RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Ugly’

Eradicate Ugly Face Extra fat

13 Mar

Alright. So chubby cheeks are sweet over a little one. I just need to pinch them as well. But, as an adult, I don’t want them anymore than you probable do. So how can we eliminate chubby cheeks in addition to a face fat? Or perhaps like me, you would like to get rid of a double chin. The everyday recommend is eating plan, aerobic exercise, lessen salt ingestion and the like. All of that is audio guidance permanently health and fitness. Not to mention, you can find plentiful potions inside the form of lotions that develop several levels of temporary final results. Or you can go see a plastic surgeon. This is pricey and i’m not keen on obtaining slash on www.liquafit.com/how-to-get-rid-of-chubby-cheeks-in-a-day/.

I’ve to admit that i don’t need to get minimize on. What I actually want is usually a quick lower. Everyone knows we should be doing everything other stuff in any case. So let’s get right for the coronary heart with the make any difference. You can find experience physical exercises you are able to do that will company up your encounter and acquire rid of unsightly deal with fats, chubby cheeks, double chin and tighten the neck. And as being a reward you can seem younger.

While it can be not the fountain of youth, it works and it can be verified! And it’s easy to receive began, it is really uncomplicated to try and do plus the benefits are rapidly. So here’s your to start with work out. SMILE :0) Keep that smile for 8 – ten seconds. Now give me 5 smiling repetitions. Is uncomplicated or what. It’s my own most loved. I get in a number of added smiles every day and simply call it work out. How awesome is always that.

The post Eradicate Ugly Face Extra fat appeared first on Photonovice.

Photonovice

 
Comments Off on Eradicate Ugly Face Extra fat

Posted in Equipment

 

MAD Architects Redesign Turns Ugly Paris Tower into Giant City-Scale Mirror

03 Oct

[ By WebUrbanist in Architecture & Offices & Commercial. ]

Tall, dark and brooding, the infamous Maine-Montparnasse Tower is an unexciting skyscraper, especially by Parisian standards, but that could all change if MAD Architects converts it into a city-scale mirror. Their renovation proposal employs clever optical tricks to reflect and invert the surrounding cityscape.

When it was built, Montparnasse was the tallest building in France and heralded as a technological achievement. But unlike the Eiffel Tower, which was controversial at first but became a symbol of the city, this skyscraper never gained iconic status — in fact, it led urban building heights to be capped at seven stories. Some quip it has the most beautiful views in the city, in part because those views don’t include the building.

MAD Architects aims to change perceptions of the tower and its role in the city using concave glass panels tilted at an angle to create reflections of the surrounding built environment.

Viewers would be able to see surrounding streets, roofs and buildings in its mirrored facade. In a way, the resulting design both blends into the environment while also highlighting the beauty of the French capital and showing it from generally unseen angles.

“Today, we cannot really demolish this building and the historical regrets it stands for,” explains one of the architects behind the proposal, “but we can establish a new perspective to re-examine and think about how humanity can co-exist and interact with the tower and its environment, to bring meaning to our hearts.”

Perhaps unfortunately, while the firm was shortlisted in a redesign competition, another team was chosen to renovate the structure before the upcoming Olympic Games. Still, the design idea is out there, and another city might have its own ugly tower in need of transformation.

Share on Facebook





[ By WebUrbanist in Architecture & Offices & Commercial. ]

[ WebUrbanist | Archives | Galleries | Privacy | TOS ]


WebUrbanist

 
Comments Off on MAD Architects Redesign Turns Ugly Paris Tower into Giant City-Scale Mirror

Posted in Creativity

 

No More Ugly Apartment Buildings: 13 Designs Refreshing the Paradigm

25 Jul

[ By SA Rogers in Architecture & Houses & Residential. ]

Apartment buildings are typically so hideous, it’s kind of exhausting. A structure with some measure of character gets knocked down in a prominent spot and before locals dare to dream that something cool might go up in its place, there’s another boring old block of apartments (or worse yet, condos) adding to the dull architectural noise of the city. Of course, it’s all subjective. You could argue, fairly enough, that pretty much all new apartment buildings are ugly, and that trying to make them ‘cool’ results in an even more irritating visual offense. What do you think – are these 13 designs switching up the same-old same-old in a positive way?

Lots of Light: 9 Units at the Apartment in Kamitakada

Developers looking to squeeze big bucks out of a project by creating high-end luxury housing are a lot more motivated to build structures that are more interesting than usual, but every now and then, there’s the rare project that gives some aesthetic consideration to a building that’s actually affordable to the average city resident. Takeshi Yamagata Architects designed this 9-unit building in Tokyo as a cluster of four buildings connected by open-air pathways, integrating gardens, curving walls and lots of windows for the feel of an urban refuge minus the multi-million-dollar price tag.

325 Kent by SHoP Architects

Currently under construction on the site of an old Domino sugar factory in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the 325 Kent project by SHoP Architects is part of a redevelopment masterplan transforming the refinery into a 380,000-square-foot complex with a waterfront park and four residential buildings containing 2,800 rental units. SHoP’s building will house 522 of those apartments in a 16-story structure, arranged around a dramatic elevated courtyard. The units at the top will be stepped to create a series of spacious outdoor terraces. Nope – this one isn’t going to be cheap.

Pixelated Concrete: 222 Jackson by ODA

Over in Queens, the 11-story 2222 Jackson building by ODA features a pixelated concrete facade creating voids and projections for shade, privacy and outdoor spaces. Located just steps away from MoMA PS1, the building is conceived as a modular grid, giving it about 30% more outdoor space than the same-sized building with the same number of units arranged in a more typical shape.

