Artsyman From United States, joined Feb 2001, 4736 posts, RR: 57 Posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 420 times:
Hello Folks,
I have been a photographer in a mild way for a long time now, although have only recently started taking shots of airliners. The appaling quality of the work that I have done recently makes me realise how hard it actually is to get high quality airliner shots, especially when you have an active subject. Today I stood at the end of the runway at LGW and took a roll of planes on final, and they were literally 30 to 50 feet above my head, yet trying to get a sharp image was near impossible. I need to rethink my film speed / shutter speeds and the like. I suppose what did I expect when a 777 goes flying by at 160 knots...
what asa and shutter speeds are you guys using for close up approaches ? I know I can push the film both in production and development, but prefer to just get it right in the first place. My images almost all lacked a sharp edge, and were pretty grainy. I am using a Canon EOS Elan II
Ckw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 336 times:
Where to start? Firstly if you want the best quality you'll need to use a fairly slow film - 100ASA is probably considered ideal, though the K64 fans will state otherwise!
Secondly, attempting to freeze a moving airliner close up is probably doomed to failure - the secret is to learn to pan well - that is, track the aircraft as it approaches, and follow through as it passes while pressing the shutter - takes practice, but well worth the effort. You'll see pics on this site using shutter speeds as low as 1/15th on a moving aircraft with sharp results.
Exposure can be tricky - often you've got more sky in the picture than the meter is programmed to expect. These days with evaluative exposure meters, the degree of compenstation required varies from camera to camera. Personally, if I want to be sure of a good exposure, I take a reading off the back of my hand and open up by about 1/2 stop. Regardless of the film used, an underexposed shot will tend to look grainy.
The rest is down to practice, practice and more practice - there are guidelines, but no secret formula to success.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 269 times:
Colin's advice about exposure is good. I use an EOS Elan II as a backup camera, and the automatic metering on it is not that smart (Unlike some, like the EOS 1V, which is very intelligent - I always use Program mode on that.) So go manual on exposure.
I think trying to shoot planes going directly over your head when you are trying to start is asking for a very steep learning curve. Learn to walk before learning to run. I have 2000+ pics here, and I think I have just gotten out of walking and maybe getting into a slow jog. It takes time and experience. Start with taxiing shots, with the sun behind you, or perhaps some approach shots, again from a fair distance, at about 200 or 300mm, with the sun behind you.
Skymonster From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 56 Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 233 times:
Jer,
I don't know anyone who can guarantee getting a full roll of successful pictures, every time, in such situations - there'll often be a few that are shaken or slightly unsharp. What you don't see on this site is all these "wasted" shots (or deleted shots if you're digital ) that photographers bin as soon as they see the results.
In some ways, standing a little further back might help. Whilst this will mean you need a longer lens (which may in turn risk camera shake), it will also mean that the aircraft pass across your field of view relatively more slowly, which should make for a steadier pan. Other than that, the advise already given is obviously sound.
Ideally, any unusable shots are not "wasted" but a learning experience - the art is in learning to increase the success to failure ratio to an acceptable level
Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
Artsyman From United States, joined Feb 2001, 4736 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 204 times:
Thanks for all the comments, as always, once I start to see the replies, I realise that there is more information I should have supplied.
1) I don't struggle to get successful shots of stationary or taxi'ing aircraft, I am ok with these,
2) My current task is to try to get some active shots.
If you sit at the bike racks at the end of the runway at LGW (terminal side) the planes come in right above you, but you can certainly see the last 40 seconds or so of the approach, I was attempting to take shots all the way in.
In truth it was a hellish day, the wind was really heavy and there was intermediate rain. I was half protected from the elements by the little hut like place that I was hiding in, but I would come out whenever planes were on approach. I would have to say that this is a fantastic place to take shots.
Jer
Ps LGW, "shooting up" at Gatwick.... people may get the wrong idea...
Bruce From United States, joined May 1999, 4946 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 185 times:
hey I'm jealous of you Europe guys because of the "aviation Nazi's" here in the U.S. we can't usually get that close to a runway. Even farther viewing areas are closed!
hmmmm......certainly makes me think that a summer trip to Farnborough might be in order!
bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Green Bay, WI (GRB/KGRB) - Canon 20D/100-400L IS lens
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Feb 2001, 4736 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 174 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 3681 posts, 
) that photographers bin as soon as they see the results.
Printer friendly format 
