A few random pics from the NMUSAF

[Wolverine]

Has anyone tried taking photographs in the newest hangar? You know, the one with the B-36? I have, several times, and my pictures always came out well there. I think that it's not the blackness of it all that's the problem, it's how the lighting is spread out/set up. The WWII hangar has a lot of fluorescent lights that the other one doesn't, and that is one of the big flaws.

'sides, just changing the lighting is cheaper than repainting everything.

[Kos]

The purpose behind it comes from an artistic standpoint. THe dark hangars are supposed to symbolize pictures from a scrap book. The white hangars are supposed to symbolize a sterile enviroment.

The dark hangars are just plain unfriendly, as any dark space is. I always think there is something hiding in the shadows, or something that they don't want me to see. I've never liked the darkened galleries.

[mike furline]

Nothing better than a pic of the P-61 in the dark.

Regards,
Mike

[CH2Tdriver]

[quote="Wolverine"]Has anyone tried taking photographs in the newest hangar? You know, the one with the B-36? I have, several times, and my pictures always came out well there. I think that it's not the blackness of it all that's the problem, it's how the lighting is spread out/set up. The WWII hangar has a lot of fluorescent lights that the other one doesn't, and that is one of the big flaws.

Here are some of mine from GML Sunday. (I bet I walked past dozens of WIX'ers. We need hats or something. )







Cheers,
Pete

[6trn4brn]

Thanx for the pix Pete...can't get enough of the Big Stick

I have an older Kodak digital and my pix have all turned out the same as yours with the orangeish light issues in that new hangar

Again my love/hate relationship with the NMUSAF seems shared by many:

LOVE the collection/HATE the fact that the powers that be refuse to budge on the piss poor lighting! One has to wonder how many people have come from all over the world to see this fantastic collection, take pictures and return home to find that the majority of their pix are crap due to the pathetic lighting

mustangdriver...bless your heart for always taking sides with the museum. If you are in any way able to put a bug in someone's ear, how about letting anyone within earshot know that putting in some 100 watt lightbulbs to replace the 40 watt ones would be extremely appreciated by all of the people taking pix for future memories? Or one could even re-arrarange the lighting...especially in the WWII hangar?

Rant off...

[mustangdriver]

Ha HA, I have been suggesting adding some more lights forever. I get what they are trying to go for, but I think a little more light would help. I don't always side with them about everything, just when I think they are right!

[6trn4brn]

Just when you think they are right???

Good to know that an "insider" is aware of the lighting issue

My 14th visit there is coming soon Will leave the old camera at home

[mike furline]

The purpose behind it comes from an artistic standpoint. THe dark hangars are supposed to symbolize pictures from a scrap book. The white hangars are supposed to symbolize a sterile enviroment.

What would happen if they just tried to symbolize a museum about aircraft?
I can go to any Museum of Modern Art for artistic standpoint.

Regards

[CH2Tdriver]

"I have an older Kodak digital and my pix have all turned out the same as yours with the orangeish light issues in that new hangar "

I have my D-SLR and should have brought a "cooling" filter with me that should have helped. With a straight digital camera you can set the White Balance to compensate for the incandescent lighting (set it from AWB to the little light bulb symbol), on mine I can set the value cooler or warmer but did not have the time to experiment. I tried to fix it a little in photo shop.

On the other hand if a museum is bright but is using florescent lights, use a "warming" filter else your shots will all have a greenish tint. IE: green primer will actually come up brown.

Pete

[mustangdriver]

The purpose behind it comes from an artistic standpoint. THe dark hangars are supposed to symbolize pictures from a scrap book. The white hangars are supposed to symbolize a sterile enviroment.

What would happen if they just tried to symbolize a museum about aircraft?
I can go to any Museum of Modern Art for artistic standpoint.

