Related Links:
Aerial Panoramic Photos
Aerial Photography by Charles Tack
Aerial Photography Primer
Aerial Photos by R/C Model Planes
Aerial Photos by Skydiver
America From 500 Ft. Book Site (technical details, films..) [9/2002]
Dr. James Baker receives USAF Honors
(designed
aerial/sat recon optics..[8/2002]
Floatograph Blimps and Aerial Cameras Pages
Kenlabs Gyros Pages
Aerial photography is a highly specialized area of commercial
photography. It is not at all unusual for the plane and pilot costs to
predominate over the cost of the photographer by a large margin. That
means you can't afford to mess up and have to reshoot the project on your
own time and money!
There are a number of books aimed at beginning photographers and pilots
that suggest that aerial photography is sufficiently easy to enable
anyone much beyond the absolute beginner stage to make money at this
endeavor. My reading of these books (e.g., various titles by TAB Books
etc) suggests that there is a lot of practical and important safety
details that I wouldn't want to learn the hard way. In one book on aerial
photography, only about 8 pages was devoted to actual in-the-plane
photography. By contrast, they spent four times that suggesting types of
used 35mm cameras and lenses that you might need, from a very new
beginner knowing-nothing viewpoint.
For more information on aerial photography, there are some Kodak
specialty publications and a useful booklet on Aerial Photography from
Hasselblad (possibly out of print now?). You may also be able to locate
some more detailed aerial photography how-to-do-it materials.
In any case, I thought it worthwhile to preserve these postings as a
caution to wanna-be aerial photographers and especially enthusiastic
beginners. Be forewarned it isn't as easy or problem free as it looks!
And if you do decide to go for it, good luck! You may need it! ;-)
To subscribe to AERIALPRO list for professional aerial photographers send
e-mail to:
majordomo@lists.tdl.com
and in the body of the message write only this:
SUBSCRIBE AERIALPRO
- for those interested in the fine points of professional/commercial
aerial photography.
"Brian" btnd@erols.com wrote:
>Well I'm no pro but I'll bet if u strap urself to the wing or perhaps >the bottom of the fuselage u'd get the best results (room allowing) I'd >suggest picking one lens as it might b windy and hard to change lenses = :).
I suppose that's joke. DON'T DO IT! Don't do anything he proposes.
-Don't strap yourself to something on the outside of the plane
unless you are a stuntman or you want to commit suicide or to
kill the pilot.
-There, you'll be exposed to the windstream (imagine yourself
standing at the top of a car at >90 mp/h). You'll be unable to
keep the kamera quiet->not one sharp photo.
-you'll need more than one lens or a zoom, see below
David Shaw wrote
>>I would like some advice on what speed
>>film to use.
Good question and big problem:
You will be exposed to airframe vibrations, so you will need the
shortest possible shutter speed (1/500 and up), so you'll need
high speed film of 400 ASA.
Otoh, you are in fact taking long distance landscape shots
without foreground. Colours will be dim, contrast will be low. So
you will need the most "Disney-like" film, you can get. You will
need the resolution of low speed films for the details on the
ground.
So, finally...?
First, use the fastest lens you can get your hands on. A
zoom with 1:5.6 on the long end is not that good.
Maybe for the first time, stay on the safer side and use high
speed films ore both with two bodies.
>>I will be shooting landscapes at midday with a Nikon N90s.
>>I have a good range of lenses from 28 f2.8 to 300 f4. Any advice
on the
>>subject would be appreciated.
1) What type of airplane?
Spam cans (Cessnas) with the high wing will be preferable as
there are no wings to obstruct the view to the ground. Only the
wing strut, but as you shoot rectangular or a little backwards,
there will be no problem.
In a cessna, one can remove the door. If the pilot agrees
and it is legal (not shure about this, don't fly cessnas), you
have more place to move and point your camera. THIS time, strap
yourself with the belt! Do not lean out in the windstream (blurr
and vibrations).
If the door stays in place (if you are not
acustomed[used?] to fly without a door beside you, you will most
probably dislike it :))) ), it is nearly mandatory to have some
small sliding window to open in front of the objective as the
plexiglas/persipex of the airceraft screens and windows are like
blurr filters or softeners.
If it is a low wing airplane (piper etc), the pilot has
to make slight turns in order to keep the aircraft banked to
"remove the wing" out of your FOV. This needs a little
communication with the pilot in the air.
Lenses: for the ground, you may need 50 to 150mm. If you want to
photograph e.g. a house, you may use the 300mm, otherwise it is
to long. A zoom is very handy as you are in a hurry (plane is
flying all the time). But if possible, use a 2,8 zoom. The best
solution is to borrow a second nikon body to have one with a zoom
of that range, the other e.g. with a tele lens. You don't nweed
an AF body as you shoot simply at infinity. On MF lenses, you can
stick the distance with a tape at inf.. With the wide angle, you
are unable to avoid parts of the plane in your picture - > use it to
HAVE wing or cowling or cockpit on your photo.
Enable auto rewind to change rolls quickly. Dont economize with
film, it is cheaper than an hour of flying
Pay attention not to touch the airframe with your shoulder or
your arms or the camera or the objective while shooting because
of the vibrations.
If the pilot has the opportunity to fly at different dates, ask
him about the haze which is less after a rain.
If you have a very fast lens (50mm or 1,8 85mm e.g.) you may try
out at the end of your flight a polarizer.
Please let us know of your experiences-have fun!
Bye
Alexander
From: RedBaron@nospam.net (Red Baron)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Aerial Photography Directory
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998
Fellow Photographers,
If you are offering aerial photography services and have
a website I'd like to add you to my Directory.
The entry is free, all I'm asking for is a link back to
the directory! I just added the directory to my site,
so all the 'good' spots are open !
My site is http://www.vortac.com/skypix/index.html
You can reach me at pcm@vortac.com
Peter
From: Jeff Rankin-Lowe sirius@on.aibn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: aerial photography
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998
> >David Shaw wrote... > >>I have the chance to do some aerial photography and would like to make > >>the most of the opportunity. I would like some advice on what speed > >>film to use. I will be shooting landscapes at midday with a Nikon N90s. > >>I have a good range of lenses from 28 f2.8 to 300 f4. Any advice on the > >>subject would be appreciated.
I saw this tip years ago during a Kodak seminar in Toronto. The
photographer was using a helicopter, but the advice is the same for a
fixed-wing aircraft with the door off.
Use gaffer tape (strong, cloth tape; not to be confused with duct tape) to
wrap around your seat belt buckle. That way, nothing, such as your camera
strap, can catch on the buckle and open it. Be careful how you wrap the
tape so that if you have to get out of the plane quickly while it's on the
ground, you won't be trying to unwrap miles of tape.
If you wear glasses, get a strap that goes around your head. The
slipstream can take your glasses off if you lean out too far, especially
if you are looking slightly to the rear.
Before take-off, sit in the plane and get an idea of your field of view, in
particular where the strut that helps support the wing is. Be careful if
shooting too close the fowrad axis of the aircfraft so that you don't include
the propellor. Depending on your shutter speed, this can be quite a problem.
Another thing to do while sitting in the aircraft is to try both front
seat, but like most people, you'll probably want to sit on the right
(starboard) side because of how you position both arms. You may find it
difficult to turn very far to the the left, especially for verticals,
while in the left seat, but try both seats to be sure of what's best for
you.
I hope the above help to some degree.
Happy flying!
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Bill Tate atlatl@mho.net
Subject: Response to aerial photography, with or without Kenyon
Gyro-Stabilizer
Date: 1998-12-22
Ellis, let me add another good rule to follow -- this one especially for
helicopter photography, although it applies to fixed wing craft too. I
was instructed by a good ex Air Force photographer to take some tape along
to tape the focus down so that the vibrations don't alter the focus while
flying along.
I didn't take the guy seriously, and sure enough the vibrating craft
altered my focus on one of the most important shots of the day. In fact,
I ended up with a series of 3 or 4 that were out of focus because I didn't
slap a bit of tape on the lens to anchor it on infinity. Since that time
I have not made the same error. Others, sure, but not that one.
From: RedBaron@nospam.net (Red Baron)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Aerial Photography Directory
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998
Fellow Photographers,
If you are offering aerial photography services and have
a website I'd like to add you to my Directory.
The entry is free, all I'm asking for is a link back to
the directory! I just added the directory to my site,
so all the 'good' spots are open !
My site is www.vortac.com/skypix/index.html
Peter
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
From: n1965n n1965n@ticon.net
To: koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com
Subject: [KOML] aerial photos
Hi All: I too bought my KO to use for aerial photography and it does
work, but not all that well. The airplane is cramped inside and things
happen quickly when you are over the target area. Also do not forget
about slipstream, the KO's size makes it hard to hold steady near a 100
mph slipstream. I still find that my Canon EOS with image stabilized
lenses works best for my aerial photos. The Koni works great for senics
and the like when you have the time and space to compose your shot, but
when you are on the fly, ( nice pun huh? ) a fully automated camera with
a winder is hard to beat.
:) Jim
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
From: Bob & Kae Bruch rkbruch@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] aerial photos
Jim,
You may just need more practice with the KO. I've used one in aerial work
for a couple of years now and at first I kept going back to the 35, but
after some practice I got used to the KO. Sure makes enlargements much
easier. By the way what type of plane are you using and are you the pilot.
I own and fly a Piper Tripacer and take most of my work with the door off,
works great.
Anyone else doing much aerial work, I still have a lot to learn
Bob Bruch
Roanoke, VA
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
From: n1965n n1965n@ticon.net
Subject: [KOML] Aerials
Hi All:
When I shoot aerials I use either a Cessna 152 or Cessna 172.
They are all that are available, I would prefer a Cessna 177 or Cessna
210. If it is warm I take the door of otherwise I remove the window and
shoot ahead of the strut.
When I use the Koni I shoot with the 90 & 180mm lenses. I like the 90mm
best because it is easier to compose in the viewfinder, I do not have a
sports finder. I also have a difficult time focusing the KO when in the
air. The ground objects are passing by at 100 mph making it difficult to
pick out an object to focus on. Maybe I just need more practice. :)
Jim
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
From: Harris Goldstein hgoldstein@ibm.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] aerial photos
I have used a KO for aerial photography and, at least in my case, found it
very acceptable.
We used a Cessna 172 (after finding the 152 too cramped) with the bracket
that limits the window from fully opening undone. The airstream would keep
the window fully open, allowing me to shoot while still keeping the camera
inside the plane. While a motor drive would be handy, I found the
pull-push advance fast enough. In fact, I'm not sure that a motor drive
would advance 6x7 much faster. I used the 180mm almost exclusively, and
found the 1/500 top speed just fine.
I did also use 35mm, but only when I needed 35mm mounted slides or the
subject was so small that the larger negative would be wasted. I also used
it for some air-to-air shots with a 200mm. I never tried a gyro-stabilizer,
but if the image stabilization on the Canon comes close to what the
gyro-stabilizer is supposed to do, it would certainly be advantageous.
Later, we went to a Pentax 6x7 to gain the multicoated lenses and the
reliability of a newer camera. But we lost the advantage of the lower
vibration leaf shutter and the changeable inserts.
No doubt 35mm is more convenient, but its tough to beat the larger negative
when your producing 16x20s (or larger) for displays and presentations. Of
course, if you're cropping out the extra negative, you haven't gained
anything with the larger negative.
Harris
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999
From: Gregg Laiben glaiben@unicom.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] Aerials
Jim wrote:
>When I use the Koni I shoot with the 90 & 180mm lenses. I like the 90mm
>best because it is easier to compose in the viewfinder, I do not have a
>sports finder. I also have a difficult time focusing the KO when in the
>air. The ground objects are passing by at 100 mph making it difficult to
>pick out an object to focus on. Maybe I just need more practice. :) Jim
I too have used the Koni for aerial shots with good success. Regarding
focus, most (if not all) aerial shots will be taken at infinity.
Therefore, before departure, focus on a distant object and focus. To
prevent movement of the setting, you may want to tape the focus adjustment
in place.
...gregg
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999
From: Kevin O'Brien kob@paradise.net.nz
Subject: Re: [KOML] Aerials
>Hi All: When I shoot aerials I use either a Cessna 152 or Cessna 172. >They are all that are available, I would prefer a Cessna 177 or Cessna >210. If it is warm I take the door of otherwise I remove the window and >shoot ahead of the strut. > >When I use the Koni I shoot with the 90 & 180mm lenses. I like the 90mm >best because it is easier to compose in the viewfinder, I do not have a >sports finder. I also have a difficult time focusing the KO when in the >air. The ground objects are passing by at 100 mph making it difficult to >pick out an object to focus on. Maybe I just need more practice. :) Jim
You need a sportsfinder. If you can't buy one a suitable wire frame guide
would be easy to make.
The KO Rapid I have was designed as a press camera for fast action photos
without having to worry about focus. It works great that way. With
rangefinders users were expected to know and use depth of field. Often we
just set the distance and the viewfinder was only used for framing. A guess
of the distance was usually sufficent. With a 90mm, f3.5 lens everything is
in focus from 50'. Stop it down and everything from 10' or less could be in
focus. There used to be tables for the depth of field and books showed how
to calculate it.
How low do you fly ?
Kevin O'Brien
Wainuiomata, NZ
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999
From: John J Stafford stafford@WIND.WINONA.MSUS.EDU
Subject: Re: [KOML] Aerials
> So, I should focus at infinity? I tried that but if I remember the > finder showed that I was out of focus. I will try again and report back.
My experience with aerial photography includes the Big Stuff: USAF recon
RB66 and Voodo RF101 airplanes in the sixties. Sure, we used monsterous
hardware (like 9" by 180 fool rolls of film, shot in stereo), which doesn't
relate to our work, but two other things did. First, the motion of the
focal plane and film relative to the direction of the aircraft is
important. Our take on this is to either not use FP shutters (which the KO
does not), or to be certain that the FP shutter travels in the same
direction. Since we don't have the option of a film traveling across the
shutter, use the very highest shutter speed you can. The other point,
pertinent here, is that just because you are at 1000 feet, does NOT mean
that the ground is at infinity. 1000 feet is really pretty low (compared to
my experience), and bare in mind that you are shooting at a relatively flat
target - one that really shows when you haven't perfect focus. Dunno how
well the KO accomdates 'infinity', especially with its longer (180mm) lens
(which is wonderful on land.)
I have several aquaintences who shoot aerials, and unfortunately the best
of them is not very good. It seems they all have problems first with focus,
steady cameras and fast shutter speeds and second, with LIGHT. They just
don't get it.
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999
From: Harris Goldstein hgoldstein@ibm.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] Aerials
It is my understanding that some lenses focus past infinity (optical
experts - feel free to weigh in and confirm or deny). Since the KO
focusing is done by the camera body, not the lens, you have to validate
your camera/lens. I did it on land on a tripod - it was fine either by
luck or design.
Even if your 1000ft AGL (above ground level), if you're shooting obliques
(which you probably are) the distance to your primary subject is greater
than 1,000ft. At a 45deg angle, it will be about 1400 ft. While your
subject is on an angled plane, with foreground closer than background, the
depth of field should accommodate (even with the 180mm). But the smaller
the f/stop (I tried to keep it at no greater than f/8, and preferably
f/11) the better.
Vibration can usually be dealt with by using a fast 1/500 shutter speed
and isolating yourself as much as possible from the airframe. This last
point is critical. Your arms cannot be touching; your butt should be the
only connection between the film plane and the engine.
The biggest problem is atmospheric haze. However bad it looks through the
eye, it looks worse through the lens. A good UV filter helps some, but
some days you just can't shoot. And you can't shoot into the sun. If
shooting color, a film with high contrast helps as well.
Obviously, when you combine small f-stops and fast shutter speeds, you
need fast film (ISO 400). Grain may be objectionable, but lack of
sharpness is much more so. This brings us back to the need for a large
negative (assuming you're using all/most of the negative).
Harris
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999
From: Gregg Laiben glaiben@unicom.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] Aerials
Jim wrote:
>So, I should focus at infinity? I tried that but if I remember the >finder showed that I was out of focus. I will try again and report back.
