Johnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 6 Posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2811 times:
well, i´m still a beginner in aviation photography but i´d really like to broaden my horizon.
i´ve already taken so many pictures and some very nice ones, too, but i´d really like to become a little more of a "professional" amateur.
my camera is a Canon EOS 300 which i think is an excellent camera for amateurs. however, i´m not that familiar with all the special features of my camera and unfortunately, the zoom, 28-80mm, is not sufficient for most spotting places. that´s why i intend to buy a better teleobjective or whatsoever to increase zoom.
if there´s anyone that could recommend an adequate teleobjective or if there´s anything i need to know, please, share your opinion with me!!!
(what about e-bay, i really don´t want to spend too much money and, hey, i´m still a beginner, i really don´t need state-of-the-art equipment)
in addition, i´d like to know what i need, like a certain type of film, to achieve clear pictures and to capture a bright blue sky on film. last time i went spotting we had a wonderful blue sky and excellent light but on film the sky was always much lighter, not very blue anymore.
and what´s that about different kinds of filters? i´m aware of the fact that with different filters one can achieve different effects on the pictures, and that´s especially a neat trick in black&white photography, but if i just take some pictures and drop them off to be developed, where does all this comes into place?
well, you see, i´m still a bloody beginner.
i´d highly appreciate it if anyone could provide me with tips and tricks...
thanks in advance
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
Lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2683 times:
Buy a canon 75-300mm lens. They are good for most cases and cheap. For film, start with normal negative film. Don't start with slides before getting better with using your camera. ALWAYS use 100 film because it produces better pictures. Try Fujifilm REALA or KODAK ROYAL GOLD 100.
A380-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 1 month ago) and read 2636 times:
Ok...in the absence of any other advice...and at the risk of seeming harsh, for which I apologise in advance, here goes...
From the top...
As you say, your camera is fine, the 28-80mm lens is ok for when you get close to aircraft like on a viewing terrace...and the 75-300mm lens already mentioned is a good lens for a beginner as it is quite cheap and quality is ok. You do not need anything else to take shots good enough for airliners.net...
Film...if you do take the advice and start with print film then Fuji Reala and Kodak Royal Gold 100ASA are both fine. Do not use 200 or 400 ASA film yet...stick to 100 ASA to begin with. Your decision to go print or slide may depend on your choice of scanner...or which scanner you already have. Do not try to scan slides/film unless you have a dedicated slide/film scanner...other than that, just get the best scanner you can afford, although I would caution against buying the Jenoptik slide scanner as I never really had good results with it...
If you decide to shoot slides and have a slide scanner then you need to decide if you will sell/trade slides. It you hope to eventually sell and/or trade slides then shoot Kodachrome 64 or 25 ASA. If you are shooting for yourself then try the Kodachrome, the Kodak E-6 and the Fuji Sensia and Provia 100ASA slide films to find one that you like...it is after all a matter of personal preference at the end of the day.
And most important of all...get out there and experiment...practise...see what works and what doesn't...for you...because no one else wil be taking the shots.
You will see many requests here for "what setting did you use for such-and-such shot..."...but those settings may not work for you on another day in another situation...which is why you need to see how different film works in different light and how your camera performs under many different conditions...only then when the rare shot is there for the taking can you shoot it with confidence!!!
There is no substitute for getting used to your own equipment (intimately ) and finding out what settings work for your particular combination of equipment, film and lighting conditions.
Ultimately, there are no tricks...the real trick is to practise, experiment, practise, experiment...and remember what works...for you!!!
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 month ago) and read 2636 times:
Canon's 75-300mm lens is a good one for the price, and a good starting lens. It's decent quality, and is light (some of the heavier lenses might break the plastic lens mount on the Rebels)
About Filters: For non-aviation photography (landscapes, etc.), other than a standard UV filter, that you can keep on the camera all the time, don't bother with the more fancy ones until you've shot a few hundred rolls of film (some would say a few thousand.) Concentrate on picture composition, angles, lighting, etc. Get good at that before you start to play with filters. Also, unless you are shooting slide film, filters are a waste of time because the effect of the filter will be "corrected" during the print development process.
