Aero India - pics, clips and anecdotes

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 16 Mar 2005 00:48

Like I said this is default mode. You can sharpen and smooth per desire.

neatimage is a good free program for personal use. Or you can go the commercial route and pay $ 600+ to get the same post-processing effects in photoshop!!!

OR save your images in RAW maode and then process on your computer.

I prefer to post process my digital images in jpg format. Especially if I have taken them at higher ISO's. Noise creates the blotchy black stuff you see in the sky.

With a good noise reduction profile you can brighten / sharpen / smooth the images. Try post processing with a good noise profile (either created by you or downloaded) and you will see the difference in your digital images.

In any case if you are serious about your digital photography you must have good noise reduction filters and be prepared to spend time post-processing your images taken with ANY digital camera be it point and shoot or a full blown DSLR.

This is exactly what those commercial processors such as Kodak etc... - who print digital images - do with the images you send to them for printing.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 16 Mar 2005 01:18

Shalav: You ar right. I sent the raw image first to put it on forum. I did not use my ACDsee software to apply moderate filter obn th eimages. Most of the photos were taken in bright day thus ISO was 50 and shutter at 1/400. That is the best the CCD can do and then one need to apply moderate post processing filter to get to perfection. (I prefer to not use despeckle since it degrades finer image details, instead use Meian Nosie Removal that retains subtle feditily yet reduce noise moderately).

I will do that by the time I write a photo essey on Aero India 05 (some day

)

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Mar 2005 01:28

Arun_S wrote:Shalav: You ar right. I sent the raw image first to put it on forum. I did not use my ACDsee software to apply moderate filter obn th eimages. Most of the photos were taken in bright day thus ISO was 50 and shutter at 1/400. That is the best the CCD can do and then one need to apply moderate post processing filter to get to perfection. (I prefer to not use despeckle since it degrades finer image details, instead use Meian Nosie Removal that retains subtle feditily yet reduce noise moderately).

I will do that by the time I write a photo essey on Aero India 05 (some day )

Oly 750 does fine upto ISO 200. With fast moving objects and I assuming you used full zoom without any addon raynox/tcon17 adapter. If you had shot at more than 1/500th-1/1000th of a second, you could have gotten less blurry shots.

Digicams have quite a bit of lag from display on EVF to actual shot being taken and its not the best suited thing to shoot airshows. I tried it couple of times, and you have to drop it in f8/infinity and higher plus high iso and sometimes prefocus at points to get sharp pics (Check out the manual focus thingy on it).

Just get a Nikon or Canon dSLR with a reasonably priced lens. That will give you more keepers.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 16 Mar 2005 01:57

Arun,

I figured that would be the case. Do give neatimage a go. There is a profile availabe at that site for the both the Pentax and the Olympus cameras you own.

With the exif info availabe in the original images you will certainly be able to do better than what I did. Just select the correct profile and images clean up like magic!

Did I mention those were really nice images!

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 16 Mar 2005 06:48

cy_baru wrote:
Oly 750 does fine upto ISO 200. With fast moving objects and I assuming you used full zoom without any addon raynox/tcon17 adapter. If you had shot at more than 1/500th-1/1000th of a second, you could have gotten less blurry shots.

The reason for those blurry shots was me. Almost all all those blurry shots were shot with wrong focus. I was using C750 first time and had wrongly focused them using an object that was 80 meters away thinking that is as good as infinity. But alas with 10x optical zoom, infinity is further away. Hence the result. IMHO speed would not have made a diff to it. As you can see some of shots are with correct focus and they are very clear. Manual preference for higher speed exposure would have helped a bit.

Shalav: Thanks boss.

George J · Post by **George J** » 16 Mar 2005 06:57

With one of them 10x digicam you really cant go beyond 6x without a tripod (even with image stabilization).

Vishak · Post by **Vishak** » 16 Mar 2005 13:16

Harry...your pictures are fabulous:D. When are you posting the rest of the installment? I hope you have tons of MiG-29 (IAF) & MiG-29M2 pics! Now tell me this...how did some of u guys (yourself, arun and jagan) manage to get on the tarmac, while the rest of us were contained behind the barricades

?
Regards,
Vishak

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Mar 2005 13:33

George J wrote:With one of them 10x digicam you really cant go beyond 6x without a tripod (even with image stabilization).