Jim,
I tested the infinity (and intermediate) focus several years ago using a
90mm. I tabulated the actual data, but have misplaced it. As I recall,
infinity on the 90 was somewhere around 65 feet (your mileage may vary).
Certainly by 1000', infinity will be achieved.
The discrepancy within the rangefinder/viewfinder suggests it may be off a
bit. You may want to test the focus distance yourself. I have seen
references to alignment procedures for the rangefinder on this list.
...gregg
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999
From: Craig Schroeder craigclu@bigfoot.com
To: koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com
Subject: [KOML] Aerial photos
I've only done this a half dozen times, but I had great success by having
my pilot friend hold the airplane on its side and taking the picture just
as I felt unweighted as the plane lost lift. We got pretty good at timing
this and covering the prescribed area.
This all started when we would use his Grumman Sport (low wing) with a
bubble canopy. I couldn't get a decent angle without too much wing being
in the frame so we were experimenting with plane attitudes for getting the
framing right when we discovered that nice, dead almost vibration-free
point. Don't eat too much luch prior to doing this acrobatic sort of
stuff! I was printing 16X20's with HP5+ via 645 Fuji R/F that showed
minute detail and birch tree branches amazingly well. It was an easy combo
to control in the confines of the small plane and the 75mm/645 framing
perspective was just right for the land photos we were working on.
Craig Schroeder, CLU
craigclu@bigfoot.com
http://www.win.bright.net/~craigclu
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999
From: Mel Brown melbrown@eatel.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] hyperfocal focus
...
John, as I read it, Al was merely stating a fact. I don't see what "current"
has to do with a mathematical principle that you assert is real. What
happened--did you bet on the Falcons today? [:-)
I think we're drifting from the point of whether the use of the hyperfocal
distance is appropriate for aerial photography. I vote no because its use
cannot benefit any subject more distant than 500 feet, the minimum
altitude at which aircraft are generally allowed to fly. I say, as did
someone else, tape the focus at infinity and forget about it. If the
images are not in sharp focus, get the camera checked or learn better
techniques for holding it in a vibrating aircraft.
Mel Brown
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Stafford@wind.winona.msus.edu (John J Stafford)
[1] Re: Aerial photography
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999
thewer8023@aol.com (THewer8023) wrote:
> Any help much appreciated on this subject, I would like to go with 35mm if > possible any suggestions on camera / lens Please!
You can, of course, use 35mm but most aerial photography is done with
medium format cameras. Why? Basically, it is about viewing distance -
most aerials are printed to LARGE dimensions, and of course that's where
medium -> large formats shine.
Tips: if you use a focal plane shutter, be certain to hold the camera so
that the lens is traveling in the same direction as the aircraft.
Shoot at a high shutter speed (higher is better to a point), at optimum
aperture.
Be certain to isolate the camera from the vibration of the aircraft.
Leaning on the doorside, for example, will probably degrade the image
tremendously.
FOCUS! Even at 1k feet, haze and atmospheric effects (rising heat, etc)
can cause the image to focus closer than infinity.
HAZE is an enemy. It's always more profound than you think.
good luck
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999
From: Eric Goldstein egoldste@bu.edu
Subject: Re: [KOML] hyperfocal focus
Mel Brown wrote:
> Are gyro-stabilizers really effective with still cameras? Seems I remember > reading they are ideal for video work, but don't damp movement enough to be > really useful for still photography, even at higher shutter speeds.
Most of my aerial experience is with helocopters and film cameras...
gyros really come into their own with film work, because camera and
craft movements are greatly magnified through projection. Video images
rarely get very large...
With still work, the gyros will at minimum help with composition and my
experience is that they have gotten good enough to help reduce camera
experience is that they have gotten good enough to help reduce camera
shake and improve sharpness as well.
Eric Goldstein
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999
From: Don Pillsbury pills@ids.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] hyperfocal focus
Mel
Re gyro stabilizers: Check out the article on the subject in December's
Shutterbug. (If that doesn't work, try November.) Guy was doing photographs
from suspension bridges and a gyro was the only way he could get the road
vibration out.
Don
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999
From: Don Pillsbury pills@ids.net
Subject: [KOML] Rapid Omega for Aerial Work
I have just returned from a convention of aerial photographers where I
intended, among other things, to decide which camera (medium format) to
use for an aerial photography business I am setting up. The instrument
of choice for most aerial photographers is the Pentax 67. It is two
heavy for my tastes. I found the Pentax 645, also popular, to have a
difficult-to-view eyepiece but it has reportedly good optics at
reasonable prices. What about the RO 100? I know the market for the RO
was wedding and aerial photographers. But how does its optics stack up
against more modern lenses? The sports finder and the body are not a
great concern to me but the lenses are.
Thanks, Don
401 885-9740
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999
From: pcm@vortac.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: aerial pages
you wrote:
>see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/aerial.html on Aerial Photography page
Interesting page. I pretty much agree, maybe with one comment...
You talk about the pilot dipping the wing in a Piper to
get the wing out... You'd have to put the plane into a 60degree turn
to do that. This will load the plane and it's occupants with 2g's...
I don't mind it to much, but you'd be surprised how heavy the camera
gets. Also seeing your breakfast on the windshield is a rather nasty
experience :)
as for the reference to the TAB books. I have to agree, they spend a bit
too much paper on the hardware and not enough on issues of safety. That's
one of the reasons why I made the video. In it both, the photographer and
the pilot can see first hand why certain things do or do not work; with a
strong emphasis on safety issues.
Best regards,
Peter
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999
From: Don Pillsbury pills@ids.net
Subject: [KOML] Re: aerial photos
The Professional Aerial Photographers Association appears to be an open and
friendly group interested in helping others get off the ground. (Pun
intended.) They can be located at 800 879-3686. If you are going to call
them, do so quickly as they are driving from Indiana to Las Vegas and will
be leaving soon.
Jim, I fly out of North Central airport (SFZ) in Rhode Island.
Don
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999
From: JEFF TEICH jteich@mpdr0.chicago.il.ameritech.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] Rapid Omega for Aerial Work
Randolph Carlisle wrote:
> Don Pillsbury wrote: > > > > I have just returned from a convention of aerial photographers where I > > intended, among other things, to decide which cameraWhat about the RO 100? I know the market for the RO > > was wedding and aerial photographers. But how does its optics stack up > > against more modern lenses? The sports finder and the body are not a > > great concern to me but the lenses are. > > > > Thanks, Don > > 401 885-9740 > Don: > The KO is perfect for both weddings and aerials AND the price is right! > RC
As I mentioned before, the KO'S are great for aerials, to get the optics out
of the
horse and buggy days, use a super multi-coated filter, SKY & UV from B&W; or
HOYA, not the single coated, spend the extra money. There is a slight extra
edge to use these new multi coated filters in some lighting conditions. F 11
at 250th min with the right ISO speed film " WORKS". Rarely did I encounter
such lighting conditions that I had to use a lower setting. This makes me
wonder " WHAT TYPE of Weather Do Some of You Fly In ". If I can not get a
decient exposure with 400 ISO film and a setting of F8 at 125th ** THIS
DUMMY DOES NOT GO UP **
Jeff T
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999
From: JEFF TEICH jteich@mpdr0.chicago.il.ameritech.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] Rapid Omega for Aerial Work
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
> I would also suggest a Tiffen 812. It is a nice filter that will add some > more to the reds. Since the KO lenses are neutral this will add some needed > warmth. > BTW, Pentax lenses tend to be a bit warmer, Leica cooler, Zeiss in between > with the KO lenses very close to Zeiss in coloring. > > Peter K
Yes Pete,
I agree that the Tiffen 812 will cut down some, very little UV over their
regular UV. But For Real Aerial Photos mostly for mapping, Tiffen's UV 17 and
the Haze 2A are the UV Cutters. My point by using the super multi coated UV
with the older KO'S lenses under a possible cross lighting or backlight
condition that might create internal lens element reflection can reduce the
problem of lack of contrast. Using a multi coated filter on the older KO'S
lenses can maintain a higher contrast image. Resulting in a image appearing
sharper.
Tiffen rates their UV as following.
Reg UV Protector about 22%
Sky 1a 45%
HZ 1 71% not multi coated
UV17 97% not multi coated
HZ2a almost 100% absorption not multi coated
The 812
is a warming filter that reduces the excess blue from a electronic flash
portraits, it is better than most sky 1a filters but does add a warming
effect. The 812 is not a multi coated filter. I think that the readers of
this group are interested in max performance from the KO older lenses and
they are not doing any vertical hi-tech mapping.
Funny, there was no mention of the great Mamiya Coke Bottle Glass.
OK, I am being a smart ass, sorry Pete, I had a bad day.
Jeff T
From: See FloridaPhoto.com for email (R Cobb)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Linhof 220 Aerial Camera Wanted
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999
There are a few of us who shoot air to air photos of other aircraft
with aerial cameras that were designed to point towards the ground.
I just had shims removed from a 270 lens attached to a Linhoff
Aerotechnika, that were likely installed to allow focusing a bit
closer - like on another aircraft 200 feet away.
RC
Email available @ www.FloridaPhoto.com
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999
From: Mel Brown melbrown@eatel.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] Rapid Omega for Aerial Work
Don Pillsbury wrote:
> I have just returned from a convention of aerial photographers where I > intended, among other things, to decide which camera (medium format) to > use for an aerial photography business I am setting up. The instrument > of choice for most aerial photographers is the Pentax 67. It is two > heavy for my tastes. I found the Pentax 645, also popular, to have a > difficult-to-view eyepiece but it has reportedly good optics at > reasonable prices. What about the RO 100? I know the market for the RO > was wedding and aerial photographers. But how does its optics stack up > against more modern lenses? The sports finder and the body are not a > great concern to me but the lenses are.
Don, I haven't done any comparative tests, but I suspect lens quality will
not be your limiting factor. Of the cameras you mentioned, only the RO has
no motion-inducing mirror to create movement during the exposure. The P645,
with its smaller mirror, is not particularly known as a vibrator, but since
circumstance will not allow you to use a tripod and mirror lock-up, why not
limit your choices to rangefinder types?
I have done only a little aerial photography, but I agree with the concensus
of a thread here some time back that stressed isolating your body as much as
possible from the airframe. As someone put it, the only contact you should
have is your butt touching the seat. Another mentioned the interesting
technique of laying the aircraft way over (it was a low-wing type) and
unloading the wings to lower vibration. I like that one, and it sounds like
fun, too! It would take some well-practiced teamwork between the pilot and
photographer, though.
Mel Brown
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@lucent.com
Subject: RE: [KOML] Rapid Omega for Aerial Work
Hi Don,
Well I have used the Pentax 645AF and I like it a lot. Have not used the
Pentax 67 so I could not compare that to the KO or RO. But I can tell you
that the Koni lenses are great. Very very sharp. Not to sound the wrong
way, but they are absolutely best in the middle apertures, especially the
90mm. That is where you will find your optimum resolution. For almost all
4 lenses its F11.
Peter K
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999
From: Don Pillsbury pills@ids.net
Subject: Re: [KOML] aerials
Good Morning:
The phone number for the Professional Aerial Photographers Association is
812 372-9971. I joined this year and attended their annual convention in
February. If you are interested in becoming an aerial photographer that is
the place to go. Everyone is very friendly and eager to help those new to
the business.
Don
From: bobcopco@aol.com (Bobcopco)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aerial photography - Getting started
Date: 5 Apr 1999
I am 84 years old and for 20 yrs up to 1983, when I sold the company, I did
aerial photog in the 7 southern Calif counties. I would be glad to answer
your questions. I used a Cessna 206 with a photo hole in floor behind the
front seats. Oblique pix can be shot with most any camera, verticals have
more data and a special camera mounted on a leveling / crab adjusting
mount is required. To do work for city, county,state, engineering
companies etc you need a Wild or Zeiss which can cost up to a quarter
million Also, it has to be certified by the Bureau of Standards. . I
used a war surplus Fairchild and dealt with the public. I still have mine
stored in the garage. Doing biz with the counties is low competitive pay
and payment slow and sometimes withheld. The number of the public who need
aerials will amaze you and you can charge more. All vertical cameras use 9
by 9 inch roll film, color and B&W; sold by Kodak. copcobob@juno.com
(Talent, Or.)
From: mike*spam*@mischief.u-net.com (Mischief)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Civil Aviation Photography
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999
Examples here...
http://www.mischief.u-net.com/aviation.htm
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999
From: Tore Ofteness ofteness@openaccess.org
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Aerial Photography
Hi there!
I just discovered your letter and comments page on aerial photography and
would like to offer my opinoins based on 15 or so years of doing it, as
well as other types of photography for some 15 years prior to that.
For
much of my aerial photo work I use the Pentax67. I have also used
Hasselblad gear, but didn't like having to crop the image to fit 8x10, etc.
Besides using a haze filter, I find a Polarizer to be ESSENTIAL! Turning
the Polarizer and watching the haze almost dissapear is like magic.
I do mostly obliques, but somtimes need to shoot "plan views", that is,
vertically. I have found that the most practical method for relatively
small ojectives is to stick mu head and shoulders out the window (while
remaining well strapped to my seat) and using a 135mm lens to shoot between
the fuselage and the wheel(this can chilly during the winter months, but at
least you can get warm again inside the airplane, unlike flying without a
door!).
For larger targets, an inspection plate on the belly of a Cessna
172 can be removed and from 10,000 feet, a large area of land can be
covered with the 90mm lens and a larger still area can be covered with a
wide-angle such as a 75mm lens. Lenses wider than 75mm will pick up the
"ears" on the inspection plate attaching points that can't be seen through
the viewfinder.
My films of choice are Kodak PPF 400, Fuji400 or 800 and
now the new Kodak Portra films. I have had enlargements up to 7 feet long
made from a PPF neg, and they were actually sharper (but a litle grainier)
than a same-size print made from Vercolor Commercial 100 speed film with
the same camera a couple years before. I think the Portra films have grain
that is finer still. For tranparencies, I've had good luck with 100 speed
films, sometimes pushing them one stop. Kodak now makes a very good
Ektachrome 200 that can also be pushed one stop with very good results.
With a Polarizer a 400 ISO film is almost essential, due to the loss of 2 F
stops to the filter and the need for a high shutter speed. Without a
polarizer though, your results will be greatly diminished.
I have never used a rangefinder camera for aerial photos and would think
that using a Polarizer on one would be difficult.
If anyone has any comments or questions, please contact me.
Tore Ofteness
Bellingham, WA
From: "West Mass Guy" wm_guy@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: aerial photography
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999
Depending upon what exactly you are taking pictures of and why, aerial
photographs of property may already exist. If you are taking artistic
photographs, this will [probably] not apply.
All states and the federal government, as well as some cities and towns,
are in the process of documenting the geography of their regions through
aerial photography. These photographs are corrected for camera angle and
scaled to fit into a regular grid, and are then used as the basis for
electronic maps in GIS systems. They are called digital orthophoto quads,
or DOQ's. They may be in color (usually color infrared) or b&w;, and are
usually only used for mapping purposes. If this is why you are
photographing your land parcel, check out these sites.
USGS site:
http://edc.usgs.gov/Webglis/glisbin/finder_main.pl?dataset_name=NAPP
Texas site:
http://www.tnris.state.tx.us/DigitalData/doqs.htm
To see the detail that these photos can contain, visit the MIT site for
Eastern Mass. Just choose a quad and keep zooming in:
http://ortho.mit.edu/
Good luck.
Jim
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000
From: "Mr. Wratten" mr_wratten@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Seagull
radiojon@means.net wrote:
> Using the SAME FILM, the larger negative will ALWAYS beat the smaller one in > terms of tones, even in a 5x7! NOt lines per MM or whatever, but tonal > gradation. > As one person said before in this endless haggle. If film size doesn't > matter, then why do the goverment fit spy planes with cameras using 9x9 inch > film? Why not stick a little Nikon on the bottom of the plane?
As someone who has used 9x9 inch aerial chromes (color infrared), I have
to say that the reason aerial photographs are taken on large film stock is
lines per mm, not tonal gradation. I needed to zoom in to an area of the
9x9 inch chrome covering a few square miles (I don't remember how many,
but it was most of a small city) that was about 5x5mm, and the detail was
so fine that it showed individual cars and even people on the sidewalk!
