Aircraft in flight ?

[12noon]

Hi,

I'm going to an Air show on Sunday and i'll be taking my P850 with me. I wouldn't mind some advice on the best settings for the camera and ways of taking photos of aircraft in the air.

I think the weather will be overcast and could even be raining, so any advice would be much appreciated.

[SensoVision]

combination of overcast day + fast moving objects leave you no chance but to boost your ISO, as with slow shutter speed you'll end up with many blurred shots.
I didn't shot planes myself so can't give you exact solution on how better shot them, but if I'd have to find myself in similar situation and have long zoom I would try to take higher position as possible and shot planes in time when they just taking from the earth as their speed shouldn't be very high and you may try to use tracking technique to get plane sharp and everything around blurred.
here is example I've shot http://forum.weblamp.net/img/photo/tram.jpg I know it's not a plane but it was shot in evening on shady street...

BTW if you use any filters like polarizer I would leave it in bag to make sure that you get as more light as possible, although if day would be rainy it's good idea to wear UV filter which wouldn't block light but protect your lens from moisture.

That's all info I could think of, maybe Bob would be able to advice you something what help.

Good luck and looking for your photos!

[donecweb]

I would only remind you that even if you are taking pictures in lots of light to use a flash to stop movement either yours or the subjects.

[SensoVision]

I would only remind you that even if you are taking pictures in lots of light to use a flash to stop movement either yours or the subjects.

Don, unfortunately flash would be useless in this situation... even best flashes have limited effective distance and planes would be too far away for flash to reach them.
There are "zoom" flashes which have focusing mechanism on them which allow to make working distance a bit longer but it doesn't appear on P&S cameras from what I know and guess that it still wouldn't be effective enough to use it for shooting planes.

[donecweb]

If the pictures are at an air show then they well be within the reach of a normal flash for the purpose of stopping movement as I have done this before even when it seemed the flash would be useless.

[SensoVision]

If the pictures are at an air show then they well be within the reach of a normal flash for the purpose of stopping movement as I have done this before even when it seemed the flash would be useless.

It could helped you not because it bright up picture but because camera program set faster shutter speed with flash.
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_%28photography%29#Pitfalls

The only way flash could be useful is to photograph planes which are parked on the earth and are close to camera, than I would agree with Don, in such situation flash could provide you some help and make problem of not sufficient light less visible.

[donecweb]

That link to the pitfalls is about using the flash to illuminate the object so the camera can see it. What I am talking about does not need the camera to get enough light to see the image better but to allow the film to synchronize with the flash and the image there is very little light needed for this. It is similar to blinking your eyes when a object goes by when you blink at the proper rate the object stops and if you flash a light at the object at the right time you can stop the wheel of a race car or the blades of a helicopter in flight even though if there is not enough light to see the helicopter you won't see the stopped blades. Of course if the object is like flying high in the air then the delay for the return light will be too high to get to the object and back by the time the shutter closes.

[Menard]

That link to the pitfalls is about using the flash to illuminate the object so the camera can see it. What I am talking about does not need the camera to get enough light to see the image better but to allow the film to synchronize with the flash and the image there is very little light needed for this. It is similar to blinking your eyes when a object goes by when you blink at the proper rate the object stops and if you flash a light at the object at the right time you can stop the wheel of a race car or the blades of a helicopter in flight even though if there is not enough light to see the helicopter you won't see the stopped blades. Of course if the object is like flying high in the air then the delay for the return light will be too high to get to the object and back by the time the shutter closes.

I must first apologize for what I am going to say, as no disrespect is intended toward you don.



Shut-up don.


Sheesh...let me try to revert any potential misinformation you have spread about flash photography for anybody silly enough to believe you.

The power of a flash is measured in guide numbers (let's stick with that instead of me getting into relative wattseconds and candlepower and putting every visitor to this forum in a deep coma from boredom).

A guide number is a relative factor (meaning it is not exact, but an aproximation for normal conditions).

Most portable flash units that are built into a camera are going to have a guide number of no more than 66/ft (21/m).

Most portable, external flash units someone is going to carry with them are not going to range much beyond a guide number of 80-120 in feet (25-39 in meters).