I don't wish to spoil the party, but there is one thing that is really bad about these digicams. The biggest drawback of all the digicams used by people who have posted photos and especially Arun's 10 x digicam is that they are causing me a great deal of envy and heartburn.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 16 Mar 2005 18:27

shiv wrote:The biggest drawback of all the digicams used by people who have posted photos and especially Arun's 10 x digicam is that they are causing me a great deal of envy and heartburn.

Doc, you can take solace by seeing my photos.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 16 Mar 2005 22:59

George J wrote:With one of them 10x digicam you really cant go beyond 6x without a tripod (even with image stabilization).

ummm... not neccessarily. You are using the x of the zoom and the lens' focal lenght interchangeably for all digi-cams and sensors - this is a common mistake.

The x quoted in the zoom multiple is not the same for every digicam - it depends on the the actual focal lenght of the lens, the sensor size and resultant focal lenght multiplier.

To start with, a 35mm film SLR 28-210 tele-zoom lens has a zoom factor of 7.5x - and a lens with a focal lenght of 210mm can certainly be used without a tripod! My nikon 8700 has a zoom multiple of 8x - this is based on the 35mm focal lenght equivalent of 35 mm - 280mm. I can certainly use it at 8x zoom without a tripod and visible camera shake.

The largest quoted x of a digicam is a multiple of the lowest focal lenght that lens is capable of.

For digicams you can calculate the focal length multiplier by dividing the diagonal of 35mm film (43.3mm) by the diagonal of the sensor. So in the case of the Olympus 750 the FLM is 6.57 (based on sensor size of 5.27mm x 3.96mm). Therefore I am guessing the actual focal lenght of the lens on that camera is 38mm/6.57 - 380mm/6.57 OR 5.79mm - 57.85mm. It should be printed on the lens or in the manual somewhere. Since the olympus 750's lens is a 35 mm equivalent of 38mm - 380mm - it is defined as a 10x zoom lens - ie 380mm / 38mm.

6x zoom for this camera is 38 * 6 = 228mm - useable without a tripod. 7x zoom is 38 * 7 = 266mm - also useable without a tripod. 8x zoom is 38 * 8 = 304mm - which will be pushing it a bit but useable with a VERY steady hand (also notice how the 8x zoom for this camera is 304mm while 8x on the nikon 8700 is "only" 280mm!?). I would not use this camera at > 8x zoom without a tripod, but anything less than that would not require a tripod.

By and large (using 35mm equivalent conventions) telephoto / zoom lenses which fall within the category of 80mm - 300mm can be used without a tripod. Camera shake becomes too large to control at focal lenghts over 300mm.

----

To diplay some close-up images without camera shake, tripods or even zooming - I would take the image at the highest megapixel the camera was capable of then crop the image to frame the subject within a 1024x768 size frame - viola an instant percieved 3x zoom in the case of images taken with a nikon 8700 at a resolution of 8 megapixels! I am using 1024 x 768 since this seems to be the a most often used screen size across PCs.

Cropping to frame the subject as opposed to resizing the entire image is your analogue equivalent of the focal length multiplier used in digicams. Of course this only works for images which do not need to be printed, and will only be viewed on screen.

George J · Post by **George J** » 17 Mar 2005 00:34

Shalav:
Most cameras in the mkt that say '10x' are either 38-380 or 37-370, only the Nikon 8800 is 35-350. There is more variations in the 12x mkt.

