower I have just published 42 pictures
>of a B-17 Flying Fortress. The direct link is
>http://www.birkbinnard.com/photography/B17/.
>
>As usual all comments welcome. I hope you enjoy seeing this amazing
>piece of history.

Very interesting and well taken pictures. I liked your attention to
detail and the informative descriptions of each picture.

One question though, in picture 32 of the engine, I always thought the
stainless steel pipe carried the ignition wires. Are you sure they are
for fuel?

Best regards,

Chris

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You might be correct. One of the guys associated with the plane told me
it was fuel lines, but they could be for ignition wires. I wonder if
there is a way to find out.

--
Birk Binnard
http://www.birkbinnard.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Good stuff - thanks. One minor comment - would have liked to see a few
more full external views - the 28mm wide end on the 828 would give good
perspectives, eg shot from near the wingtip, close to the ground and
angled up, that sort of thing.. They are a majestic aircraft.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:34:27 -0700, in rec.photo.digital Birk Binnard
<birkb@nospambirkbinnard.com> wrote:

>You might be correct. One of the guys associated with the plane told me
>it was fuel lines, but they could be for ignition wires. I wonder if
>there is a way to find out.

Look at how where it connects in 33. Between 7 and 8 o'clock you can see
the connection to an ignitor sticking out of the cylinder head.

Thanks for sharing these. A minor nit about the way the pages are laid out.
Given the way the text description and navigation arrows are laid out, the
navigation arrows are not in fixed positions as one goes from page to page.
One is therefore forced to continually reposition the cursor over the next
arrow taking attention away from the photos. Got annoying before the end.
The easiest way to fix this that I can see is to add another column to the
table on the right and stick the nav aids in it, top placement. This should
fix it's position wrt to the page.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:54:54 -0700, in rec.photo.digital you wrote:

>For those interested in WWII airpower I have just published 42 pictures
>of a B-17 Flying Fortress. The direct link is
>http://www.birkbinnard.com/photography/B17/.
>
>As usual all comments welcome. I hope you enjoy seeing this amazing
>piece of history.

Wowee wow wow!

Nicest series of B-17 photos I have ever seen.

Thank you very much.

Hap

PS: No problems with navigation arrows here—21" ViewSonic @ 1152x864.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll change the text on the offending page and
look into a way to fix the nav button issue. The pages are generatd by
Photoshop Elements but I have dome some HTML modes to the template
pages. Hopefully I'll be able to fix the progblem you describe.
--
Birk Binnard
http://www.birkbinnard.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:47:02 -0400, in rec.photo.digital Hap Shaughnessy
<hap@lac-du-possum.ca> wrote:


>PS: No problems with navigation arrows here—21" ViewSonic @ 1152x864.

What has the monitor got to do with it? I'm running a 22" Iiyama at
1600x1200. It's a matter of using tables to format the text and the arrows
and differing amount of text on different pages moves the placement of the
arrows up and down. The formatting of the cell contents as right bottom
doesn't help. You can't go through the whole set of photos without moving
you mouse to reposition a bit to go to the next photo every once in a
while. Indeed a minor nit, but it takes away from an otherwise stellar
experience.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed's right -- the problem was that the different amount of text in the
description caused the location of the nav buttons to change because the
buttons "floated" at the end of the text string. Putting the nav buttons
in their own table cell fixes their position.

Thanks again for the suggestion. I've changed the Photoshop template so
future galleries will be OK.
--
Birk Binnard
http://www.birkbinnard.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:35:19 -0700, in rec.photo.digital Birk Binnard
<birkb@nospambirkbinnard.com> wrote:

>Thanks for the feedback. I'll change the text on the offending page and
>look into a way to fix the nav button issue. The pages are generatd by
>Photoshop Elements but I have dome some HTML modes to the template
>pages. Hopefully I'll be able to fix the progblem you describe.

That's taken care of it. Now the visitor can focus on just the images.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Birk,
> For those interested in WWII airpower I have just published 42 pictures
> of a B-17 Flying Fortress. The direct link is
> http://www.birkbinnard.com/photography/B17/.
>
> As usual all comments welcome. I hope you enjoy seeing this amazing
> piece of history.
Somehow I always imagined these planes as very beaten up and dirty; your
pictures show something completely different!
I saw you also made a study of the PF problem, but at 700x525 the pictures
are too small to see details. Did I miss something and are they somehow also
available at full size?

-- hans

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HvdV wrote:
> Hi Birk,
>
>> For those interested in WWII airpower I have just published 42
>> pictures of a B-17 Flying Fortress. The direct link is
>> http://www.birkbinnard.com/photography/B17/.
>>
>> As usual all comments welcome. I hope you enjoy seeing this amazing
>> piece of history.
>
> Somehow I always imagined these planes as very beaten up and dirty; your
> pictures show something completely different!
> I saw you also made a study of the PF problem, but at 700x525 the
> pictures are too small to see details. Did I miss something and are they
> somehow also available at full size?
>
> -- hans

When they were being used in WWII, they WERE beat up and dirty. Flying
through AA does that. And the dirty is from the fuel, and several guys
in too small a space for too long, sweating, and other things, on a long
mission. Yep, dirty and beat up. These days, the guys who fly them
have the time to keep them looking 'factory new'.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:35:14 +0200, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:

>Hi Birk,
>> For those interested in WWII airpower I have just published 42 pictures
>> of a B-17 Flying Fortress. The direct link is
>> http://www.birkbinnard.com/photography/B17/.
>>
>> As usual all comments welcome. I hope you enjoy seeing this amazing
>> piece of history.
>Somehow I always imagined these planes as very beaten up and dirty; your
>pictures show something completely different!

The rotation of crews was based on 25 missions; in the early years of
the B-17 deployment, their average lifespan went from under 12 to
about 18 missions. Keeping them clean took a far back seat to keeping
them serviceable.

IIRC, it was in May of 1943 that the Memphis Belle became the first
B-17 to complete all 25 missions with its original crew intact.
>I saw you also made a study of the PF problem, but at 700x525 the pictures
>are too small to see details. Did I miss something and are they somehow also
>available at full size?
>
>-- hans

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:35:14 +0200, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Birk,
>>
>>>For those interested in WWII airpower I have just published 42 pictures
>>>of a B-17 Flying Fortress. The direct link is
>>>http://www.birkbinnard.com/photography/B17/.
>>>
>>>As usual all comments welcome. I hope you enjoy seeing this amazing
>>>piece of history.
>>
>>Somehow I always imagined these planes as very beaten up and dirty; your
>>pictures show something completely different!
>
>
> The rotation of crews was based on 25 missions; in the early years of
> the B-17 deployment, their average lifespan went from under 12 to
> about 18 missions. Keeping them clean took a far back seat to keeping
> them serviceable.
>
> IIRC, it was in May of 1943 that the Memphis Belle became the first
> B-17 to complete all 25 missions with its original crew intact.
>
>>I saw you also made a study of the PF problem, but at 700x525 the pictures
>>are too small to see details. Did I miss something and are they somehow also
>>available at full size?
>>
>>-- hans
>
>
And I will BET it wasn't either clean, or pristine either. Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net