It is the detail that the large format captures that matters to users of
aerial photos, not the tonal gradation.
Jim
From: "REller" news@aerialimages.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Aerial Secrets
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000
Interested in learning about aerial photography?
Using the knowledge I've gained during my twenty-five years as a
professional photographer I've just authored a book "The Secrets of
Successful Aerial Photography"
This comprehensive guidebook provides instruction in the art of aerial
photography covering everything from exposure and equipment choice to tips
on running a successful business.
To learn more please visit my website at:
http://www.aerialimages.com/purchase/books/books.html
or e-mail me at books@aerialimages.com
Copies are also available through all major on-line book stores.
Richard Eller
Aerial Images Photography
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999
From: Joseph D'Amore PVOHJOED@GTE.NET
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: Aerial Photography
I have been operating an aerial photography business in Hawaii for 6
years now and every day is a new experience.I fly and shoot out of my
Piper Cherokee Warrior (low wing) I use a Mamiya 645 as well as a Canon
A2e. Because of the bright reflective light conditions encountered I
often use a circular polarizer as well as a UV filter. As a result I
come out with some beautifully saturated images free of reflections and
quite detailed. As most images are taken from an altitude of 1000ft
plus, when conditions and opportunities arise I may be down as low as
500ft. I agree that as little of your body that touches the airframe the
better to reduce distortions created by vibration..
As the pilot as well
as being the photographer I generally slow the speed of the aircraft
down to 65 to 70 knots using flaps and low engine speeds of 2000 rpms or
less. This gives greater time over target. In a low wing airplane I can
fly dirty(flaps extended) and Fly straight into my intended target (or
fly at angle to intercept the target) Kick in some top rudder and drop
my wing to open up a unobstucted field of view of about 80%. This calls
for some cross control flying and also the understanding of how the
aircraft responds to power settings and flap configuration, the results
are quite extrodinary.
I presently have some 35,000 Images of the Hawaiian Islands. I do Real
Estate, Legal, House and Estate portraits, Scenic, and Creative art
Images. You don't have to fly at high power settings to maintain a stable
platform. Amazingly enough I generally shot 100 speed films for most of my
scenic and portrait work and step up to 200 speed film only for critical
projects, more often getting 25 or 36 clean shots(not always centered
perfectly), Blurs occur when sudden shifts of wind or accidently having to
much body touching the airframe.
Medium format is the ticket in my opinion, but again fill the frame when
possible. Having to crop to much of a 645 neg or slide results in less
than expected results in image quality. My most recent project was a
series of images of the H.M. Bark Endeavour, an 18th century British
collier. The original was Capt. by the British Explore James Cook who
also was the Capt. of the Resolution the Endeavour's sister ship. The
Endeavour has been retracing Capt Cooks Pacific voyages and is a
floating museum. Difficult to shot because of the mass of white sails
against a deep blue ocean. made for some exciting and dramatic images.
My Advice is Experiment,experiment, experiment. Film is cheap and it only
takes a few great images to make it worth while. Have Fun, good planing
and use of the sun are key factors. I learn more each day and am looking
for the next great image.
Joe D'amore
Plane Views of Hawaii
pvohjoed@gte.net
[Ed.note: somewhat different approach to aerial photos...]
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000
From: "Simon H" sim@harb85.freeserve.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Kite Aerial Photography - UK
Hi all,
I've had this site up and running for a couple of years, it contains all
sorts of stuff on aerial photography from kites.
Any comments gratefully accepted. ( I know the home page table takes a
while to load - I'm working on that, as the site expanded, the table got
bigger)
heres the link:
http://www.harb85.freeserve.co.uk
enjoy
Simon Harbord
From: cvbreard@aol.com (CVBreard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: More Kite Aerial Photography
Date: 26 Mar 2000
> it contains all >sorts of stuff on aerial photography from kites.
Interesting - you might also want to look at:
http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/~cris/kap/index.htm
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
From: "Photo Guy" NOSPAM@nowhere.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Shooting photos from an airplane
Personally, I would shoot ISO 400 print film. There's usually a lot of
vibration in a small plane, so I like to get the shutter speed up. I also
find longer lenses more interesting. If there's much haze you will
probably get a blue cast. Metering during the day is not much of a
problem, straight reflected readings through the windows work well enough.
The windows are a problem, often they're tinted and even curved. The
plastic ones can do interesting things with a polarizer. If you can, have
the pilot slow down and open the window to shoot. At least with prints you
can fix some of the color problems and exposure isn't as critical. If you
have to shoot slides bracket.
If you're prone to motion sickness, take some Dramamine or whatever before
you go. Nothing like eyeball to the viewfinder in a maneuvering airplane
to cause queasiness.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
From: Alan Davenport w7apd@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Shooting photos from an airplane
I've had very good results using Kodak's print films from the air. You
should do well with the Gold 200. Print film also has plenty of exposure
latitude, so you ought to be in the ballpark with the camera's meter.
As for the motion issue, it pretty much depends on the conditions you find
on a given day. Some days (esp. warm ones) are quite turbulent and a
small plane will get bounced around a lot. Other times it's so smooth you
can fly a hundred miles with a cup of coffee sitting on the dash and not
spill a drop (I've done it!) You should plan on using a fast shutter
speed just to be safe. Anything that will let you stop down one or two
stops from wide open is fine; depth of field is a no brainer
anyhow--everything will be at infinity (unless you want part of the
airplane in the picture.) Holding the camera in your hands will transmit
less engine vibration than if you try to brace against the window or
airplane structure.
I'd use a warming filter (81A or B) or at least a UV/Haze type. It's rare
to see a day without the blue haze any more, and it's worst at the
altitudes you mentioned; you'll be shooting at an oblique angle through
it. I've never tried a polarizer from the air, but I suspect it might
create problems, as you'll be shooting through plexiglas, not glass,
windows. Try the polarizer and let us know. (Some planes will let you
open the windows wide enough to shoot through, but make sure everything is
secured inside if you want to try.)
Small planes get even smaller when you're in the air, so make sure
everything is accessible. Jacket with large cargo pockets are great as
long as the pockets remain clear of the seatbelts.
Don't forget a self-portrait. Hold your 19mm over the panel and get a
shot of
your buddy and yourself in the act of committing aviation! And have
fun...
aeiouy wrote:
> I (hopefully) have a chance next week to do some flightseeing with a pilot > friend of mine and was looking for tips.
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
From: stephen@bokonon.ussinc.com (Stephen M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Shooting photos from an airplane
Lucky you!
There was an article on aerial photography in a recent issue of
Photo Life (http://www.photolife.com/) that offered some tips; you
might want to see if a local library has back issues.
--
Stephen M. Dunn stephen@bokonon.ussinc.com
Date: 11 Apr 2000
From: Richard Cochran rcochran@netcom19.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Shooting photos from an airplane
aeiouy aeiouy@alpha.net wrote:
> I (hopefully) have a chance next week to do some flightseeing with a pilot > friend of mine and was looking for tips. > I'll have my Canon AE-1 shooting mostly w/ a Vivitar 19-35mm lens and circ > polarizing filter. Planned on bringing along a Canon 50mm w/ circ > polarizing and a Vivitar 85-205mm just for grins.
Be prepared to ditch the polarizers. Most small planes use plexiglass
windows, which produce rainbow colors and patterns when viewed through
a polarizer. Unless you can shoot with the door off, the polarizer is
bad news. (If you DO shoot with the door of, great, but secure
everything and be prepared for incredible wind!)
I recently went up in a small plane (four-seat, 172) with just a 43-86 zoom. At the wide end, I had trouble avoiding catching the wing in the photo. A 50-135 or so zoom would have been ideal. Be aware that it's hard to change lenses in a tiny plane. If you can, take the back seat by yourself, so you can switch from one side to another, and have a little room to change lenses and film. Planes are MUCH smaller than cars.
> Looking for advice on metering and film speed. I have some rolls of Kodak > Elite chrome 100 slide and some rolls of Kodak Gold 200 print film. NOT > trying to start a brand war here but are these ok or would Fuji film be > better? (I've read that Kodak is warm, Fuji is cool) Will be shooting > mostly ocean, beaches, mountains etc.
That's fast enough film. Shoot wide open at the fastest shutter speed
you can manage. Lock your focus at infinity. The shallow depth of
field from a wide-open lens will minimize the effects of any
spots/scratches on the windows (but if you can, clean the windows
beforehand, anyway).
> Is this fast enough or will the distances to the mountains/beach/fields be > enough that plane motion/vibration won't matter? Hopefully there will be > decent weather and plenty of sunlight
Vibration will matter. Don't put the lens up against any part of the
plane, but handhold it, letting your hands be "shock absorbers" against
the engine vibration.
> Will I have to adjust over or under stops metering from the air? Doubt > we'll go higher than 2000-3000'
No, the "sunny 16" rule will almost certainly apply. At ISO 100, on a
sunny day, exposure will be 1/125 @f16, or 1/2000 @f4. You could do
it without a light meter.
> Any other tips you can think of would be great
Take lots of film and have fun!
--Rich
Date: 13 Apr 2000
From: ad607@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Blue Angles
Reid (wrgrimesNOwrSPAM@mindspring.com.invalid) writes:
> I am going to a flight line viewing of a Blue Angles dress > rehersal in a couple of days (weather permitting). I have > a Nikon N70, a variety of zoom lenses ranging from 24mm to > 300mm, polorizer, monopod (don't plan on a tripod). > Suggestions for this excellent opportunity. I generally > use print film. Suggesions for film speed, camera speed, > general ideas. Continuous film advance? I am open for > advice, I have far experience, but certainly not a pro. > Thanks.
All my Air Show photography is on either Fuji Velvia, Kodachrome 64
or Fuji Sensia. I prefer the Sensia 100. I have no problem getting
1/1000-1/2000 sec @f:5.6-8 with my 300mm f:4. I often can even close
down to f:11 in the right conditions. As these are F/A-18 you can
use the fastest shutter speed you can get so ISO 100 on a sunny day
is all you need. In prints I would use either Kodak Royal Gold 100
or Fuji Superia 100.
http://www.newforce.ca/darrell (for some of my work)
Darrell Larose
Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
From: Ronald Shu shourong.shu@isc.ucsb.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Blue Angles
I took some pictures at the 1999 point Mugu Air Show and put the selected
shots on a web page (http://128.111.124.11/ssr/airshow.htm). My
suggestions would be:
1. Print film ISO 100 or 200. I used Kodak Gold 100 which is fast enough
for a sunny day. ISO 200 could better for cloudy day.
2. Nikkor 70-300/4.5-5.6 zoom was my choice because it is light , very
flexible for hand held. I tried my 80-200/2.8, but it was hard to hold
steadily.
3. Filter: UV or 81A. I used a wrong filter 81B and weather partly cloudy.
So, the colors turned out to be not great.
4. Shutter speed: I used 1/1000 sec. which was OK for the Blue Angels, but
it free zed the motion of propellers of the other airplans.
5. Metering was very tough. The blue sky was very bright, Blue Angels very
dark. I used matrix metering and ended up with the detailess blue angles
in most shots. I would meter the Blue Angles on the ground using spot
metering if I have an opportunity to shoot again.
6. The blue Angel is extremely fast. Always focus at the best estimated
position the blue angel will be passing by. You will fail if chasing it.
Shooting Blue Angel is exciting, but also a challenge. Good luck,
Ronald
....
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000
From: richmiller@mindspring.com (Rich Miller)
Subject: [NIKON] Gyro
So far I've found all of the comments to be funny but no one has really
answered the initial question. I have a couple of pro photographer
friends who own two of the gyros. I have been able test out theirs and
found out that once the gyros are "rev-" up to full speed they are quite
remarkable. It appears one can easily hold 1 second shots. They have used
them to shoot out of small airplanes, helicopters, and off of boats.
Their resulting shots have appeared in a number of US mags. The resulting
images are as sharp as those one would have taken using a tripod, if one
had been able to do so under the shooting conditions. So, $2500 is pretty
cheap if one is making one's living off of these shots.
Rich Miller
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[1] From: Jim Oke oke1@mediaone.net
[1] I do aerial photos!
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000
I am new to this group......my other newsgroup is rec.skydiving.
I have a canon rebel g with an inexpensive lens and a sony videocam
attatched to a helmet that I take into freefall.
I am getting some good results, although I believe I could get some
incredible shots if the camera were MF.
are there any good MF with the approximate size of 35mm? I could handle
larger.......under 5 lbs.
am I looking for the wrong camera? MF?
who knows someday I might be jumping with an IMAX setup.
check out some of my work at
http://www.angelfire.com/ok2/skydive/images4.html
please any info would be helpful to a newbie photographer/experienced
skydiver.
please email me direct
Blue Skies,
Jim Oke
oke1@mediaone.net
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: makiedog@my-deja.com
[1] low cost aerial image acquisition
Date: Tue Nov 21 2000
Take aerial images using a RC helicopter! Check out this site:
http://www.cybertects-shea.com/sky-i/index.htm
rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: "Peter Bults" peter.bults@wxs.nl
Date: Wed Nov 29 2000
[1] Aerial photography using a Kite
See www.aerialphotography.net and bookmark it if you like it.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: Gary Todoroff datamaster@humboldt1.com
Subject: Re: 100 Planar - aerial photo
Here's an example of why the 100 makes such a great aerial photo lens. The
photo was taken 17 Nov 2000 from almost 13,000 feet over the mouth of the
Eel River, which is about 15 miles south of Eureka, CA. Each side of the
photo represents about 7000'.
The original transparency on Fuji RMS 100/1000 is really spectacular. The
air was about as clear as I have ever seen it over the coast, and I got
some great photos straight down with the 100 on an ELM mounted out the
baggage door of the Cessna 182. I also took a couple rolls out the window
with another ELM and the 80 Planar. I rated the Fuji RMS at 300 so I could
shoot between f5.6 and f8 at 1/500th with the 80.
I wonder how the rest of you feel, but I don't trust my Planar T* (Bayonet
50 version) at f4 and certainly not at f2.8. The sharpness is just not
there for aerial photos. I shoot the 100 wide open with no problems.
Gotta' love that 100/3.5 !
See aerial photo at :
http://www.humboldt1.com/~datamaster/Eel%20River.jpg
Regards,
Gary Todoroff
Eureka, CA
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000
From: calciua@hn.va.nec.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] So who do I kvetch to?
Ja,
the blimps are very common in aerial photography. I have seen three of
them in the past couple of years. They cost about 20,000 dollars for a
complete setup and at that price you get a Bronica included. There is a
company in FLorida or California whose business is to franchise little
territories and sell these blimps. They are pretty big (about 20-30 feet
in size).
Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)
[Ed. note: probably sold by now, but for specs info etc.]
rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
From: "ea" tsh@arrakis.es
[1] KA-69A...
Date: Mon Dec 25 2000
For sale Mitchell KA-69A aerial camera. f/2.8; 8"; 2.25x2.25; 100 foots
500 frames magazine. 1/500 and 1/1000. Electric. I can't test it but
apparently it looks in perfect conditions.
Regards: Eduardo
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Joe@Jetpix.com (Joe Oliva/AvPhoto)
[1] Re: Pentax 67II vs. Mamiya 7II for quality aerial work?
Date: Wed Jan 03 2001
It depends what you are trying to accomplish, but generally speaking, the
best aerial results are realized with a short telephoto. It compresses
space and keeps things in the background from converging into little pin
points. Also the extra reach means you can fly at higher altitudes
(safer), and not bother people on the ground, or risk violating Federal
Aviation Regulations pertaining to low flight.
The trade off is that since you have to be farther away due to focal
length, you have to be aware of and take into consideration atmospheric
conditions. If its hazy, you might have to shoot another day.
...
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001
From: Joe@Jetpix.com (Joe Oliva/AvPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67II vs. Mamiya 7II for quality aerial work?
robohat@aol.com67GTO (ROBOHAT) wrote:
> You need to think very seriously about vibration.
Vibration Schmibration. The P67 is an excellent choice for aerial
photography. shoot with the lens wide open, you can usually use 1/1000
second and the lens taped at infinity.