I totally agree with your madrassa mathematics about when to use tripod (there is a bit more that has to do with your shutter speed should be faster 1/FL for not needing a tripod) BUT from experience if you are out there in the field and want consistent pics AND insist on going > 6x on a 10x box, you should be using a tripod.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 17 Mar 2005 00:44

Shalav wrote:
George J wrote:With one of them 10x digicam you really cant go beyond 6x without a tripod (even with image stabilization).
6x zoom for this camera is 38 * 6 = 228mm - useable without a tripod. 7x zoom is 38 * 7 = 266mm - also useable without a tripod. 8x zoom is 38 * 8 = 304mm - which will be pushing it a bit but useable with a VERY steady hand (also notice how the 8x zoom for this camera is 304mm while 8x on the nikon 8700 is "only" 280mm!?). I would not use this camera at > 8x zoom without a tripod, but anything less than that would not require a tripod.

By and large (using 35mm equivalent conventions) telephoto / zoom lenses which fall within the category of 80mm - 300mm can be used without a tripod. Camera shake becomes too large to control at focal lenghts over 300mm.

I think that generalisation is kind of giving the wrong idea.

To do a quick test, shoot something inside a structure with a 100mm lens ( or any common lens size available). Now shoot the lens with 1/3rd to half the reciprocal of the focal length. In this case try it with 1/15, 1/30, 1/45, 1/60 and 1/125. You will find that if you are shooting with low shutter speeds (1/15-1/60) you will need tripod for sharp results or vice versa, you can do away with the tripod and get acceptable results by shooting at values higher than the reciprocal of the focal length (1/125-1/2000).

I routinely shot with the oly with an adapter (635mm) at speeds higher than 1/750-1/2000 for pretty good results and the same with my old nikkor and the new canon 400mm prime with similar results.

If you get time, read more about this here, its a decent article.

"The rule of thumb is that the minimum shutter speed you should use is the inverse of the focal length, so if you're using a 500mm lens then you should use a shutter speed of 1/500th of a second, or higher. However, other factors can affect this decision. "
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Photography/Airshows/

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 17 Mar 2005 01:57

George,

I agree.

Cy,

See the part where I wrote "by and large". I personally think its a good rule of thumb.

If one is going in for a point and shoot type of camera where shutter and aperture are not under your total control it is better to spend your money on the megapixels rather than the optical zoom (you can always crop your image to show more detail) - because you will eventually hit a wall which is unsurpassable given the equipment.

To do a quick test, shoot something inside a structure with a 100mm lens ( or any common lens size available). Now shoot the lens with 1/3rd to half the reciprocal of the focal length. In this case try it with 1/15, 1/30, 1/45, 1/60 and 1/125. In this case try it with 1/15, 1/30, 1/45, 1/60 and 1/125. You will find that if you are shooting with low shutter speeds (1/15-1/60) you will need tripod for sharp results or vice versa, you can do away with the tripod and get acceptable results by shooting at values higher than the reciprocal of the focal length (1/125-1/2000).

- You need a tripod at lower shutter speeds because of a combination of things called camera shake and aperture not only because of the zoom.

- Zoom and low shutter speed combine to greatly magnify the micro-movements of your hand as the shot is being exposed. Some people's hands are steadier than others, so they can use lower shutter speeds than others. However even those with the steadiest hands will find it difficult to keep the camera still enough for a crisp shot at f/16 1/8.

- Further aren't you totally ignoring your aperture control for this test? for instance given the same light conditions I can get the same results using f/1.8 1/500; f/2.8 1/250 f/4 1/125; f5.6 1/60 and so on right upto my handheld shutter speed limit.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 17 Mar 2005 02:26

Shalav wrote:
- Further aren't you totally ignoring your aperture control for this test? for instance given the same light conditions I can get the same results using f/1.8 1/500; f/2.8 1/250 f/4 1/125; f5.6 1/60 and so on right upto my handheld shutter speed limit.

Yeah, but thats not what I am arguing..

My contention was, no point in saying its okay to shoot upto 300mm without tripod without actually stating the rule of thumb. It is okay to shoot without tripod if you keep that in mind and manipulate the values accordingly.

You cannot shoot at 300 mm at f2.8 at 1/30s handheld. Personally, I would get tons of blurry pics. Maybe I am not a human tripod.. But if thats your thing.....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2005 05:31

Shalav wrote: To start with, a 35mm film SLR 28-210 tele-zoom lens has a zoom factor of 7.5x - and a lens with a focal lenght of 210mm can certainly be used without a tripod! My nikon 8700 has a zoom multiple of 8x - this is based on the 35mm focal lenght equivalent of 35 mm - 280mm. I can certainly use it at 8x zoom without a tripod and visible camera shake.