Guide numbers are used to calculate exposure. One can take the guide number and the relative distance they are from their subject and calculate the aperture at which they need to set the camera lens in order to get a good flash exposure (shutter speed does not play a part in this, and makes no difference).

Now, let's set aside the portable flash and use a powerful studio flash for this example. Our guide number would be 320/ft (no, I am not going to calculate meters on this, but it would be a little over 100).

I presume the planes would at least be several hundred feet away while in midair. Even as close as 100 feet, as you can see by dividing the guide number by the distance, you will not be able to get an exposure using a powerful studio flash, let alone a portable unit; and that is not calculating in the light scatter prevalent over distance due to ever present particles in the air.

What I am talking about does not need the camera to get enough light to see the image better but to allow the film to synchronize with the flash and the image there is very little light needed for this. It is similar to blinking your eyes when a object goes by when you blink at the proper rate the object stops and if you flash a light at the object at the right time you can stop the wheel of a race car or the blades of a helicopter in flight even though if there is not enough light to see the helicopter you won't see the stopped blades.

The term you are reaching for, and seriously not getting there, is 'shutter speed'.

A faster shutter speed will freeze and the motion of an object relative to the direction of traverse of said object in relation to the film plane, the speed of the film, the length of the lens being used, and whether the photographer is handholding the camera or not.

Of course if the object is like flying high in the air then the delay for the return light will be too high to get to the object and back by the time the shutter closes.

Oh dear god!

Light travels at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per second (186,000 miles per second). Do you realize how far, above earth's surface, an object would have to be for that scenario to come into play?

E.M.E., moonbounce, is a term used in amateur radio for a form of communication which involves bouncing the radio signal off the moon and back to earth. Even with that, there is only a few seconds delay.

Visible light is either reflected or refracted light. We never see an object at the exact moment in which it was illuminated by light. Whether it is in picoseconds or less, every bit of visible light we see, whether this is someone standing 3 feet from us or a building from miles away, is light that was previously reflected off, or refracted through, the object in question.


Denis had it right. Your flash is setting either your shutter speed (which is amazing that a flash sych speed on a film camera can freeze the motion of aircraft) or setting some automode or other mode on your camera. The flash itself in no way is going to affect the end result.


If you want to learn about flash and some of its modes, you can check out my article on flash, here: http://aninstantintime.com/articles/flash.html


Again, as I realize I was a little rough, I apologize if in any way you may have found anything I said to be insulting.

[Menard]

Hi,

I'm going to an Air show on Sunday and i'll be taking my P850 with me. I wouldn't mind some advice on the best settings for the camera and ways of taking photos of aircraft in the air.

I think the weather will be overcast and could even be raining, so any advice would be much appreciated.

As I am neither familiar with that camera and I am primarily a film photographer, my advice is going to be general, and may be something you've already heard before.

Let me start, however, by providing a link to an article (not mine) on photographing airplanes: http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/feelnikon/discovery/cbp/cbp2-1e.htm


Naturally, you will need to be using a fast shutter speed. As a shutter speed of 1/500th of a second is considered to be enough to freeze propellers in action, it can probably be considered a safe, minimum working speed.

Since your camera has image stablelization, you may be able to use a slighly slower shutter speed according to Kodak. Though, that really should not make a difference in whether your shutter is fast enough to freeze action; it will primarily make a difference in handholding shots.


Pointers:

When objects move toward or away from you, as opposed to across your line of vision, they will not require as fast of a shutter speed.

When an object is distant, even using a telephoto lens, you will get color abberations and loss of definition due to particles in the air, though invisible to the naked eye, which can cause light scattering leading to color changes, loss of focus and loss of resolution. This is also called 'haze' or 'atmospheric haze' and can be improved with the use of a UV/Haze filter on your lens.

If you are taking images of aircraft flying past you, like across your line of site, panning (moving) with the object will help to reduce blur, especially if you are having to use a slower shutter speed due to reduced lighting conditions.

Always bracket your exposures (meaning: shoot several of the same or similar shot using different shutter speeds). In an airplane show, this may be difficult due to the short timespan you have in which to get a shot. Any auto mode on your camera which is a multishot mode would be helpful in this.


That's what I have for now.