I've done aerial work with P67s for many years with excellent results, all
hand held, all non-gyro stabilized. Both air to ground and air-to-air. I
even haul these bad boys with me in jet fighters with G-suits, parachutes
and all!
The larger the camera the more difficult to work with, but you can't beat
the negative! Go with the 67 and the 200mm f/4. you won't regret it.
All the best
--
Joe Oliva/AvPhoto Joe@Jetpix.com
Aviation Photography for the Military, Government, and Industry
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 03 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Pentax 67II vs. Mamiya 7II for quality aerial work?
Hi
Since I worked on the SR71 and U2 programs, let me say a few words about
image quality and size.
With aerial photography you a have 3 inputs to ground image quality.
Focal length
Resolution
Distance
Anyone can be substituted for any other.
Example: you can use half the distance or twice the focal length and the
final ground image quality will be the same. This also goes for
resolution. Twice the resolution requires half the focal length for the
same ground image quality.
In the U2 and SR 71 the small cameras actually had better ground image
quality the the larger cameras.
The best image quality was from a 30 inch f2.8 OBC camera with SO 315
film. This camera had 2 times the ground resolution (about 220 l/mm) then
the several 60 inch cameras (about 70l/mm) these planes also carried.
Very good results can be achieved using a 35mm camera with high reso film.
Just like the 30inch vs 60 inch cameras, with special adjustments, the
35mm cameras could have more the twice the ground resolution of a 6x7
camera.
Larry
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001
From: Tim Ellestad ellestad@mailbag.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Optics question
Someone told me that the 6000 Rollei cameras had the smarts to put in
their own shutter aperture compensation. I doubt this, however. Still, a
camera as tech advanced as a 6008i should be able to do this. Shutter
aperture effect is a pain in producing good 5 step bracket sets in
commercial photography. It is a real problem for arial photographers,
too. You don't see many arial guys using Blads - too many motion blurred
frames.
Tim Ellestad
ellestad@mailbag.com
From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 06 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Aerial photography
You probably would appreciate advice from someone who has actually done
aerial photography rather than those who are guessing or shoot out of
airliner windows.
I can't stress enough the importance of aggressive UV filtering. Once
aloft, your view to the horizon is much farther than on the ground. Haze
and UV scatter can be a real problem and don't forget that your film is
more sensitive to UV than your eye. The scatter in the air also gives a
more pronounced blue tint to the air, and a warming filter also helps.
Focus on infinity unless (and this might apply to you since you will be in
a biplane) you want to include parts of the aircraft in the shot. I
usually tape or lock off the focus (depending on the camera) to infinity.
Buffeting can be a real problem since you will probably be pointing the
camera at right angles to the slip stream. Reducing your camera outline
can help avoid buffeting so I often don't use a hood depending on the
requirements of the shot and the likelyhood of flare.
Time of day can be important. Early morning and evening give warmer
light, but more important, a low angle that creates shadows. This can
work for you but more important, a low angle that creates shadows. This
can work for you or against you--- it depends entirely on what you are
shooting. A recent aerial shoot I conducted in Northern Michigan required
an early morning shoot so shadows would create definition in an automotive
testing facility's tracks, which were literally carved out of snow fields.
You can see the problem with shooting white on white but with the early
morning light, I was able to capture a beautiful orange glow on snowbanks
facing the sun and nice dark shadow on the other side--- The scene had
much better contrast than would have been possible with a paved track.
So check your scene and sun directions to get the best time of day if
important to your shoot. Also, especially in warmer months, late morning
to early evening is the worst time for air turbulence due to the rising
warm air currents. If you think a fast shutter speed will help you, it
won't. Trust me, twisting sideways and holding a camera while being
pounded by air turbulence gets real painful real fast, and you will also
find out how much that camera weights when you hit the bottom of an air
pocket and hit several G's.
Shutter speed and film speed-- You don't need much depth of field when
focused at infinity so know which aperture setting is sharpest for your
lens and use that. Then pick your film speed to get the shutter speeds
you need to minimize shake.
I often shoot with medium format equipment with a maximum shutter speed of
1/400 and have no problem shooting with 100 speed film. However, if
possible, I rent a gyro stabilizer for insurance.
Bottom line is to pick the aperture for best lens performance and pick a
film speed that will allow you to shoot at a shutter speed of at least
twice the reciprocal of your focal length. For instance, with a 300mm
lens you would want to shoot around 1/500 or faster. Remember, though, if
you only need 1/500 or 1/1000 shutter speed, going to a faster film to get
1/2000 to 1/8000 won't do you much good, and you will have larger grain
and less resolution. The advice to shoot negative film isn't necessarily
bad advice since the extra lattitude can help. An assistant can also help
to load film for you, especially if you are using two cameras. Don't
forget to keep the film and camera shaded to when changing film to avoid
fogging.
Last, shoot lots of film and don't forget to stow the lens cap before you
take off, and keep the strap around your neck. The pilot I hired for my
recent shoot remembered more than a dozen cameras going overboard
including a Leica and a Hasselblad. Not my idea of a good way to cap a
shoot.
That's it, have a great time!!
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Max Marcus maxica@bahnhof.se
[1] Re: Mamiya 7 Gallery
Date: Sun Apr 29 2001
Check out http://flygfoto.just.nu for aerial photos taken with the
Mamiya M-7 II while flying a powered paraglider. That says a bit about
how compact, light and easily handled it is!
Max Marcus
Sweden
From Manual Focusing Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001
From: "L Shepherd" Shepherdlen@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: Filters
From: "Nikon Cameras" NikonCameras@asean-mail.com
>snipped
While flying from Los Angeles to Chicago, I was disappointed with the
excess blue coloration of ground objects taken from the flying jet, even
though I was using a "haze" filter.
Hi
Accurate colour in aerial photography is a specialist area and requires
special filters. For a one off air flight there is not much else you could
have done except perhaps also try a polariser as they are good at cutting
through haze.
If you are serious about aerial photography or anything to do with filters
the best starting point is Handbook of Kodak Photographic Filters. My 1990
edition is ISBN 0-87985-658-0.
It explains you will need more haze penetration than at ground level.
Kodak suggest a HF3 for UV absorption, plus either HF-4 or HF-5 for colour
correction and include graphs and percent transmittance for the two
combinations. I think these filters were available from Kodak in glass as
well as gelatine.
The book also explains the difference between a 1A, 2A,2B and 2E and
clarifies that only the 1A is suitable for colour.
Whatever the filter question for an authoritive and clearly explained
answer I start with this book.
Len Shepherd.
From Manual Focus Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001
From: "Frank Schiffel" schiff@mail.health.state.mo.us
Subject: aerial photography. Re: Digest Number 994
unless you're in a U-2 you also have to deal with the problems of that
crappy plastic airline window....
B&W; sells a special UV filter for aerial photography. its a bit stronger
than most, I haven't used it. it may be special order.
I have found the best way to do exposures is the Kodak aerial exposure
meter. little dial on cardboard. I was skeptical at first, but its been
accurate. of course you can still meter and bracket.
I'd also recommend color infrared, especially if you're flying over areas
where there is a lot of foliage, trees, fields, etc when its green.
interesting stuff. what's really fun is to shoot regular color and IR and
compare the two. of course that could lead to getting to aerial
photography which is really expensive....
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001
From: "jjs" john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67II vs. 645
"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote
There you go and spoil a perfectly entertaining thread with real-world
advice which works perfeclty well without spending a fortune. You just
plain take the fun out of it, Robert. :)
> personally, I'd recommend something more like a rapid omega 6x7, taped to > infinity, wire aiming sportfinder, flat film plane design, some models > take interchangeable magazines, and at $200 per camera/body/leaf shutter > lens on the used market, it's cheap enough to buy more cameras rather than > mess with film loading, yet fine optics second only to Mamiya 7/7II; the > controls are oversize to make them easier to use, esp. with gloves on etc. > > see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/aerial.html for more details
From: cvbreard@aol.com (CVBreard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Date: 20 Oct 2000
Subject: Re: Ariel Photography
>some beginner's guidelines for taking >airborne photos using basic 35mm equipment..... manual camera, standard lens, >wide angle and 135mm telephoto. Results so far have not been anything to >brag >about.
I take a LOT of aerial photographs - I'm up to 220 rolls of 24 exp 35mm
film this year so far.
In random order:
Don't lean your elbows or any part of the camera on the airframe, window,
etc.
Don't stick the lens barrel out into the windstream.
I typically shoot 1/750 to 1/1000 and often nearly wide-open lens, with
400 speed film (I happen to be using Fuji if it's of any interest).
Perhaps surprisingly, I don't try to get as low as practical/legal. I
typically shoot at about 1500' AGL (sometimes higher, sometimes lower)
usually high enough to avoid as much tubulence as practical. Lower
altitude also means relatively high target speed. Lower altitude also
means more TV and similar towers, and birds.
A surprisingly large number of 'aerial photo' aircraft accidents involve
maneauvering at low altitude (read: "stall, spin, crash and burn...")
Altitude is your friend, just like your instructor told you..
Even with your 135mm telephoto you might find unacceptably small images. I
often shoot at the 300 mm limit of my Canon IS lens, and typically shoot
around 200mm +/-.
Your next investment in aerial photography may be a longer lens, probably
a zoom. (The zoom serves two purposes: the obvious 'getting closer' and
the not-as-obvious framing/composition.)
Don't let anybody (unnecessarily) brow-beat you about using 35mm for
aerial photos - I've produced many fine 11 x 14 , 16 x20 and larger
enlargements from 35mm. (Not to deny the obviously-superior image
available with medium format, however.)
I use a garden-variety Canon Rebel 2000 with three zoom lenses (18mm -
300mm) including my Canon 75-300mm Image Stabilizing, and make more money
with my aerial photos than some pros (I classify myself as "semi-pro"). I
do little/no 'artsy' stuff, have never won any prizes for my aerial photos
(but my lab has chosen to blow some up and put on display in their shop
and at their trade shows).
I usually shoot with my subject dead abeam, sometimes slightly behind. I
usually don't try to shoot 'ahead' between the windshield and the strut.
As you frame to shoot, don't fixate on your subject - make sure you keep
airplane parts out of the photo.
Don't despair that your early efforts 'have not been anything to brag
about'. Mine weren't either.
Happily, with a few hundred rolls of relatively-inexpensive 35mm film and
$500 or so more in a longer lens, you can be 'semi-pro' too.
(But technique and maybe a different lens can make you a lot better than
you are now.)
And try to shoot 'down-sun' as much as practical, of course. Try to avoid
aerial photos if they're reporting anything less than 10 mile visibility.
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000
From: C J Donoghue cjdonoghue@xtra.co.nz
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Ariel Photography
VRB300 wrote:
> Newly certified pilot is looking for some beginner's guidelines for taking > airborne photos using basic 35mm equipment..... manual camera, standard lens, > wide angle and 135mm telephoto. Results so far have not been anything to brag > about. > Need help!
Some good advice from other posts here, but one thing isn't mentioned yet
- the use of a good haze filter. Aerial haze is, I found, the culprit
behind flat-looking shots which show no deep or dark colours, and I always
used the deepest haze (blue-cutting) filter I could find. The prints are
warmer than with no filter, but suitable color adjustment in the printing
can fix that, and the colours are better. One other effect I found was
that most exposure meters tend to underexpose if not corrected for the
haze component. This is a matter of trial and error to get right, as it
depends on the day and the scene. If you are running a good slr it should
have auto-bracketing capabilities, and you can run a film or two using
that function to ascertain a better meter setting.
Personally, I think you are taking plenty on to both fly and shoot - just
remember there are old pilots and bold pilots, but not many old, bold
pilots, as my old instructor used to drill into us.
Colin.
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001
From: "Mike" mfeldman@qwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67II vs. 645
William Garnett, probably the most famous aerial fine art photographer,
flew a Cessna 170 solo while taking his photographs. He normally had 3 or
4 35mm Pentax cameras in a case by his feet and a Pentax 6x7 with him on
the seat of the plane. One of the things that he most like about the
Pentax 6x7 was the flatness of the film plane. This was important to him
because he normally worked early or late in the day when there was not
much light, and he often shot wide open (aperture) with minimal depth of
field. He shot both B&W; and color, although he is most famous for his B&W;
shots. He used the 35mm cameras for color, but I am not sure if he used
it for B&W; also. Don't know if he changed film in flight. I obtained the
above information from Aperture Number Eight-Five published in 1981. In
addition to comments from the photographer, there are 8 images by Garnett
in this issue of Aperture. Garnett has also published several books of his
photographs.
Here is an interesting web link:
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/green.htm
You can probably find out more info about William Garnett by doing a
search
on the web.