I have a Nikon SLR with a 250 mm lens which I used for the fight displays.

I thought I was being clever by using 400 ASA film because I wanted to clearly show up the "dark underside" of the aircraft and to hell with the sky - for which I used a setting to overexpose the sky anyway.

I also used the biggest aperture I could get and let the camera decide the shutter speed. By and large the "freeze" was good, but I am guessing that the 400 ASA was a mistake - with the enlargements being too grainy beyond a point. Also - the color of some of these pix does not seem to be as good as the digicam ones. I have a transparency scanner to scan negatives - but its resolution is not hot enough - so scns of developed phots was the best I could get.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 17 Mar 2005 07:40

shiv wrote:
Shalav wrote: I also used the biggest aperture I could get and let the camera decide the shutter speed. By and large the "freeze" was good, but I am guessing that the 400 ASA was a mistake - with the enlargements being too grainy beyond a point. Also - the color of some of these pix does not seem to be as good as the digicam ones. I have a transparency scanner to scan negatives - but its resolution is not hot enough - so scns of developed phots was the best I could get.

Which film did you use ?

Transperncy scanners are not that hot.

I have a negative/slide scanner .. but even that takes a life to get a decent scan. All pics have to be color corrected and then it magnifies all the scratches you have on the negative and that just blows.. You have to sit with the cloning tool in photoshop and get it looking decent again without those scratches...

Mighty painful to convert em to digital... I think for you, if you have tons of nikkor glass just to get a D70...

George J · Post by **George J** » 17 Mar 2005 08:11

All this photography mumbo jumbo and I am yet to see your 'work'...the proof in the pudding is in the compojishun....lets see it homies...both you.

Edit: Since this is the AI thread....we should nominate what we think is the best pic from AI05 from all the folks.

Requirement:

Only jingos......Simon Watson is a pro...he dont count (although I think he has one of the best composed pics-MKI ones)

sekhon · Post by **sekhon** » 17 Mar 2005 08:34

Canadian contribution - Aero India 2005.

Looking forward to Surya Kirans performing alongside the Canadian snowbirds at Abbotsford, British Columbia someday.

Balle Balle Victoria to Bangalore!

http://www3.telus.net/sekhon

P.S> Just saw the Snowbirds training session at Comox Air Force base on Vancouver Island yesterday. Here are some pictures of the Surya Kirans from AeroIndia 2005, and the Snowbirds warming up for the 2005 air show season. They are so similar in composition, markings, etc.. that it is hard to tell them apart sometimes !

http://www3.telus.net/sekhon/SuryaKirans-Snowbirds-web/

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 17 Mar 2005 08:37

Doc saab, yeh kaunsa 250 mm lens hai? AFAIK there isn't a 250 mm prime lens in the Nikon line, maybe a zoom?

You should use Fujicolor Crystal 400. This is a fantastic 400 and gives good results. For optimum results you need to use shutter priority instead of aperture priority and practise panning smoothly and trying to capture the peak of the action rather than when action is at its fastest.

Scanning negs at 4000 dpi would probably give better results than scanning prints at 300 dpi. I haven't been able to achieve that silky smoothness that you see with digital images from a dSLR by scanning prints. I have had slides scanned at 2700 dpi and those are comparable to dSLR images in terms of quality.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 17 Mar 2005 09:47

sekhon wrote:Canadian contribution - Aero India 2005.

Looking forward to Surya Kirans performing alongside the Canadian snowbirds at Abbotsford, British Columbia.

Balle Balle Victoria to Bangalore!

http://www3.telus.net/sekhon

sekhon: Good photos

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2005 10:03

sekhon wrote:Canadian contribution - Aero India 2005.

Looking forward to Surya Kirans performing alongside the Canadian snowbirds at Abbotsford, British Columbia.

Balle Balle Victoria to Bangalore!

http://www3.telus.net/sekhon

Boss - these are some seriously good pictures!