In any case, for airplanes, I wouldn't use any filters (except for the UV). Firstly, it changes the colors, and the purists won't like it. Secondly, most aviation photography is done at 100 ASA or slower, and you can't really afford losing one or two stops - You'll end up trying to shoot moving targets at 1/60th or so, which doesn't work too well. Thirdly, most filters are good at certain angles of light, or physical angle of the shot, which means it's OK for static shots, like landscapes where you have some time to figure out your shot, but not much good for airplanes.
Maybe one day you'll feel comfortable enough to try some artsy aviation shots with filters, but there's plenty to learn before you get there.
Johnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2187 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (14 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
i really appreciate all your comments, thanks a lot.
just to let you know, i do not to intend to shoot slides and to get a slide scanner, i think, as some of you mentioned, just one step at a time and the certain equipemt also requires a certain amount of money
i´ve read now your oppinions about filtres and so, but if anyone could just tell me, as in my first post, how i could capture a beautifully blue sky? i take it that this has got something to do with filtres and after you told me to keep my fingers off any filtres until i´m more experienced, i assume that capturing a nice blue sky doesn´t rely only on filtres???
again, thank you so much
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5068 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (14 years 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2578 times:
I am a little confused. I was using 200 & 400 speed film but you say to use 100? Well I thought 100 was only for the brightest light conditions. What if its cloudy? and would you still recomment 100 for a point/shoot camera?
And what about speed? I thought the higher speed films would capture a moving subject better, true or not? Can you really use ASA100 to shoot a plane on final?
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1041 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2533 times:
Many of the photographers on this forum use either Kodachrome 64 (64 ASA) or Fuji Provia (100 ASA) almost exclusively.
Its correct, in general, that faster film (e.g. 200, 400) is easier to use than slow film (64, 100) on dull days. However, the trade off is that the faster films show more grain, and often their colours are not quite so good. Photos taken with fast film are likely to be fine for general viewing, but photos with grain showing are less likely to be accepted on airliners.net, unless the subject is really rare. And in any case, with A LOT of practice photographers can get good results with slow film on dull days as they could with faster film.
If you shoot 400 ASA, it is going to be much more difficult to get photos accepted here. On the other hand, if you shoot 100 ASA, it will probably be easier to get GOOD photos accepted, but when you start out on dull days you are more likely to get totally duff shots that even you would not consider worthy of anything other than the bin.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2529 times:
As to film, I use only Fuji Superia 400 and (in low-light) Fuji Press Pro 800.
These films have grain better than the 200 and 400 Kodak Gold respectively, and are the same price or cheaper.
The colourbalance is also better. Kodak Royal Gold is not that good a film (though marginally better grain than the regular), especially the colours are somewhat too warm (to my taste, that is).
75-300 is a good lens, 100-400 is better. I like my Cosina a lot, lightweight (so you can shoot without a tripod with it) yet sturdy and excellent optics.
Always get your equipment from a professional store near you, do not mail-order second-hand (especially ebay or international) as you never know what you get. Many items available second hand have been damaged and may be misalligned or worse. A good dealer might also give you the option of trying out an expensive piece (we are talking a $300-400 lens here) for a day or two before you decide on it.
As to filters, I usually work without or with only a circular polariser. In extremely bright conditions, I may use a Cokin graduated blue or grey of the smallest density, but rarely (and never with the 100-400, as the filtersize is too large).
If you do use effect-filters, mention it when bringing the film in for processing, and have it processed by hand. If it it left to the machine, it will compensate for the effect you applied, thus ruining it. For B&W be sure to get true B&W film, especially if you shoot effect. Most modern B&W film is really colour film which is interpreted differently by the machines. Effect filters will have a different effect with such film.