"Charles McDowell" cmcdowell12@home.com wrote
> I'm considering the purchase of either a 645 (not n) or a 67II. My > application is handheld aerial photography, where I am also the pilot, > so ease of use is very important. I was hoping someone could comment on > the pros and cons of these two systems. I've read many positive (and no > negative) reviews of the 645. My only concern is the fact that the > negative is substantially smaller than the 6x7. Any thoughts on how > much difference there really is in sharpness (say in a 16x20 print) and > whether it is worth the extra hassle? With the 6x7, I've got two > concerns: how hard is the thing to load really? Numerous people have > had negative things to say about this aspect. Changing film in the air > would be roughly similar to changing film while driving a car down the > interstate, is this feasible? Also, how bad is the alleged shake due to > mirror lockup? For the work I do, I would never go below 1/250. Would > it matter at that speed? > > Thanks for any input. > > Charles McDowell > cmcdowell12@home.com
From: "Gary Todoroff" datamaster@humboldt1.com> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net> Subject: [HUG] ELM Night Aerial followup (long) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 Thanks to all who gave ideas for shooting night-time aerials over Humboldt Bay. It turned into a very interesting, semi-successful shoot of the low tide property boundaries. The ELM was bolted to a vertical mount out the baggage door of a Cessna 182, and I am able to sight through a porthole between my feet just in front of the passenger seat and shoot with a 15' remote cord. On this flight, we were supposed to just shoot by GPS co-ordinates that would center us over the 2000 foot stretch of beach. At an altitude of 3800', using the 80mm lens, that gave us a total of about 2600' on the ground for adequate (I thought!) overlap. But it wasn't my pilot's best day, and he had trouble with the GPS. My visual sighting on the center of the beach was off (things never look the same from the air, even tho I had walked the beach), and we missed the southern property line by about 200'. However, the techincal part of the shoot worked great. I shot Fuji Provia 400F for the earlier daytime photo. However, the "daytime" shot turned almost into a night shot itself (did I mention, it wasn't the pilot's best day). I did a snip test on the first two frames shot at dusk, using the JOBO and Kodak E-6 for two stops push (13:30 minutes in first developer; normal for Fuji film is 7:30). Waves over the jetty should have been bright white, but were 2-3 stops underexposed! So I improvised. First developer concentration was increased by 50% and developed for 20 minutes (5 stop push?!). Ever wondered how to get faded green blacks on Fuji film? Ugly picture, but the detail was there, along with some of the biggest grain I have ever seen. No matter, though, the main goal was not to see every bush, but to define the tide line. A couple hours after the daytime shot, we took off for a 7:00pm photo at the -1.7 foot tide. Ground crews used lantern battery flashlights on each end of 20' two by fours along the beach, then pounded stakes into the low tide line with similar lights all pointing vertically. Since that stretch of bay is uninhabited, the lights showed up fairly well. Exposure was 1/125 at between f2.8 and f4. I shot on Ilford 3200, then developed in D-76 stock for 13 minutes in a Nikkor tank, giving a one-stop push. A snip test showed up lights over town resonably well, so I did the rest of the roll at 15 minutes for a little more contrast. Hanging up the film, I resisted the urge to inspect it wet, but a long piece of clear film did not look encouraging. After it dried, I got out the 40x loupe, and low and behold! there were two perfectly exposed sets of black dots. I searched in vain for the third set of lights, which were, of course, 200' off the southern end of the property. Just to make sure the concept had worked, I scanned the day and night photos into Photoshop. Curves and color balance layers cleaned up the ugly daytime shot quite nicely. The little black dots of the night B&W; shot scanned in best with an RGB scan, which I then increased contrast and changed the color to orange dots for good visibility. Before the final layering in PS, I needed to rotate the lights slightly as well as expand them a bit (we were at 4000' for the second shot instead of 3800' - did I mention it wasn't my pilot's best day?). This involved quite a bit of back and forth is PS, making slight shifts in the night shot, then cutting and pasting into a new layer in the daytime shot, unit the lights perfectly matched the ends of the white 2x4 boards. You could then distinctly see the low tide lights overlaying the water of the earlier daytime shot. So, concept gets 100%, film exposure about an 80% grade, and accuracy 67% (two targets out of three), which makes a failing grade. But the stakes are still in the water, we will put white targets on top of them, and plan to shoot tomorrow at a fairly low tide in mid-afternoon, which was the backup plan anyway in case of bad weather the first time. A few days later, I was taking aerial photography to new lows with the ELM, shooting from 30' altitude a "group portrait" of about 500 people from the basket of the Eureka Fire Dept aerial ladder truck. It was the opening of Eureka's brand new boardwalk and the hardy souls attending braved a constant downpour, along with me trying to keep the ELM dry, as the light faded fast after 4:00pm. But that's another story. Gary Todoroff
From: "Gary Todoroff" datamaster@humboldt1.com> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net> Subject: [HUG] Agiflite aerial medium format camera Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 An OT question here, but at least medium format oriented: does anyone have experience with the Agiflite 70mm aerial camera? The two standard lenses, 150mm and 350mm are made by Zeiss and look much like the Hasselblad versions, except for a different mount. I have a chance to buy camera and lenses and was wondering if anyone has used an Agiflite. Thanks, Gary Todoroff
From: "Gary Todoroff" datamaster@humboldt1.com> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net> Subject: [HUG] Agiflite aerial camera - Zeiss lenses Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 Well, I got the Agiflite 70mm aerial recon camera, which I mentioned a couple days ago, and the Zeiss lenses are beautiful! One is the Tele-Tessar 350/5.6 and the other is a Sonnar 150/2.8, which I am really looking forward to trying out with the camera's 1/2000th shutter speed. They are both T* lenses, without shutter or focusing ring. Two magazines for 70mm film are included - the format is square like the Hasselblad and holds 175 exposures. One magazine is a "Data" version with a 13 pin connector that can record time, altitude, position, etc. right on the film. But without a manual, I'm not sure how to hook it up to a flight system (anybody with any clues on where to find a manual?) Another interesting feature is a reseau glass plate with four cross-hairs in the extreme corners of the frame. And another "feature" of concern - with the 350mm lens attached, the whole system weighs 15 pounds! Really. Where are my weights to start working out! The camera and lenses are mostly white enamel with black trim, so this 30 year old system has a kind of modern Canon sports camera system look to it, only bigger. It really cleaned up pretty - the last owner, Coast Guard Air Station Cape Code, took good care of it, and the optics are spotless. Another tag on the camera shows that it was serviced by Hill AFB, Ogdon, UT, Photonics Division on 3-19-93. It ended up with military surplus and then with someone in Sebastipol, CA, who went to many of the auctions. Best of all, I charged up the 12 volt button-cell battery and it works! I think you could just about hear the bang of the shutter over the noise of a helicopter. Anyway, since this is a medium format list, and the lenses *are* Zeiss, I thought a report on a very unusual 6x6 camera might interest some out there. If anyone has any experience or knowledge about the Agiflite, I would look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Gary Todoroff Eureka, CA
From: "Gary Todoroff" datamaster@humboldt1.com> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net> Subject: [HUG] Re: Agiflite aerial camera - Zeiss lenses PS Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 P.S. There is a small photo of the camera at: http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/content/encyclopedia/applications/poli ce/pubServiceBook/miss6.html (You may need to paste together the long URL) Gary
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Idle curiousity about aerial lenses in LF photography Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 john@stafford.net (John Stafford) wrote: >Marco Milazzo mmilazz1@elp.rr.com> wrote >> Just wondering. >> >> From time to time, I see lenses for aerial photography eBay getting >> bids. There can't be THAT many aerial photographers out there, can >> there? >> >> What are non-aerial uses for such lenses and what are their >> limitations? > >Some late-model aerial lenses are optimized for infinity at a large >aperture. When adapted for land work, they have no particular >advantage except that they are easier to focus due to the large >aperture. An example of such is the massive 75mm lens with a fixed F4 >aperture intended for 4"x4" negatives. It is awesome at infinity at >F4, but what landscape work is such? Modifed to have a diaphram, the >outcome diminshes as it is stopped down to become merely mediocre. > >Other earlier aerial lenses can be quite good because they are closer >to general-purpose - they were designed before modern computers could >design special, one-purpose applications. Just a note. The Aero-Ektar became popular in the mid 1940's because it was fast enough for use with Kodachrome (about ISO 12) film of the time using press cameras for action photography. The lens is quite well corrected. A lot of the 7" lenses were modified to fit on Speed Graphics using the focal plane shutter. There were evidently an enormous number of these lenses made. They were sold surplus for very attractive prices. The f/2.5 Aero-Ektar was also made as a 12" lens, a very big chunk of glass. These are seven element Biotar types. The Aero-Ektar was evidently intended for night recon photography using flash bombs. The only other aerial lens I can think of which is widely used for LF work is the B&L; Metrogon. This is a very wide angle lens. As mentioned by someone else, they were originally equipped with graduated neutral density filters to even out the illumination. The filters were usually combined with a yellow or red filter. The Metrogon, Zeiss Topogon, and more modern aerial lenses are meant for aerial mapping where extremely good correction for geometrical distortion is necessary. The Aero-Ektar was probably never meant for mapping but for reconnaisance where very precise imaging is less necessary. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA. dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Idle curiousity about aerial lenses in LF photography Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 Richard Knoppow wrote: > > john@stafford.net (John Stafford) wrote: > > >Marco Milazzo mmilazz1@elp.rr.com> wrote > >> Just wondering. > >> > >> From time to time, I see lenses for aerial photography eBay getting > >> bids. There can't be THAT many aerial photographers out there, can > >> there? > >> > >> What are non-aerial uses for such lenses and what are their > >> limitations? > > > >Some late-model aerial lenses are optimized for infinity at a large > >aperture. When adapted for land work, they have no particular > >advantage except that they are easier to focus due to the large > >aperture. An example of such is the massive 75mm lens with a fixed F4 > >aperture intended for 4"x4" negatives. It is awesome at infinity at > >F4, but what landscape work is such? Modifed to have a diaphram, the > >outcome diminshes as it is stopped down to become merely mediocre. > > > >Other earlier aerial lenses can be quite good because they are closer > >to general-purpose - they were designed before modern computers could > >design special, one-purpose applicatrions. > Just a note. The Aero-Ektar became popular in the mid 1940's because > it was fast enough for use with Kodachrome (about ISO 12) film of the > time using press cameras for action photography. The lens is quite > well corrected. A lot of the 7" lenses were modified to fit on Speed > Graphics using the focal plane shutter. There were evidently an > enormous number of these lenses made. They were sold surplus for very > attractive prices. > The f/2.5 Aero-Ektar was also made as a 12" lens, a very big chunk > of glass. These are seven element Biotar types. The Aero-Ektar was > evidently intended for night recon photography using flash bombs. > The only other aerial lens I can think of which is widely used for > LF work is the B&L; Metrogon. This is a very wide angle lens. As > mentioned by someone else, they were originally equipped with > graduated neutral density filters to even out the illumination. The > filters were usually combined with a yellow or red filter. > The Metrogon, Zeiss Topogon, and more modern aerial lenses are meant > for aerial mapping where extremely good correction for geometrical > distortion is necessary. The Aero-Ektar was probably never meant for > mapping but for reconnaisance where very precise imaging is less > necessary. > --- > Richard Knoppow > Los Angeles, CA, USA. > dickburk@ix.netcom.com Richard: The Aero Ektars and Metrogons are available from Surplus Shack for little money. http://www.surplusshed.com If you want to tinker, some of the cell sets are available (new) for as little as $35.00USD from the same source. You have to mount them into a shutter assembly. Regards, Marv
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Idle curiousity about aerial lenses in LF photography Date: 20 Nov 2001 Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Just a note. The Aero-Ektar became popular in the mid 1940's because >it was fast enough for use with Kodachrome (about ISO 12) film of the >time using press cameras for action photography. The lens is quite >well corrected. A lot of the 7" lenses were modified to fit on Speed >Graphics using the focal plane shutter. There were evidently an >enormous number of these lenses made. They were sold surplus for very >attractive prices. > The f/2.5 Aero-Ektar was also made as a 12" lens, a very big chunk >of glass. These are seven element Biotar types. The Aero-Ektar was >evidently intended for night recon photography using flash bombs. There is also a 6" f/2.5 Aero Ektar; I have one. Sharp, but not well corrected for color. Very useful for black-and-white night work, however, particularly under monochromatic light sources like sodium. > The only other aerial lens I can think of which is widely used for >LF work is the B&L; Metrogon. This is a very wide angle lens. As >mentioned by someone else, they were originally equipped with >graduated neutral density filters to even out the illumination. The >filters were usually combined with a yellow or red filter. The 3" Metrogon covers 4x5, but the light fall-off is ghastly and the lens has quite poor contrast. I've never seen one with its original filter fitted, however. The 6" Metrogon *does not cover* 8x10 (unsurprising; it was intended to cover the 9" aero format, which is a bit smaller than 9x9). Goerz later sold a "Super-Metrogon" that was listed in the catalog as covering 8x10; perhaps it did, I've never seen one. Despite this, some number of people do use the 6" Metrogon on 8x10; either the vignetting of different samples is adjusted differently (but aero lenses usually don't have field stops, so this doesn't make sense) or there are different tweaks to this design with different performance (likely; it was in production for a long time), or these users are just not printing the corners of their negatives; beats me. I've put two of these on 11x14 cameras now and measured the circle of illumination and neither one covered 8x10. There is another aero lens that is very commonly used -- by those who can afford it, anyway. The 75mm/4.5 multicoated Zeiss Biogons that were trickled into the market through Lens&Repro; and a few other sources about a decade ago began their life as aero lenses; they replaced the Metrogon types, have very big coverage and even illumination and if shot dead-center are allegedly diffraction-limited at f/4.5 at infinity. Of course, if you can find one, it will set you back at least $1500, perhaps much more -- but for low-light 4x5 work they are incredible tools. These lenses were alternately sourced through Goerz (called the Aerotar) and Recon Optical. I have *no idea* where those lenses went, as I have never encountered one in a shutter; I suspect that astrophotographers and other technical users snapped them up, and there may have been many less made than the Zeiss examples anyway. I have a Recon Optical 75mm f/4.5 lens on a shelf here still mounted in an enormous electrical shutter and lens cone from a KS-87B aero camera; the scant information I have come across on the camera suggests that it's a recon camera mounted under an F-14. I was considering having the lens remounted into a conventional barrel or even perhaps a shutter for 4x5 use but noticed that the back focus was really, really short -- it looks to be a retrofocus design, in fact. It's been suggested to me that this was a *cockpit* camera meant to photograph the pilot, not an under-wing camera meant for infinity focus. I'd love to know more -- anyone know? -- Thor Lancelot Simon
From: "Gary Todoroff" datamaster@humboldt1.com> To: hasselblad@kelvin.net> Subject: [HUG] ELM Night Aerial followup of followup Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 Sheese, lightning hit twice on this night-time aerial shot, photographed again (I posted my trials of the 1st attempt a couple days ago) on Tuesday afternoon with floating buoys defining the low-tide line. Ground targets were shot right on, and the color neg film was developed yesterday. Lab called and there was not a single hint of an image - g r o a n. Took the magazine off the ELM, looked thru the lens (100/3.5 C T*), fired it - no light. The shutter had stuck! Lens will get shipped to California Precision Camera in Sacramento (technician Teddie - nice guy) tomorrow for overhaul. I reshot the aerial scene of Humboldt Bay for the THIRD time today with the 80/2.8 C T* and will take the film in tomorrow. Earlier, after fiddling with the 100/3.5 it started working again, so I put it on the spare ELM with Ken-Lab K-6 Gyro and double handled grip - always makes me feel like a door gunner - which is about as rock solid a handheld combo as you can find. Late afternoon and sunset light over Eureka was beautiful, so I shot two rolls of oblique aerials with Fuji Provia 400F (1/500 f5.6 - f8) and developed it in the JOBO tonight. The 100 lens did work this time (still sending it in for repair tho) and produced stunning images of slanting light over the entrance to the bay, distant Eel River Valley and the Eureka harbor and streets. A fishing boat obliged by positioning itself perfectly parallel along the new boardwalk with shining wake behind. Can hardly wait for film to dry to study them closely. The 100 produces incredibly sharp photographs from the air and I just love that lens - when it works. From now on, before any assignment, I will always test a Hassey lens shutter first! Live and learn . . . When at first you don't succeed . . . etc, etc . . Gary Todoroff
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 From: Gary Todoroff datamaster@humboldt1.com Subject: Re: [HUG] Aerial w/ 203fe Glad to hear you're considering the gyro, George. It really is the way to go. Use at least the K-6 model. With the gyro and some practice, you should be able to shoot at slower speeds, which for air-to-air is an advantage since you don't "freeze" the prop on the target plane. Also, you're going to have more depth of field while shooting with the slower, saturated film for great results on the poster size prints. You should get no shake at 1/125 as long as you keep things out of the slipstream. But shoot LOTS of film in any case. A gyro will allow even slower speed, but you need practice. The Hassey double grip with the shutter under your thumb really helps. BTW, I do shoot at 1/500 for air-to-ground, even with the gyro, since DOF is not needed. The 100 and the 250 give great results wide open, too, altho I like to stop them down at least a half stop if possible. (My 80 isn't sharp enough for aerial until f 4 1/2) But f4 on the 100 or f5.6 on the 250 is going to be really shallow DOF with an airplane. The ground will definitely be fuzzy behind the plane. Your choice of lenses depends on two things: How sharp does the background have to be and how close do you want to get to the target plane? If both pilots were experienced formation flyers, then go for the shorter 100 or 180. I've flown close formation with USCG Dolphin HH65A's and not been a bit worried - probably more than 5000 hours flying for the two pilots and those guys are constantly practicing and emphasizing safety. Try composing an airplane on the ground with the 100, filling 3/4 of the frame. Now imagine how close that will be in the air! Usually, the target plane will be below you and to the right. Synchronizing speed can be difficult. It's especially challenging if you are trying to line up both the target and interesting background below you. Early morning usually gives the clearest air and best contrast, but you may need to consider sun placement for the airplane/background, too. Have you photographed much from airplanes? No matter how comfortable you normally feel in the air, somewhere deep inside a voice is saying, "what do you think you're DOING 2000' above solid ground, right next to a deafening engine, trying to decipher a scratchy voice over the headset, and doesn't that other pilot know wings are not supposed to touch in the air?! And what is this suddenly foreign object in my hands that I'm supposed to be looking through?" I call it sensory overload. It really gets in the way of taking good pictures! Especially on the Dolphins, what with flight suit, helmet, gunner's belt, and twin turbine engines creating a made-made hurricane a couple feet over your head, it took several hours of flying before I could easily devote most of my attention to photography. What would be a minor problem on the ground, for example, a misplaced dark slide, becomes really major in the air. Uncle Dick's Aero Technika approach would be an amazing 4x5, but I have some very detailed 30x40 inch aerial photo prints from both Hasselblad and Leica that no one complains about. Also, I have a hard enough time in the studio remembering to pull the 4x5 slide, cock the shutter, etc. Multiply that complexity by about 10 if you're in the air! Use the camera you're really comfortable with. Maybe some practice shots of an airplane on the ground would help, especially if you had hills or something in the background to see the DOF effect of the three lenses. Try some shots with the engine running to see what shutter speed creates a pleasant blur on the prop. If you can get a flight or two ahead of time and just shoot two or three rolls of interesting ground objects using the gyro, that would be great practice and lead to a more comfortable shoot when it's time for your client. Maybe you've already done a lot of this already, George, so at least I hope some of these notes help others on the HUG. An internet search on aerial photography will bring up a lot of good advice, too. For me, aerial photography is the most fun I've ever had with a camera! And Jim Brick, look at all I just had to write to live up to your comment and compliment! (thanks) Regards, Gary Todoroff www.northcoastphotos.com
From: "Brian Moffet" brianm@moffetimages.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc,rec.photo.technique.nature Subject: Photographing flying things Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 The actual photos are of aircraft at an airshow, but this applies to birds as well. Although I must say that planes do not dart around as much as birds do... I have posted a brief note on how to take photos of aircraft at airshows on my web page: http://www.skyhighway.com/~acropilot/WVI/tech.html Hope you enjoy it. Bria
From: "Kinon O'Cann" fuged@bout.it Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium format from the air? Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 You won't get acceptabe results with that combination unless you also spring for a gyro to stabilize the rig. A tele that long is tough. I've shot three different cameras from light planes; a Nikon F100, Mamiya 7 II, and Hassy 501C. Most of the time, it's either with the normal lens, a short zoom, (35-70), or short telephoto. I've got the best results with the Mamiya using the 150mm lens with ISO 400 film. That allows a high shutter speed and relatively small aperture. "That Annoying Twit..." YesYouTooAreATwit@TheSocietyForThePublicCastrationOfSpammers.com wrote > Hello I am a newbie to this group and I have a weird question and given the > subject, this posting has also been posted in several pertinent newsgroups. > I have a possible money shoot coming up that if successful may lead to some > interesting future shoots along the same lines. The only problem is that is > from a low flying aircraft in the air. My prospective client is insisting > upon medium format gear which I have access to, or will max out a credit > card to buy if needed. The only problem is I have ZERO experience shooting > medium format from the air, and I can't find anyone with any experience in > this format combined with aerial photography... This by itself I suppose > says something, but that raises the issue of could it be done successful. > > If accept this shoot I may try and get a Fuji range finder with Zoom lens or > at the very least with interchangeable lenses. These seem to produce pretty > good quality images, and are relatively affordable. Ideally I would go for a > Contax 645 with a 350APO Tessar Lens however the $10,000 price tag is a > touch intimidating to me (and amount of the repayments). > > Any suggestions? > > Andrew
From: Erik Ryberg ryberg@seanet.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium format from the air? Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 Andrew, I've done some shooting from the air with a Pentax 6x7. I don't really know why this is any different from using 35 mm, you just have a bigger negative. I've always been surprised how crisp the photos turn out, given that I am hand holding the camera in a bouncy airplane. I typically use the 75 mm lens or so and try like crazy to shoot at a 250th or higher. Which often means 400 speed film. 220 is nice because you are going to want to make a lot of exposures and time is expensive in an airplane, but then, TMY 400 speed film is also nice and it doesn't come in 220. I don't know anything about color, but I would avoid Velvia! I don't know what you are shooting, but aerial shots that do not have a horizon in them are sometimes difficult for the viewer to understand, so make sure your subject is pretty obvious if there is no horizon in the image. Obviously, this is always a judgment call; I only mention it because I made the mistake a few times. Flare can be a real problem if you have to shoot through a closed window. It is a good idea to have a discussion with the pilot before hand about this; an open window is cold, noisy, and windy, but it sure helps the image. Try to shoot your subject behind the plain to avoid blur. I shot a Speed Graphic out of a plane once, holding it out the window and hoping. The bellows didn't fly off, but I thought they might. Obviously, keeping the wing struts and everything out of the frame is important, and you need to have an airplane with the wings above the cabin. Sometimes the back seat is the best, but the trouble there is the windows usually don't open in the back and the flare will kill you coming in from three sides. Erik Ryberg
From: "mp" mp@123.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium format from the air? Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 ...(quoting query in above posts) > Any suggestions? What is it that you'll be shooting, and what type of aircraft will you be shooting from? I can tell you right now that shooting through glass or plexi (at an angle) with a telephoto lens, combined with in-flight vibrations, isn't likely to net you a lot of useable shots. - A Pentax 67 makes a very good aerial camera, and is fairly easy to rent. Practice film changing until you can do it quickly. - Use a film fast enough to let you use shutter speeds near the top of the range. - You'll probably be high enough that all your lenses will be focused on infinity. If that's the case, confirm focus and tape the focussing ring at infinity. - While you're at it, use some matte black tape and line the rim of your lenses so that any accidental contact between the camera and window won't scratch or gouge the window. - Lenshoods are highly recommended. - You'll also want to carefully clean and polish the window you'll be shooting out of. Bring some cloth and cleaner along on the flight. - Wear black clothes. A black, longsleeved turtleneck t-shirt is ideal.