What camera - if I may ask? I am looking for a good digital camera to buy in the next couple of months.

Vishak · Post by **Vishak** » 17 Mar 2005 10:29

Sekhon,
Don't you have larger resolution (1024x768 or 800x600) images of AI-05? These are really good photographs and it would make for a real good collection.
Vishak

sekhon · Post by **sekhon** » 17 Mar 2005 10:31

Thanks Arun and Shiv!

There were two of us shooting with the following equipment:

Nikon Coolpix 8800 - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/
- 10X optical zoom with optical image stabalisation

Panasonic DMC-FZ20 - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/

- 12X optical zoom with optical image stabalisation (35mm equiv of 432mm)

- used a Red Dot Scope to frame shots at high zoom lengths.

and also my handy old Nikon SLRs using manual lenses:
75 - 300 mm zoom
200mm fixed with 2X Nikon extender
using ISO 200 and 400 film

- scanned the negatives using Nikon Coolscan IV ED (2900 DPI) film scanner

Have many more pictures that I need to process and upload. Just got back from my trip to India. Will update site as soon as my internal clock is synchronized to the west coast time zone

.

P.S> Would be pleased to offer higher resolution copies for BR use if you should be interested in any of them.

Cheers,

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2005 19:04

George J wrote:All this photography mumbo jumbo and I am yet to see your 'work'...the proof in the pudding is in the compojishun....lets see it homies...both you.

Edit: Since this is the AI thread....we should nominate what we think is the best pic from AI05 from all the folks.

George mone - It appears that for the flying display there was no kweschun of compojishun ... jusht point and sooth point and sooth point and sooth if you get what I mean

So all the guys with really hitech cameras zillion x zoom etc got some terrific pictures.

I tried looking through various albums again. Actually there are quite a few with good compojishun. But there are some speshul shots - point and sooth of special things - I guess I will look at those for nomination of "best photos".

Or else we could have categories - and say "best in xyz category"

Yeah - that's an India - let me look for all IJT photos first. The IJT being small was the most difficult and distant to get. The Jaguar's display was short and fast - so that was another one in which we can look for "best pic" nomination.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2005 20:05

OK choose the best
Here are the few IJT pics I could find

http://www.kparthas.com/AeroIndia/target8.html
http://www.acig.org/exclusives/aero/aci ... _hjt36.htm
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/Temp/upload/HJT-36 Sitara.JPG

I like
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/hjt36_aero.jpg

Check this album - it seems to have the biggest collection of inside-the-halls photos
http://ravi.videopic.net/c447114.html

Rustom has some great close ups - though some are blurred by movement.
http://rustom.fotopic.net/

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 17 Mar 2005 20:05

I scouted for good camaras recently and I would recommend KONICA MINOLTA DIMAGE Z3, 4 Megapixel with 12x Optical Zoom with a CCD-shift Anti-Shake System. Its US street price is $500.

The antishake system on this camara is really effective.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 17 Mar 2005 20:21

Of the Sitara pics, I like this one.

nilsson · Post by **nilsson** » 17 Mar 2005 20:30

The Sitara looks very nice. great work

is the plane only a trainer or can it be used for light attack?

George J · Post by **George J** » 17 Mar 2005 21:07

Vick:
I am not very impressed with THAT particular pic of the Sitara....look at the background....but Harriet does redeem herself by taking some better composed pics. Also if I am not mistaken its a tad bit overexp right under the tail.

Here is what I like from Harry's collection.
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/sitara-pt1-3.jpg

Look at the composition...the heat radiating from the tarmac..streamers fluttering in the background. Thats a good one.

(hey I said nominate...I did'nt say I WOULDNT critique them

)

Shiv:
On technical grounds I agree with you that digicam and film cams should be separte categories...but the composition would remain the same: its about capturing the moment/emotion and you can do that with any camera. So post away.....

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 17 Mar 2005 22:02

I didn't pay attention to the background, I was more interested in subject matter. The pic I picked shows the most amount of detail of the subject than the others. Call it a left brain thing...