[Andy]

This is all good technical advice and debate that could rival a discussion on the best ways to connect speakers to a Hifi system. But, I think I can add my own less informed tips here....

How about taking some photos of people in the crowd that are watching the extravaganza? You could get some great wow moments involving facial expressions etc.

[12noon]

Thanks for the advice. I only have built in flash though and i'm not sure that would be much use.
 
Taking photos of the crowd might be good. I also hope that some planes are on the ground. I think i'll try following the planes light path for a few shots and finding a point in the sky where the planes go by for some other shots.
 
I'll try to post some of my results after Sunday anyway.
BTW i'm sure it will rain on Sunday.

[donecweb]

I must first apologize for what I am going to say, as no disrespect is intended toward you don.



Shut-up don.

Menard, I do not believed you, nor accept your fake apology/disclaimer before your being rude and disrespectful.

I won't debate with you as it is obvious you know everything and there is nothing that happens in the universe that you can't explain. Even the fact that the military uses standard cameras to take just such pictures, for official uses, in flight and sometimes have problems if they point the flash at the wrong angle and get a picture of the shinning cockpit plexiglase.

I do apologize to the WebMaster Key forum for my response but at my age I am getting tired people that think they can attack someone and it be forgiven just because they add a disclaimer. I will not be responding any further on this subject here on the forum as you don't come here for such things.

[Menard]

Menard, I do not believed you, nor accept your fake apology/disclaimer before your being rude and disrespectful.

I won't debate with you as it is obvious you know everything and there is nothing that happens in the universe that you can't explain. Even the fact that the military uses standard cameras to take just such pictures, for official uses, in flight and sometimes have problems if they point the flash at the wrong angle and get a picture of the shinning cockpit plexiglase.

I do apologize to the WebMaster Key forum for my response but at my age I am getting tired people that think they can attack someone and it be forgiven just because they add a disclaimer. I will not be responding any further on this subject here on the forum as you don't come here for such things.

In retrospect, I should not have included the 'shut-up don'. Though I had intended it in a humorous vein, it does not fit with my reply and probably just comes off as an insult.

I make no apologies for being a photographer with years of experience and knowing my subject well. I make no apologies for correcting your misinformation either.

[12noon]

Just for the record. I would have thought that fill flash might be used for the under sides of planes on the ground, but i can't see using flash outside taking photos of planes in the air would make a difference. I'll try both anyway.

I've got a Kodak P850 camera. Some filters. 3 batteries and a large memory card.

[12noon]

I could only find one battery, the day i went to the air show and couldn't get that many photos because of the battery life. Anyway here's a few photo's : -


I was trying to get a very close shot of a sea plane.


I was amazed by what the girls were doing on the wings.


The next photos are all the red arrows.


Don't you just love the heart in the sky ?






I'll upload some more photos later.
 

[SensoVision]

Graham, those shots are great. Especially I like those with traces.
I never was on the air show and doesn't seen it on TV either, but from your photos I've got feeling that need to watch one some day as it looks like something interesting.

[12noon]

Glad you like them. Here's a few more : -


Can you see all the things you can get to see up close.


I think this was a landing craft carrier ship.


I thought this plane would be bigger.


A red arrows up close.


Trust it to rain when this part was on.


This one was faster than the speed of sound.


Another red arrows photo.


And the last one for now.
 

[Andy]

I like the Red Arrows formation flying best from an earlier post. Some really good photos there.

Your camera takes nicely balanced colour shots.

OK, here's some suggestion to make even better shots:

I suggest framing the subjects so as to eliminate the unwanted stuff and get more of the subject into the shot. For example, The end of a plane tail is chopped off and a mother with child is quite prominent in the shot.

Before publishing a photo you can crop out things like this or for example the sky diver that was out of the frame so it looks like you did a perfect shot.

But I have to say that your pictures of the formation flying of the Red Arrows are stunning.

[12noon]

Thanks for the good suggestions. My problem was that 35 thousand people were milling around and made it hard to take ground shots. The air shots were just as hard because of the speed and the fact that i had to zoom in on most of the planes. I could have done better though on some and others were just lucky shots. It might have been better if i'd photoshopped them first. All i've done is re-size them so far.

[sholing]

even if you are taking pictures in lots of light to use a flash to stop movement either yours or the subjects.