From: ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium format from the air? Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 ... > Any suggestions? Let me add a few things learnt while shooting out of running railway engines, particularly on the subject of windows and things reflected in them: - On top of the dark clothing already mentioned watch out for rings you're wearing and other reflective objects. - It took the shots from two trips with a big red spot in the windscreen until I found out that this was a reflection from my red/black Pentax neckstrap. - Watch out for other things lying around in the cockpit and causing reflections in the windows. - The tinting/anti-reflective coating of the windows in the diesel train engines I've been on easily gobbles up a stop or two. Dunno about this with plane windows. Others may be able to comment. While this may all sound rather trivial, much of it tends to be overlooked in the heat of the moment, especially on a first-time occasion. Good luck. And do let us know how you get on. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 11 Jul 2002 Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium format from the air? >Any suggestions? > >Andrew > I have many years of shooting form the air. Please see my website for my photographs form the air . If you must use MF, do not use one with a waist level finder. Use one with an eye level finder. Shooting out of a plane is really tough working waist level since you are shooting down in most cases.. Also, if at all possible, never shoot through a window. It destroys sharpness. If you are going up in a Cessna, strap the door open or have it removed to get good vision down. Use high shutter speeds and stay clear of the plane to lessen vibrations so they won't be transferred to your camera. Also, use 220 film rather 120 so you don't have to reload as often. It really is a drag when the pilot makes the required pass and you are reloading instead of shooting. It means a go around and that takes time, makes the flight longer and possibly more expensive if you are hiring by the hour. Good luck. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 11 Jul 2002 Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium format from the air? ...(quotes above post) Some more thoughts on shooting from the air. Use a camera with a motor drive and magazines that take 220 film , Take a few magazines so you can change fast and never be out of film at crucial times. If you are prone to airsickness take a bag. Pilots get upset when you throw up all over their plane. Also make sure you always keep the pilot informed. When you have to change film, tell him so he can fly a slow 360 while you are reloading magazines. Also watch the direction of the sun and tell him the direction you require when approaching the target to get the lighting you want And never take a camera with a bellows. The slipstream will blow the bellows out. Again, good luck. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: "mp" mp@123.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium format from the air? Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 > What would you think of using one of the motorized Hasselblad EL or SW > cameras with a 70mm back? They're pretty expensive but I can't help but > think that the Biogon 38's resolution and rectilinear correction coupled > with a 70 frame exposure capacity and a motorized film transport would > make a fantastic aerial camera. > > Wasn't aerial photographic mapping the original motivation for what became > the Biogon lens? The Biogon 38mm (as good a lens as it is) wouldn't be of much use handheld, compared to fuselage mounting. The angle of view is too wide to be practical. Also in this case an SLR is quite invaluable as the framing is often pretty tight. In my aerial photography experiences (air-to-air of commercial airliners shot from a learjet), the most useful lens is a normal or just slightly wide angle lens. I've always had to shoot through glass, and even with a special optical plate installed, the image degradation with a telephoto lens is too much, and a wide angle lens is difficult to use without including parts of the wing, etc. 70mm backs are quite useful, but due to the length of the film, processing is a bit of a problem. If you want to use a dip&dunk; line, then the film must be cut into 3 or 6 pieces, with the resulting loss of frames. A roller transport processor could do it in one piece, but I've never found a lab with roller transport that could deliver clean, unscratched film.
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 12 Jul 2002 Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium format from the air? >Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting >medium format from the air? >From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi) >Date: 7/11/02 >Wasn't aerial photographic mapping the original motivation for what became >the Biogon lens? > >Godfrey Possible. But I doubt it. The Fairschild Cameras were the world's standard for many years and they produced 10x10 images on continous rolls using 12" lenses. But mapping is another thing altogether. Producing Lambert Conformal sectionals from aerial shots is a science requiring far greater precision than just making shots from the air. Goerz low distortion Dagors were used in this work a great deal. After the war ended I was made photo officer for the 344th BG and did great deal of aerial mapping including sweeps deep into Russia.. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 12 Jul 2002 Subject: Re: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium format from the air? >Subject: Weird Question... Does anybody have any experience shooting medium >format from the air? >From: "That Annoying Twit..." >YesYouTooAreATwit@TheSocietyForThePublicCastrationOfSpammers.com >Date: 7/11/02 1:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time >rom a low flying aircraft in the air. My prospective client is insisting >upon medium format gear which I have access to, or will max out a credit >card to buy if needed. The only problem is I have ZERO experience shooting >medium format from the air, and I can't find anyone with any My first choice for this work is the Fairchild K-20 aerial camera. It makes 50 4x5 exposures on a roll of film, has rapid wind and an open finder all made for and ideal for this work. If you can rent one, it is a lot cheaper thany buying a Blad which isn't nearly as well suited as a Fairchild. Some of the shots on my website were made with a K-20 although most were Leica.
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Aerial photography You want to talk to Gary Todoroff, who is on this list. He has hundreds of hours, thousands of photographs, using Hasselblads in aerial photography. As far as I am concerned, he is THE expert. "Gary Todoroff" datamaster@humboldt1.com
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 From: Charles Carstensen ccarstensen@gwe.net Subject: RE: [HUG] Aerial photography Hi Jeff: My 503CW serves very well making aerial photographs. We just completed a job and made 24x30s and 30 x 40s, client very happy. Here is the basic way I work. Using Provia 400 has served me well. 100 speed is too slow, grain is not a big deal. Very seldom do I use transparency media since the end product is normally a print. I use a Pro lab and get digital scans done every roll. Final product is using Lightjet 5000. I shoot with the 80 mm and find it to be well suited both for subject coverage and aircraft strut and wheel clearance. I open the pilot window, and usually have a safety pilot flying the aircraft. Never take the door off unless you really have to in an airplane. If you must take the door off, use a helicopter. If it is a tourist flight, other passengers aboard, having the door off is not a good idea. If you want to more about door/no door please contact me off list. If your airplane does not have a right side window that opens, maybe the pilot will fly from the right seat for you to use the left window. A PME45 is not very workable. A closed WLF with mirror lock up is about as good. Then, it's point and shoot. Use a 90 degree finder only. I use an old chimney type. You need the camera at eye level and looking down. A12 backs work for me. Usually I get the shot I want in one or two exposures. Plan ahead by orbiting once before you blast away, saves film. If you are in need of lots of images, a 70 MM back is good. Never work without a camera strap around your neck. I even use that cardinal rule on the ground. You don't need anything faster than 1/500. I use only 1/500 at all times. The ground is moving slow enough to not be a factor. A real factor, however, is the vibration so do not touch the airframe with your elbow, arms or shoulder while shooting. If you are so inclined rent a Kenon gyro stabilizer and shoot at 1/15 or 1/30th. DOF is not a factor, therefore, wide open is OK. I use a Gossen light meter before leaving the ground and a gray card reading. 1/500 at 5.6 is pretty close. Aerial shot negatives are thin and flat anyway. There is no real need to change exposure unless you are up for a very long time, then you will need a restroom anyway - which gives you time to take another meter reading. Suggest you not get into changing exposure times while shooting. I also take an incident light meter reading and see what it tells me v. the gray card reflected. The 120 is really not too long if your mission is building portraits. If your target is a plot of land or a scenic the 80 mm is best. Worth saying is your focus is always infinity, sometimes it is worth taping the lens so you can't accidentally change the focus. I do not use any filter of any sort. Nor do I use a lens shade. If you have a 100 mm, substitute it instead of the 80. I am a Cessna 182 driver/owner, ex-US Navy Aerial Photographer. The high wing shades the camera. You don't say what Make and Model aircraft you are using, however, a low wing is really sucky if you want to remove the door. Your flying will be minimum 500 feet AGL and that is good for building or house portraits. If you are over a populated area, you will be at 1000 feet AGL in order to be legal. If you are near a big city, some other flight rules apply. If you are shooting high obliques, concentrate on keeping the horizon parallel with the frame. If you are shooting low obliques, keep the camera vertical, watch the vertical lines and fight the tendency to align vertical lines with roads. Just keep the camera level. Just keep the camera level. If you are shooting near verticals, you best have a parachute {BG}. So much for the rambling. Best wishes on a real fun adventure. Chuck, Mountain Aerial Photographer, Carstensen Montrose, Colorado
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 From: Bill Pearce bspearce@sbcglobal.net Subject: [HUG] Aerial photos If you are using a small Cessna, 172/182, you can shoot out the right side window. Take along a screwdriver. There is a metal strip that limits how far the window opens. Remove the screw that holds one end to the window frame. Put it in a safe place. Now, the window will open nearly 90 degrees. the airflow will hold it open. You will find it natural to brace a hand against the window frame. Don't. These things can really shake! I don't think you can shoot out of a Cessna with a 60 without getting a strut or wheel in the photo, except in very limited angles. the 80 is better, and the 120 will be useful. Bill Pearce
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 From: Charles Carstensen ccarstensen@gwe.net Subject: [HUG] Aerial Photography Stuart and Group: A good book is - Secrets of Successful Aerial Photography by Richard Eller. Amherst Media. $26.95 http://www.amherstmediainc.com Richard also moderates an aerial photography list. It is a great group of photogs. You could also buy the book direct and he gets more money. :) aerialpro@lists.tdl.com The real pro aerial types mostly use Pentax 67's. Only a handful are into shooting with Blads. I could never understand why. I'm a believer in using the best glass you can find. Best, Chuck Carstensen Cloudy and Monsoon Western Colorado
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 From: Charles Carstensen ccarstensen@gwe.net Subject: RE: [HUG] Aerial photos Bill, that is true only in certain later model years, mid to late 70's. Prior, only the pilot window opened. I took that little screw out along with the brace. Had a piano hinge installed so the window is stronger. FAA says it is illegal to remove the screw without their written approval on a 337 form, but I won't tell if you won't.
Best, Chuck Carstensen If you are using a small Cessna, 172/182, you can shoot out the right side window. Take along a screwdriver. There is a metal strip that limits how far the window opens. Remove the screw that holds one end to the window frame. Put it in a safe place. Now, the window will open nearly 90 degrees. the airflow will hold it open.
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net Subject: RE: [HUG] Aerial photos I have removed this screw many many times on my son's flying club's 172/182's. It is the only way to photograph out of a 172/182. The other option is to remove the door. This is legal as well providing there is a safety strap across the doorway. Getting permission to do this, according to the club members, is trivial. I've been asked many times if I want the door removed and I say no. It is quite often very cold here in the San Francisco area and along the Pacific coast. My son is 6'4" and has very long arms. When we get into position, he reaches around me and holds the window open with his right hand. This allows me to shoot without touching anything. He also side slips the plane so that the strut is less likely to get in the frame. This way I can use a reasonably wide lens when I need to. I have lots of wide angle photographs of San Francisco and the GG Bridge without wing struts. When using a Hasselblad, it is almost mandatory to use a 90� prism finder and a motor winder. Sans the motor, this is why the Pentax 67 is used so much. A 90� finder on a MF SLR. A Hasselblad with 90� finder, motor, and a 24 frame or 70mm back, in my estimation, is better. Jim ...
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net Subject: RE: [HUG] Aerial photography Helicopters vibrate like crazy and generally, high shutter speeds are needed. Having said that, my friend Gary Todoroff has hundreds of Hasselblad Helicopter hours and has exquisitely sharp photographs. Without a gyro. Using C lenses on ELM cameras. 1/500th max. If I remember correctly, he uses Provia 100F. The reason he probably has not responded to this thread is that he may be actually out photographing. He has a contract with the US Coast Guard and does most of (maybe all of) their west coast aerial photography. Jim ...