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 17 Mar 2005 22:11

double post

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 17 Mar 2005 22:11

Vick:
I am not very impressed with THAT particular pic of the Sitara....look at the background....but Harriet does redeem herself by taking some better composed pics. Also if I am not mistaken its a tad bit overexp right under the tail

But kakagina, the IJT was flying very high and we had to take what we got, which was true for many other cases as well!

Here's the same picture touched up using Neat Image with some loss of detail but noise eliminated. The preset and non-changeable compression ratio is also extremely high, meaning that the plugin/registered version should deliver notably better quality.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attach ... 0774&stc=1

Is it worth replacing the earlier one with this?

Harry...your pictures are fabulous:D. When are you posting the rest of the installment? I hope you have tons of MiG-29 (IAF) & MiG-29M2 pics! Now tell me this...

Very soon. There are a number of MiG-29 pics but I don't know if I could include it in the coming batch.

George J · Post by **George J** » 17 Mar 2005 22:23

Harry wrote:
But kakagina, the IJT was flying very high and we had to take what we got, which was true for many other cases as well!.......Soon. There are a number of MiG-29 pics but I don't know if I could include it in the coming batch.

Huh the pic that Vic post is of the S3474-Red on the tarmac..what are you talking about? The pic I liked is S3466-blue also on the tarmac.

For the record: We are just nominating what we think are the best pics (for whatever reason) from the host of pics taken. Each pic that was taken with a lot of effort is worth a lot for its technical and informational merit. We are just looking at the art. I know ALL of you put in a lot of work in getting these pics and its very much appreciated by all of us who couldnt be there.

But there are no free lunches on BRF: you think you shot an artistic pic...it will be put through the wringer.

I just went through RaviBG's pics:

http://ravi.videopic.net/p12255980.html (good)
http://ravi.videopic.net/p12256078.html (good-slightly ironic from a peacenik POV, but you need to crop the guy to get the full effect)
http://ravi.videopic.net/p12255981.html (awesome, but I hate that wire dangling from the MKI)

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 17 Mar 2005 22:31

Shiv
Video CD is great and so r the babes.
Thanks for all the effort.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 17 Mar 2005 22:33

Oops, sorry kakagina. I was referring to shiv's choice and the note about the background.

Priyank · Post by **Priyank** » 18 Mar 2005 00:14

Try to get the entire aircraft into the frame unless you are trying to get a detailed picture of a specific feature or munition. I acknowledge that this might be difficult.

Take this photograph for instance:
http://rustom.fotopic.net/p12200683.html

Everything about it is great, the composition, the angle, and especially the added effect of the billowing brake parachute and the hot air rising from the tarmac and exhausts. However, it is somewhat spoiled by the wings being clipped off at the edges of the photo.

Just my 2 cents.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 18 Mar 2005 00:35

One of my most favourite pictures - I have yet to scan from a print. so bear with me on it.. its as rare as it would get..

I also like Seetals picture of the Tupolev at low level...

Among Harry's lot , I like this picture the best
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/ifr1.jpg

Other favourites are not just the flying pics but also other shots. For example, Arun's photos of the interior of Dhruv VT-XLH. The best i have seen till date.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 18 Mar 2005 01:10

nilsson wrote:The Sitara looks very nice. great work is the plane only a trainer or can it be used for light attack?

Can be used for light attack- gun pods, rocket pods, dumb bombs.

George J · Post by **George J** » 18 Mar 2005 01:33

Among Seetal's pics, this one is the best.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/im ... 29TO02.jpg (love the afterburners)

Also note that Seetal also has a similar IFR pic, although Harry's is technically superior.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 18 Mar 2005 02:10

George J wrote:Among Seetal's pics, this one is the best.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/im ... 29TO02.jpg (love the afterburners)

Also note that Seetal also has a similar IFR pic, although Harry's is technically superior.

Knowing the conditions in which Seetal took that IFR Picture

he gets an A+ for the effort . Plus Seetal used a film camera..not a digital.

Also this is the picture I am talking about, a very unique pic , because no other amateur bloke got it

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/events/im ... Land02.jpg