Actually, this is a subject which comes-up on enthusiast sites quite regularly. Lots of people (myself included) welcome critical comment, as it's always useful to know what other people think. Most of my work is ultimately used in books or magazines, so it's helpful to know what people (ie- the potential readers) like or don't like, and why. The problem is that some photographers (particularly guys who just take pictures for their own enjoyment) get a bit upset when people start making critical comments, and others then say (quite rightly) that being critical just discourages people from taking pictures, or at least from posting them up for others to see. Likewise, people also say that posting comments like "nice shots" is just pointless and makes wading-through threads very tedious. It's a no-win situation.
Personally, I'm thick-skinned enough to happily hear any criticism. I'm wise enough to know when someone is carping just for the sake of it (or to try and start an argument) but a valid comment is always worth hearing, even if it's just a subjective (non-technical) viewpoint. The problem is that some people aren't quite so open to criticism, and they can get a bit upset, so I can see both sides of this issue. Maybe posts should have warning triangles attached which tell readers whether the photographer is a delicate soul who only accepts praise, or whether he's willing to withstand all comments, good or bad?!
I agree entirely with the comments regarding screen quality. It's quite astonishing how different pictures can look, depending on the screen you're looking at. My main computer has a lousy screen and I rely on my laptop to give me a better idea of what an image actually looks like, but I'm quite willing to assume that my pictures will look completely different on somebody else's. To some extent I don't worry about it because if/when a picture needs to be reproduced in a publication, the layout and print people will adjust the image so that it's "correct" (at least for their purposes).
Maple, no I dn't have my own website. I've often thought about getting one (I might do some day) but I've never needed one. As a freelancer I generally approach publishers myself (or if I'm lucky they sometimes approach me), so I don't really have any need for a site as such, and I've never sold photos as stand-alone products - I inevitably use them as part of wider projects.
Max, you're right about that bit of shadow on the Tornado shot. Just one of those situations where you have to go with what you've got and hope for the best! Naturally, a break like that is over in a second, so there's no time to look for things like shadows. All you can do is get everyone in the right place, give the nod to go, and grab the shot at the instant where the image looks right (or just keep the shutter pressed and take loads of shots, but personally I've never been a big fan of that approach). It could have been better but I was trying to get a fairly dynamic shot with a bit of blue sky where text/titles could be included in the middle. If there had been enough time/fuel it would have been nice to have had a few more goes but that was a luxury we didn't have.
You're right about the camera being heavy sometimes. The low-level shot of the F3 is a good example. We were going round in a tight turn to try and get a bit of water vapour off the wings so we were generally somewhere around the 5-6g mark all the way round. You can imagine that it was a pretty sweaty saga punctuated by a whole lot of grunting and swearing! Again, that shot could have been better but it was the last image we tried to get and it was almost dark by then (we landed back at Leeming in darkness), particularly at low level. We spent hours waiting for the guys at Leuchars to set-off to meet us and by the time we were sat in a cockpit looking at the sun starting to set, still waiting for Leuchars, I was starting to think it would be dark before we even got airborne!
The Reds shot was another difficult shot to get. There was no opportunity to set-up a chase plane (both available aircraft were u/s) so the only opportunity was to simply grab a seat in the actual display routines. The problem with that is the proximity of the other aircraft (which makes a very wide angle lens necessary), and it means that there's no opportunity to get "pretty" shots of the whole formation. For most of the display, you've basically got another Hawk right next to you, filling your viewfinder. You have to try and follow the routine through the viewfinder as potential images come and go in milliseconds, but holding a camera to your eye is very tiring, especially if it's a flat display where there's an almost constant 5g or so, all the way through. Unfortunately, I visited during a period of foul weather and despite sitting-in on four displays, we only ever broke-out of the flat display very briefly on just one flight - in fact we nearly didn't get airborne at all because of the crosswind limits.
So, with an almost constant g load, holding up a camera gets very tiring very quickly. Insitinctively, you want to try and brace yourself against your knee or the canopy frame but of course you can't do that. The most important thing is to keep your limbs away from the control column and throttle otherwise there's going to be a major disaster. Likewise, you can't hold the camera against the canopy as the aircraft is banging and sloshing about too much. Then to add to your problems, the canopy isn't optically perfect and you have to hunt-around for places where the image is as clear as possible. It's very difficult and very tiring. Not making excuses, but it's probably worth pointing-out that even a fairly average picture can be a devil to take! Generally, the best Reds shots come from a properly set-up photo-chase in an accompanying aircraft, ideally out in the sunny skies over Akrotiri. Sitting-in on practice displays in stormy Lincolnshire isn't quite as ideal!
Okay, I've probably rambled-on way too much. Hope the comments are of interest though.