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 From: Stuart Phillips Stuart.Phillips@umb.edu Subject: RE: [HUG] Aerial photography >From the answer posted, it is. I suppose this is a group of people who either don't buy the Proshade or buy a hell of a lot of them! Did you see the article in Shutterbug sometime ago about the guy who was taking pictures of/on all the bridges in NY with a gyro attachment. Even at 1/500, he couldn't get sharp exposures without it. But it was a wonderful piece of kit. With it, he could handhold down to 1/15th. Magic. Love your site BTW. Do you have any copies of your scooter book for sale? And were the Halloween pictures taken with the Baby Speed Graphic - they're excellent Best Stuart Phillips
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Aerial photos The 80 is an awesome aerial lens. Just the right coverage. A 60/80/120 would give you everything you ever needed from the air. Anything longer than 120 and you could have a vibration problem. Long lenses magnify everything including vibrations. Jim
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Aerial photos I think the recommendation against the 45 degree for 645 back is simply because it's more difficult to rotate the camera for verticals with a 45 degree prism, where the 90 degree works very easily in this manner. Godfrey
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 From: "Ing. Ragnar Hansen AS" raghans@powertech.no Subject: Re: [HUG] Aerial photos A 60/80/120 > would give you everything you ever needed from the air. Well , to get pictures of individual houses for enlargements I use a 350mm. But, you have to use a camera ( 200 or 2000 series) with shutter speed from 1/1000 and a gyro stabilizer to get really sharp pictures. A good pilot can swing in a circle with your target as center. This is also good for sharpness. I always use lens shade but keep the lens and shade inside the cocpit, never out in the wind. Ragnar Hansen
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Aerial photos Jim Brick wrote: > Patrick Bartek wrote: > >I suggest the 45 degree one instead of the 90, unless you > >intend to shoot a lot with 645 film backs. > > ????? Could you please explain? > > My PM90 works perfectly fine in a 172, shooting out the window flap. > Actually, that's the only usable finder. And it works with ANY back > except the 70mm. My E16 (645) back is the same size and shape as my > 12 & 24 backs. > > With the door off, any finder will work but a 45� prism will be best > because everything is right way around. A 90 prism is almost a necessity when shooting 645 backs. Try shooting verticals with any other finder. It's possible, but . . . . My recommendation on the 45 prism (with 6x6 backs) over the 90 is that it -- the 45 -- (or the wasitlevel or "stovepipe" finders) permits the camera to be held in a lowered, more comfortable manner with less tension in the arms and shoulders, permitting them to act as dampeners against aircraft vibration. With a 90 prism, the hands and arms must be held higher, and anytime the hands must be held above mid-chest level, this requires more muscle effort to maintain the position than is required with hands at navel or waistlevel. This additional tension causes the muscles to be harder, and harder muscles transmit vibrations easier than more relaxed muscles. Also, with the "hands-high" position most photographers will brace their elbows against their body to "ease" this strain and help stabilize the camera. However, this permits the vibrations in the body to be transmitted to the arms and, thence, to the camera. That's why for aerials, I prefer the lower-camera-arms-and-elbows-away-from-the-body position. For this position, only the W/L, "stovepipe," and 45 degree prism are useable. Of course, you can hold your arms away from your sides when shooting with the 90, but the increased effort to do this, just compounds the problem of dampening out the vibrations, since the muscles have to strain more to maintain this shooting posture. -- Patrick Bartek NoLife Polymath Group bartek@intermind.net
From: Joshua Putnam josh@phred.org Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.technique Subject: Re: aerial photo info? Date: 10 Jul 2002 info@internet-real-estate.com writes: >Know of any web sites with good info/tips for aerial photography? As in >best film, filters, techniques, etc.? > >Or throw out some tips here. You might try asking on the Yahoo aerial photography forum, over 300 members there. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aerialphotography/ -- josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam http://www.phred.org/~josh/ Updated Infrared Photography Books List: http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html
from hasselblad mailing list: Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net Subject: Re: [HUG] Aerial photos Jeff Grant wrote: > Thanks to one and all for all the info. I have found out that the > plane is a Cessna 172, and that they regularly remove doors for > photographers. The flight will be over Fraser Island, Queensland, > Australia and I am looking for landscapes of perched lakes, > shorelines etc. They seem to be very accommodating and to have done > this quite often. > It looks like I need a 90 degree prism, and that the 60 will be too > wide. I have the 120 macro planar. Can anyone give an opinion as to > how it will perform or should I be looking for a used 100 or 80? Any > suggestions on which lense would be appreciated, although my > inclination would be to go for the 100. Jeff, You're agonizing too much over trivialities. Use the equipment you have now to take your pictures. If what you have doesn't work for you, you can buy what does, but until you shoot a few aerials, you won't know what works and what doesn't. I've been a commercial photographer for 30 years and could really justify as much equipment as I wanted, but my Hasselblad system consists on 2 500C (not C/M) bodies, 2 waistlevel and 2 "stovepipe" finders, 4 12 (not A12) backs, SWC, 60, 150, regular lens hoods and the pro hood. And in all that time, and with all the aerials I've done, I've never needed more. The 120 does fine at infinity; it just does better close up. You don't really need a prism. I shoot aerials with a "stovepipe" finder all the time, but you do need the door off, since the camera is held just above your lap, which is good, since this helps keep the wing or helicopter rotor out of the shot. However, if you do want a prism for aerials, I suggest the 45 degree one instead of the 90, unless you intend to shoot a lot with 645 film backs. -- Patrick Bartek NoLife Polymath Group bartek@intermind.net
From: raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Date: 19 Aug 2002 Subject: New rocket aerial photos! I recently finished scanning and posting the pics from my latest rocketry trip to Nevada and the Mojave desert. Got a lot of very cool inflight photos from rockets launched at various ghost towns and scenic areas: http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=3009006&a;=30312830&f;=0 Enjoy!
From: raydunakin@aol.com (RayDunakin) Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Date: 19 Aug 2002 Subject: Re: New rocket aerial photos! Yoy got to give us more details. That's a lot bigger than a CineRoc. What camera do you have in it? H engines or ? I use Olympus Stylus Epic cameras in the rockets. Nice small camera with a fast shutter. I have several different rockets in three basic sizes: 1.8" diameter, 2.6" diameter, and 4" diameter. Can fly on motors ranging from "G" on up the alphabet. Largest motor I used on this trip was an "I" motor. I have some pics of the camera module here: http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=3009006&a;=30069434&f;=0
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 From: Ebert Steele k5cad@houston.rr.com Subject: Re: [HUG] Aerial photography Jeff Grant wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I'm looking for some advice. I want to try my hand at aerial photography > with a Hasselblad from a small plane, without doors, on my next holiday. Jeff, I'm catching up on reading HUG and have been reading your Aerial thread. You have had some good advice and some that you might want to do some critical thinking about before investing in equipment for that task. From about 1965 or so into the 80's (almost 20 years) I flew and photographed construction progress pictures during the petrochemical building boom on the Houston Ship Channel and along the lower Mississippi River. I flew on almost every weekend that the sun shown in a J-3 Cub, Cessna 150, 172, or 182 - about anything with a high wing. I have a different take on a couple of issues based on my experience. A wlf, stovepipe, and 45 finder had no value to me in doing oblique photography. You can't sit in a small plane and hold a camera in your lap. Obliques require active aggressive involvement with the camera at eye level in order to strike a balance between getting your image framed between struts and the tail structure and not getting too far out into the slip stream. If you get to far out into it you create a vacuum which sucks your film out of its focal plane. Get farther out into it and it will rip a camera right out of your hands. I posted a typical oblique image here: http://home.houston.rr.com/k5cad/ebay/SulfurTerm.jpg so that you can see that it would be very difficult to do this kind of shooting with a 45 or wlf. Actually a wire frame sports finder is best. I shot a 500C on the ground at the time but seldom used it in the air. I preferred the humble Mamiya Press 23. The Mamiya 100 mm f2.8 lens would hold its own with the Planar 80. My 2 cents. I enjoy HUG. Ebert Steele
From: www.flight-history.com info@flight-history.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc Subject: New aviation photo galleries posted. Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 New galleries have been added to the photo section: African Americans in Aviation Aircraft Production Life on Board 1 Life on Board 2 Feel free to add your comments. In preparation for Remembrance Day we will be posting additional galleries this month and a special series in November. Regards, Cathy Berglund www.flight-history.com
from nikon mf mailing list: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 From: "Cesar Matamoros II" cesar_abdul@mindspring.com Subject: RE: lenses for 500 feet -----Original Message----- From: robert5227 [mailto:robert5227@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 There's a book out called "America from 500 Feet." The marvelous pictures were taken with Nikon lenses. However, the pictures don't look Nikonish to me--they have that etched look that, for good or ill, you get with Leica glass. Does anyone know if Nikon supplied special-made lenses for that project, or did the photographers use stock? (The project was partly paid for by Nikon.) Rob Rob, I was fortunate enough to meet Bill Fortney at the Nature Photography Weekend at Grandfather Mountain, North Carolina earlier this year. He is a marvelous person and very personable. I have an autographed copy of his book. His talk on the project was awesome and very inspiring. There were no special-made lenses used, everything was stock. And as a side note, his next project will use Pentax?s 645nII camera. He stated that you cannot beat the larger image size and he has fallen in love with the SMC lenses of Pentax. He also said that he found that he did not need a super fast motor drive on the camera. Cesar Panama City, Florida
From leica mailing list: Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org Subject: [Leica] Re: Ken-Lab Gyro Edward Caliguri wrote: >Yup! > There are three types of Keyon (www.ken-lab.com) Gyro Stabilizers >available. Norb Rosing, Leica and wildlife photographer, has used them from >a moving boat to photograph Walruses for national Geo. You can rent them. >They are a bit noisy, however. Place it UNDER the motor on a body (SLR)and >then hand hold your 180 - 300 down to 1/30th! > EC >-- I personally know several full time professional photographers that use these gyros a lot. From planes, boats, and on terra firma for slow shutter hand held photography. This is the only way to get aerial sunsets and aerial night shots. Jim
From: trapforcannedmeatproduct@hotmail.com (R. Charles Henry) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc Subject: AeroJet Delft old aircraft reconnisance lens info? Date: 16 Nov 2002 May I ask the group's advice concerning some equipment, for which information seems to be rather thin on the ground. I'm looking for specifications for an AeroJet Delft lens. It is an f/1.5 with a 12 inch focal length (possible 30cm) and its serial number is 76749. I think it is an old reconnisance lens. It also has the markings "45AG". I am using it for a photometer experiment, and would like to know the number of elements, the type of cement or "o" rings used, the temperature rating and most importantly, the optical properties of the lens. If somebody happens to be au fait with this kit, I'd very much appreciate any information they could give. Thanks :)
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc Date: 24 Nov 2002 Subject: Re: AeroJet Delft old aircraft reconnisance lens info? Hi It would be very unusal for a 12 inch f1.5 lens to be used for aerial recon. I think it's a wide field star map lens. So the lens looks up to the heavens rather then down on the earth. An original cost for a lens like this would be in excess of $30,000 in mid 70's money. It most likely has at least 8 elements in it to correct for color, distoration and so on. Larry
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 06 Dec 2002 Subject: Re: Kodak Supermatic Flash Shutters >(Can we talk about what >the U2 used yet?) Just about everyting is digital these days. Besides Kodak stopped making very high reso film due to EPA issues. The first U2 cameras for whatever reasons were called Bench Box systems. They took two strands of 9 inch film. The final image was 18 inch by 18 inch made up of two 9x18 images. A prime example of a low resolution high scale image. A real monster. The camera was also a monster as it's weigh was about 2 tons. We are now talking Cuba Nuke issues and Kennedy times Larry
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 From: DaveHodge@aol.com To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1788 hasselblad@kelvin.net writes: By placing "known" reference marks on the photo, one can correct the image for distortion and achieve a better "match" when they are assembled into larger displays. The last time the State of Maryland did an aerial survey of Harford County (and probably other counties as well) they surveyed reference points throughout the county and marked the sites with a large white "X" so they would show up in the aerial photographs, and they could easily match adjacent photo frames with each other! Best regards, David Hodge, Churchville, MD
From: "Leonard Robertson" leonard@harrington-wa.com To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] wind stability Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 Murray, I recall an old-timer telling me when he did aerial photography with a Speed Graphic, he would make a "wind guard" from thin aluminum sheet to protect the bellows from the wind. It seems boxing in your bellows with some light, rigid sheet material (aluminum roof flashing, thick corregated cardboard, foamcore,etc.) would make your bellows camera into a box camera. A Nylon strap with velcro fastener around the front and rear standards might work to hold in on. There is the trick of hanging a bag of rocks, sand, anything heavy from the bottom of the tripod center post to stabilize the tripod. I have stabilized my Eastman 2D 8X10 by sticking a monopod under the front of the bed. It doesn't even need to be screwed on, just poking it under so it holds itself adds a lot of stiffness. If you aren't too far from your car, a couple of long poles to hold a sheet of nylon or plastic to make a portable wind break to hide behind would probably help you. Please let us know what works best for you.
From camera makers mailing list: From: "Dennis Anderson" auroraak@ptialaska.net To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 Subject: [Cameramakers] KA-45 aerial camera Murray, It seems that I have read that the KA-45 was used as a panoramic camera as well as a framing camera. In the Panoramic mode the film is moving as well as the slit of the shutter resulting in the high shutter speeds. In the framing mode the film is not moving thus the shutter speeds are slower as only the slit of the shutter moves. I would assume that the film moves in the opposite direction of the shutter slit during panoramic mode to produce the high speeds. If memory serves, I believe the film is moving at 4 feet per second. I also seem to recall that the leading edge of the shutter curtain is electronically controlled to adjust the size of the slit and that the trailing curtain is stationary relative to the leading edge. Regards, Dennis A. P.S. I also have a KA-45 and find these very interesting. Also:The Cuban missiles were first spotted by a U-2 flight but it was the KA-45 that was used in follow-up missions.
From: john@stafford.net (J Stafford) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Enlarging limitations Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268) wrote: > Hi > > Well then you would know what OBC means. It's a term that anyone would know if > they know anything about U2"s and the term is unclassified. > > So lets here it. OBC means...... Optical Bar Camera. 30" F2.8. Panoramic, overlap and stero modes. Used in the SR71 too. Can you get me one? But I don't have to know that because we were not specifically a U2 (or 9th) site. It landed, took off. Not a regular thing. The military U2 pilot I was familiar with was Major Francis Keohe, USAF. None of this is classified.