Regards

Right Mike, but it is not just an air museum. Each aircraft is a memorial. To those who worked on it, flew it, serviced it, crewed it, designed it, and built it. It is more than just, "Here is an F-4." Settings are very important in telling the stories of what the aircraft did and the time period it did it in. I know what you all mean about lighting, but I do want the setting atmosphere as well. There needs to be a balance. Take it from someone that is a volunteer there. When you are standing in a dark building in front of the B-17, and listening to a B-17 crew member tell you of his time in Europe, that scene just adds to the event.

[Michel C-GNCJ]

I tend to agree with you mustangdriver. It does add to the drama, recreating somewhat the ambiance etc. Just look at what they achieved at the Seattle Air & Space Wing of Courage !! Simply awesome.

BUT ! To take pictures, it does suck. Much less with digital than it used to with slides like I used to do, but still.

I just have a hard time figuring out how you could satisfy both requirements... special all lights on days for the photographers perhaps ?

[Tigercat]

I was told by a museum employee/volunteer when I was at NMUSAF three weeks ago, that the Museum/USAF had spent MANY THOUSANDS of dollars to have a Hollywood film production company come to the museum as expert consultants and study the lighting situation. After this lengthy study, the film company recommended the total black paint job that we see in the first building....the WWI and WWII displays and in building three....The Cold War Gallery.

This employee also said that the extensive track lighting arrangement which we see above the aircraft is a very "essential" component of the "professional illumination" system put forth by the film production "experts". The guy mentioned that his understanding was that building two....the Korea and Vietnam building, will be painted black and have track lighting installed in the near future. This would be the next stage in the professional illumination plan.

My opinion is that the new lighting strategy has some pluses.....but makes it difficult for many amateur photographers to get a decent selection of photographs. I think a little higher illumination level might be desireable....but then again, I am just an amateur in this subject area.


Ted

[RickH]

Maybe they are trying to force the amatuer to go and buy the NMUSAF professionally photographed book that is in the gift shop ? If it's hard for the amatuer to shoot decent shots of the aircraft, they really won't have any choice if they want decent pictures to remind them of their visit to Dayton.

Last edited by RickH on Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Steve Nelson]

A few more from last Sunday. The ones from the Modern Flight Gallery (the white buidling) are actually a bit washed out..I probably should punch up the contrast a little.

Actually, the WWI and WWII galleries aren't black inside..they're more like olive drab. I thinks it's a reasonable compromise. I suppose the black in the Cold War Gallery allows the aircraft to be "isolated" by lighting..it's definately more dramatic than Modern Flight. I didn't get any pics in the Cold War Gallery this trip..my batteries died (I did manage to squeeze a last little bit of juice out of them to get a shot of the Hanoi Taxi on the way out.) Oh well..just gives me more pics to take during next year's visit!

SN

[JDK]

Maybe they are trying to force the amatuer to go and by the NMUSAF professionally photographed book that is in the gift shop ? If it's hard for the amatuer to shoot decent shots of the aircraft, they really won't have any choice if they want decent pictures to remind them of their visit to Dayton.

You can download high res color shots of most of the Museum's aircraft from the website. In many cases there's 'as displayed' shots and shots (presumably) taken post rollout, before going on display, so that 'conspiracy theory' has a big hole in it. I've found them very useful for articles and discussions. In many cases they also include restoration and cockpit shots - something amateurs won't get or can't get, except by lucky timing on their visit to the restoration area. This is all a service few other museum provide.

In 2007 with a museum that allows a tripod, and using even a cheap digital, it is possible to take decent shots in very low light conditions and balance them either then or after for correct hues. Given that the majority of happy snappers can't get mum with her eyes open or a decent shot of an aircraft on the flight line without screwing it up, it's just another hurdle for the most. A little effort solves a lot. (Sounds harsh, but if I had a cent for every poor shot I'd been offered, as an editor, of a perfectly displayed aircraft, I'd have, well, some cash... )

Museums are just as much driven by fashion and aesthetic judgements many of us won't like as most other parts of life, don't kid yourself there's no 'art' and 'aesthetics' going on. Personally, I quite like the shots I've seen in the halls at the NMUSAF, and prefer the darker ones to the 'white operating theatre' ones.