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com From: Tony Wright twright@themodern.org Subject: [Cameramakers] re: aerial cameras This person has good information on kite aerial photos. Cob together a servo that can hit the motor drive and your set. http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/kap/ Hope it helps, T. Wright
From: jason@jasonhawkes.com (Jason Hawkes) Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: aerial photography Date: 6 Mar 2003 I have worked as an aerial photographer for fourteen years and often get emails through my website asking for advice from other photographers looking to do some aerial work. I have posted some of these at an aerial photography forum I have started, and hope that anyone interested in aerial work might use the forum to post / and or answer questions on the subject. The forum is at http://www.jasonhawkes.com/forums/ Thanks for your time in reading this. Jason
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Aircraft Aero Ektar Camera ? Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 "Henry Kolesnik" wd5jfr@oklahoma.net wrote > At a local swapmeet I bought a Camera, Aircraft Reconnaissance, Stock No. > 8400-10765 made by General Electric X-Ray Dept with a Aero Ektar Lens 12 in. > (308 mm) f/2.5 by Eastman Kodak. It seems to be in fairly decent condition > and too nice to dismantle for the lens to make a telescope. It probably > weighs 60 pounds with its cables. Does anyone have any info on this camera > and does it have any potential use aside from being a curio or perhaps > museum piece? One stamp indicates it was made Sept. 1954. > tnx > hank wd5jfr The Aero Ektar is a famous lens. Its more often seen in a 7" focal length. These lenses were intended for night photo reconnaisance using flash bombs. They are well corrected but there is some compromise to in spherical aberration to improve overall sharpness. Most of these lenses are somewhat radioactive from the Thorium included in the Lanthanum glass used in a couple of the elements. The Thorium is not an impurity as is sometimes imputed but is a delibrate addition to obtain certain glass characteristics. Kodak was a poineer in the commercial manufacture and application of the rare-earth optical glasses developed originally at the National Bureau of Standards. Many Aero Ektar lenses exhibit some browing of the glass from the radioactivity. They have a reputation for having poor color color correction but I think this may be due to some change in the glass. Analysis of the design indicates that color correction was excellent originally. For more on the general design of these lenses see the following patents: USP 2,243,627 (1941) Aklin, Assigned to Kodak, 2,343,627 (1944) Aklin, assigned to Kodak, and USP 2,466,424, (1949) Herzberger, assigned to Kodak. Computer analysis may be found in: _Modern Lens Design: A Resource Manual_ Warren J. Smith 1992, McGraw-Hill Book Company ISBN 0-07-059178-4 See pages 344,345,346 -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Aerial Lenses Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 Just a heads up for those who do not get the C & H catalog - they have on offer several aerial lenses perfect for lens bashing (if you are into that sort of thing). #OL8660 - f/2.8 6" with between the lens iris (400hz servo motor driven), multi-coated (all optical elements) $125.00 #OL2056 Bausch & Lomb Type C-3; f/4.0 coverage is 9" x 9" - lens is in mounting cone, 11" in diameter by 13" high. $100.00 #OL2053 - Bell & Howell f/8.0 36" telephoto, coated, mounted with iris and shutter. This is the hernia special - weighs 25 pounds $250.00 Just some ideas - contact them at http://www.candhsales.com Regards, Marv
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 To: nikon@photo.cis.to From: Francis Corvin francis_@gmx.net Subject: Re: [Nikon] Photography from a helicopter you wrote: >snip >3) Any other general helicopter/aerial photography tips? >snip Plan: - route (can you get close enough?), - views (when to execute "planned shots" and when you are free to scan for opportunistic shots), - lenses (do you want a detail or a full view?), - film changes (when you know that there is nothing of interest), - light position (some landscapes or details may not work if in the shade), - weather (strong winds will not be conducive to either shooting or faffing about with lenses and bodies; some shoots are worthless if the sky is completely overcast). Talk to the pilot/company: - shots you want to get, - position inside the helicopter (what if two of your "must-have" shots are on opposite sides of the flight path, will the pilot turn the helicopter to help you?) - they will know how far/close they are to some landmarks Enjoy! Regards, Francis
From nikon mailing list: From: "Herb Bauer" herb.bauer@attglobal.net To: nikon@photo.cis.to Subject: RE: [Nikon] Photography from a helicopter Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 Yes, I have tips! All you should need is a fast 35mm lens, and for film, use slides, and stay away from anything less than 100 ASA. Be SURE to use a polarizer, be SURE to wear a black shirt to eliminate reflections from the windows. Things move fast, so, having 2 loaded bodies are great. Having somebody re-load while you shoot would be nice. The ultimate? Charter a Bell helicopter for yourself and maybe another photographer, strap yourself in, hang out the door, and get ready for the ride of your life! Jack Harter on Kaua'i is great. Herb
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 To: nikon@photo.cis.to From: Kip Babington cbabing3@swbell.net Subject: Re: [Nikon] Photography from a helicopter The most useful tip I got before my one and only helicopter photo excursion was to bring a roll of duct tape and be sure to tape the seat belt latch closed. The seat belt went through the camera bag strap and around my waist, and was taped. I'll never forget the one spot in the trip when a neck strap caught on the seat belt latch as I was twisting around to switch a lens (or something.) If it hadn't been taped I'm confident the latch would have come open. The doors had been removed for better shooting (we were documenting a major civic event, and they wanted clear shots,) and I remember being absolutely frozen for a few seconds as I realized what might have happened if . . . My exposure recollections are that things got pretty hazy from just a little way up. (Major metropolitan area in the midwest in the summer - Hawaiian air may be different.) The wide angle shots were particularly murky, and I think I regretted not having a polarizer on hand, which would have helped with some of the shots. We were shooting Ektachrome, as I recall, probably ISO 100. Vibration is definitely a problem if any part of the camera is in contact with the airframe, but I don't recall having any vibration problems when hand holding except for the couple of pockets of turbulence we encountered. Depth of focus wasn't a concern, so I just used the widest aperture that still gave adequate sharpness, and took advantage of the higher shutter speed this allowed. As to lenses, don't forget that you'll probably be at least a quarter mile away from anything - a great place for sweeping vistas, but any detail on the ground that you might want to concentrate on will be a looooong way away. Don't concentrate so hard on the photos that you miss the fun of the flight. And if you're going to be sitting next to an open door, don't forget the duct tape. Cheers, Kip
To: nikon@photo.cis.to From: jones.ra.2@pg.com Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 Subject: [Nikon] Re:Photography from a helicopter >3) Any other general helicopter/aerial photography tips? > >snip Some of the helicopters have windows and some do not. While you can shoot through the canopy, it can be difficult at times, so it is better to go in a helicopter that has windows that can be opened for photography. The Eurocopter ASTAR is the most commonly used helicopter in the Hawaiian Islands, as it has a larger passenger capacity, i.e. more revenue. In my opinion it is the worst for photographers, since you must shoot through the canopy. Best are the Bell Jet Rangers and MD500s, both of which have openable windows. http://www.tropicalhelicopters.com/adventures.html mentions doors off trips to the lava fields on the Big Island. That sounds interesting! A very important thing to do is explain that you are a serious photographer and need to have a window-side seat. There are seats on helicopters that you cannot make a photograph from. But note that weight balance is critical on these machines and you may still end up in a bad seat. As noted by others, you need higher shutter speeds. We generally try to shoot wide open to keep the maximum shutter speed. Lens in the 35 to 120 mm range are the most useful. We prefer Velvia or other saturated slide films. UV filters will help some. Polarizers may cost you too much light with normal speed (50-100) films. Mornings are in most cases the best as in the afternoon there are generally more clouds, but pay attention to the weather as there may be significant difference from average conditions. And gofor the longer trips. The short cheaper ones don't give as many photo ops. You will get what you pay for. Hope this helps, Richard
From: Charles Carstensen [ccarstensen@gwe.net] Sent: Fri 5/30/2003 To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: [HUG] Anyone used a 501CM for aerial photography? Alison, you are welcome. Incidentally, you will find no need to stick the camera out of the window very far. What happens is the pilot banks the aircraft as you wish, thereby, taking the wheel/ wheel cover out of the view. If you have a 100 mm it is the ideal lens IMHO. Enjoy the fun. Please let us know how it all goes. Oh, yes, highly recommend Richard Eller's book: "Secrets of Successful Aerial Photography" Amherst Media. Charles Carstensen Thanks very much for the information Charles. I discovered earlier today that the aircraft I will be flying in is a Cessna 172, which has the high wing, and the opening window. The pilot has told me he will manoeuvre at an angle to reduce the effect of the slipstream when I'm sticking my camera out of the window, and he mentioned he would slow down to about 80 KTS for me. I know he's had a go at taking shots when he's flown on his own, so he's aware of the wind drag. I've just requested to join the AerialPro forum, thanks for that. Alison Napier
From: Bill Pearce [bspearce@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sat 5/31/2003 To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: [HUG] Re: aerials Alison, Although I shoot air-to-ground almost never now, I shot them a lot in the seventies, in exactly the aircraft your will be using. I shot on a weekly basis for several years running from a 172 with great success. First some thoughts on the alternatives: A helicopter is nice, as it can fly slower, but they vibrate a lot more. The slower they fly, the more they vibrate, and when in hover, they vibrate the most. They are also more expensive than fixed wing, ofter by a factor of ten. The added flexibility is welcome, but comes at a price. ( I have a friend that shoots regularly from a Robinson two place piston powered helicopter that is much less expensive, and gets very good results, so much so that he won't bother with a much more expensive turbine craft.) The window in the door of a 172 is hinged at the top, and opens enough to allow a lens to just poke through. It is restrained from further opening by a metal link about six inches long. This can be unscrewed to allow the window to open almost to horizontal, and the slipstream will hold it up varying with things like speed and angle of attack. The bottom end of the metal piece is held in place by a phillips head screw, and is easy to remove if you remember to bring along a screwdriver. Just don't loose it! Don't worry about sticking the camera too far out of the airplane. In most cases, just sticking the lens out a bit is enough, and the wind will not be a bother. Of course, shooting directly down is another subject althogether. Usually confined to mapping work, that is usually done by specialists with aircraft outfitted with cameras that shoot through holes in the bottom. In a pinch you can shoot down from a 172, if the pilot holds it in a steep bank, orbiting around a point. Always use a neckstrap, keep everything in a bag or something, and above all, don't brace yourself against any part of the aircraft, or vibration will be transmitted directly to the camera. Although it will not win any races, the Cessna 172 is a fine camera platform for many uses, that is affordable and available almost everywhere on the planet. Frequently, photographers are automatically running for the helicopter when a 172 can do the job just as well at a much lower cost. The only problem is shooting around the wing strut, and you can work with that. I've not tried one, but a Cessna Cardinal (with a full cantilever wing) might be a better, if harder to find alternative). Of course, altitude is a consideration, and photographers like Mr. Carstensen will need to use a more powerful aircraft in locations like Colorado. Bill Pearce
From: Charles Carstensen [ccarstensen@gwe.net] Sent: Fri 5/30/2003 To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: [HUG] Anyone used a 501CM for aerial photography? Alison: Use my 503CW, no winder, 80mm, 90 degree finder (45 is unusable), handheld all the time. A hand grip is not necessary, in fact, actually adds to instability. There is no problem with a regular neck strap - recommend using it. Have successfully enlarged to 48 wide by having a pro lab scan and Lightjet 5000 printer. I fly with a Cessna 182 and a safety pilot. I have done it alone, however, not recommended. You get very busy. Newer models of the Skylane allow both windows to open. Therefore, you can sit in either right or left seat, it really makes no difference. Prior to flight have a good briefing with your pilot so you know how to communicate where you want the airplane. Remember, when you get on target, you are in charge - YOU direct where you want the airplane, what angle, what distance, how high. The airplane is only a platform for your photography - sometimes just like sitting in your livingroom. Helicopters are different due to heavy constant vibration. Your body absorbs vibration if you do not lean on the aircraft with arms/hands/shoulder. In a high wing aircraft, such as a Cessna 182, when the aircraft slows to 80 KTS or so, the window will stay open. If they do not get in the way, the pilot will add 10 to 20 degree flaps which usually helps. Shoot at 1/500th is SOP. I always tape the lens focused at infinity (prevents inadvertent out of focus). 100 to 400 speed film OK. Use a UV/Haze filter. Shoot only with window open. I always take an incident meter reading on the ground prior to flight and add 1/2 f stop. Back that up with a reflected meter reading at altitude and you will be more confident of your light. Aerials are normally flat contrast. Following, is a link to aerial photography top site and forum. A couple of people on this forum use Hassy exclusively. AerialPro A professional aerial photography forum Hope this helps. Charles Carstensen As a Fine Art photographer who specializes in textures and patterns from natural forms (usually with bellows and/or extension tubes) I'd like to try aerial photography for the other end of the scale. For my first foray into this, I will probably use my pro Canon equipment for its speed of use and versatility. However, I'd really like to use my 'blad, which is what I normally use for coomerical work, or indeed anything I want to sell. But without a gyroscopic stabilizer, I was wondering if hand-holding is really viable, bearing in mine the top speed of 1/500 sec. Anyone had any experience of this? Or am I being a little too optimistic thinking about hand-holding a 'blad from an aircraft? Alison Napier a-n.napier@virgin.net
From: ian.barnes [ian@ianbarnes.co.uk] Sent: Fri 5/30/2003 To: hasselblad@kelvin.net Subject: RE: [HUG] Anyone used a 501CM for aerial photography? It will be interesting to see what other comments turn up as I was sitting in a helicopter yesterday discussing this very issue. We were planning on door off, hasselblad with handgrip and 45 finder although I do have a side little clip on range finder which is apparantly ideal for this situation. I was wondering about metering / shutterspeeds etc? I have done a lot of flying with a full size video camera and offer the following related comments. Make sure your properly strapped in on a belt or on harness. (We often shoot legs out on skid, which with a big lump of camera on the shoulder is much better.) Make sure everything is attached securly to the aircraft by tether. Loose object need to be in a secure bag . A flying suit is ideal for this problem with loads of pockets.We had an accident in the UK a while ago due to loose film tins getting under the pilots foot controls. Be aware that if you put anything into the slipstream at speed it will probalby be dragged from your hand so in conjunction with pilot alway agree when you are going to shoot. He may well slow up a lot to shoot. At some slow speeds / hover you can get vibration. Ideally try to go into wind slowly, getting the pilot to minimise vibration. Try going in a slow circuit round your target. A helicopter with a sliding door is very handy ( Agusta 109). Only open when pilot permits having checked with him. Jetranger and aerospacial 'gazelle' are stable platforms Two engine over water please. Double tie your shoelaces! A proper headset is essential for comms. Tuck your trousers into your socks / boots to stop flapping. (Looks great). The pilot is boss althought you are paying. If he says it is not a good idea go with it. Safety is paramount. I have lost a number of collugues in helicopter accidents. They are great fun, but take care. In small fixed wing planes the over wing type means the pilots window can open giving a reasonable view. Seem to remember it stays open with the wind rush, but its a while since i did any fixed wing. Can't think of any more offhand. Hope this helps. Ian
[Ed. note: the idea of a soft aerial lens is too funny not to share...] From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Date: 07 May 2003 Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar? >Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar? >From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com >Date: 5/6/03 10:51 PM Pacific >The curves of Harting's original are shown and don't look as bad as >Kingslake makes out. Kingslake was right. But he was only expressing the common wisdom of the time as expressed by photographers who had used the lens. About the only other company to exploit the Heliar type >lens was Dallmeyer of England with the Pentac, designed by >Lionel Booth. This was a well respected lens but I've never >personally had one. Ah the Pentac. The poor miserable Pentac. The bests known was the 8" F/2.9 designed for RAF aerial cameras and sold by the thousands after the war. It was grabbed up by those of us who wanted a fast lens and mounted on Speed Graphics for use shooitng 4x5 color by available light. I had one and all those who had one lamented that its major flaw. It was soft. A soft aerial recon lens? The mind boggles. There will always be an England. (sheesh) Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From camera makers mailing list: From: MMagid3005@aol.com Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com Subject: [Cameramakers] Aerial Camera book I've been away for a couple of weeks and just saw the thread on aerial cameras from a few days ago. I have a book "Air Cameras 1915-1945 RAF and USAAF" by Alf Pyner. It was published by the Photographic Historical Society of Canada. It's $25.00 (US) and I got it through Larry Boccioletti. His email address is larbocci@interlog.com. I recently acquired a Folmer & Schwing 4 X 5 aerial camera that is very similar to a pre-WW I model that is pictured in the book but different in several respects. It may be a pre-production model. Marty Magid
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Agiflite Date: 6 Jul 2003 john@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote > There has been a deluge of medium-format Agiflite aerial cameras and > lenses on eBay for some time, now. They are getting less and less > expensive. Clearly, the market is finding its comfortable price. > > But are these usefull for MF work in any way other than aerial work? > Conversions, adaptations? They're out of Fantasy Island. The lenses are not in focusing mounts. The 150/2.8 Sonnar has a good reputation. I'd swear I've seen complaints that the 350/5.6 TeleTessar suffers from chromatic aberration, i.e., has bad color fringing. I've seen an ex-Agiflite 150 Sonnar after it was extracted from the Agiflite mount. It looked as though setting it up so it could be used on, say, a Speed Graphic, would take considerable effort. Haven't seen the 350, so can't comment on it, but I suspect making it useful would also be a chore. I have two ex-Agiflite Taylor Hobson lenses, 4"/2 and 12"/4, that I use on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. More simply put together than the Zeiss lenses, not too difficult to put on (not in/through) board. The 4" lens' back focus is a little short to adapt it to most SLRs, the 12" lens might be adaptable. I can appreciate the charms of the Zeiss lenses' for someone with, say, a Bronica S, but for most of us I think there are more cost-effective ways of getting roughly those focal lengths. Cheers, Dan
End of Page