Parasitic Growth: Plug-In City 75 by Stephane Malka

Commissioned to update and expand a 1970s-era building in Paris, architect Stéphane Malka proposes a system of parasitic wooden cubes that would attach to the facade, extending the living space and reducing the structure’s energy consumption by 75 percent. The unusual design would help mitigate problems with poor insulation and permeable windows while adhering to the city’s restrictive building laws, which don’t allow architects to build vertically.

Contemporary and Complimentary: p17 Housing in Milan

How do you sensitively design a new apartment complex that will blend in with a historic neighborhood while reflecting the era in which it’s being built? For P17, a residential housing complex in Milan, Italian architectural firm Modourbano harmonizes with surrounding buildings while retaining a contemporary feel, thanks to the beautiful natural hues in its sandstone facade.

Next Page – Click Below to Read More:
No More Ugly Apartment Buildings 13 Designs Refreshing The Paradigm

Share on Facebook





[ By SA Rogers in Architecture & Houses & Residential. ]

[ WebUrbanist | Archives | Galleries | Privacy | TOS ]


WebUrbanist

 
Comments Off on No More Ugly Apartment Buildings: 13 Designs Refreshing the Paradigm

Posted in Creativity

 

The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography part 5: examples and comparison

17 Jun
The Holuhraun eruption in Iceland, taken from a helicopter. This remains one of my most rewarding photographic experiences.

So far in this series I have talked about the advantages of aerial photography and about shooting from a helicopter as opposed to shooting from a light plane. I have also talked about the right equipment for this kind of shoot, and about technique and parameter selection. In this final article in the series I want to discuss my experiences from 4 aerial photography sessions, compare them and analyze what I learned from them.

I won’t be presenting any new info, but I think it’s important to do a comparison since I learned a lot from these short sessions, and if you can learn from my experience and mainly from my mistakes, I will have done what I set out to do with this series of articles.

My first ‘serious’ photography flight was in Namibia, in March of 2014. I flew over Sossusvlei to capture the dunes of the Namib Desert in morning light. It was in a Robinson R44, mentioned earlier as a great helicopter for photography flights, and both doors were taken off. I flew around for 1:15 hours and the hourly rate was about $ 850, which is quite good. I took one Canon EOS 5D Mark III with a Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 stabilized lens on it, plus a 70-300mm which I never actually used. This was the flight on which I understood the need for 2 bodies, but I really did fine with the 24-70mm as most of the beauty was in the larger-scaled structures, mainly the shapes of the dunes.

About half an hour into the flight the pilot noticed mist between the dunes ahead, and it was an easy decision to carry on flying and shoot the dunes shrouded in mist. Overall the flight was a huge success, and it triggered my love for aerial photography. I highly recommend flying in Sossusvlei. The fact that the pilot was flexible and had enough insight to suggest flying further above the dunes made a huge difference. Where possible, you should always opt for a pilot with experience of photographers, and make sure you listen to their suggestions.

The second flight was during a very special event: the Holuhraun volcanic eruption in Iceland. I had come back to the hostel after shooting the eruption from the land three days before the flight, and I encountered several days of harsh winds and sand storms. Then finally the weather improved and I secured my spot on a sunset flight. We had an unbelievable flight over the volcano with a pink sunset in the background, and even today, that flight ranks among my favorite photography experiences

I took two bodies, a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and a 5D Mark III, with 24-70mm and 70-300mm zoom lenses. I used the telephoto lens quite a bit to shoot the details of the eruption, and in this case it was a good decision to opt for a telephoto instead of an ultra wide.

The flight was very costly. For 1:45 hours I paid 2600 Euros, at a rate of almost 1500 Euros an hour. Ouch. Helicopter flights in Iceland are more expensive than in other countries, so make sure it’s really worth it if you intend to fly there. These are some of my favorite shots from this flight. You can decide for yourself if it was worth it or not, but note that unique images such as these are the key to getting noticed: thanks to this shoot alone, I sealed an ongoing postcard deal in Iceland (which alone paid back for the trip), an interview with Iceland’s largest news website, several new private clients and a share by National Geographic on Facebook, hitting over 124,000 likes.

My third photography flight was in Disko Bay, Greenland. Unfortunately, this was also my most disappointing experience. I flew in a small airplane with a tiny hatch to shoot from, which both made it very hard to achieve a decent composition, and caused the lens to vibrate violently, rendering many of my shots blurry.

On top of that, communication with the pilot wasn’t good enough, and he didn’t understand that I needed more room on my right to shoot from. I paid way too much, over a thousand Euros for a flight I could have definitely done without. It was a bad experience, but at least I learned a great deal about what not to do.

My fourth and most recent photography flight was above the Lofoten Islands in Arctic Norway. It was an amazing flight, and it reinforced my belief in light planes. The pilot was highly experienced and understood exactly what I needed, even without words. It comes to show how important a good pilot who understand photography actually is. The flight was affordable at about $ 300 per hour, and the conditions were excellent.

Due to their relatively small size, the Lofoten Islands are a perfect place for photography flights. You can get from place to place very quickly, and the mountainous landscape is incredible from above. The famous shooting spots are easily recognizable, too, which is a wonderful bonus.

Aerial photography is amazing. I doubt that anyone who tries it will not like it, but it comes at a cost. I hope this series has helped you understand the benefits of shooting from the air, the different options and the importance of being prepared. Enjoy your flight!


Erez Marom is a professional nature photographer, photography guide and traveler based in Israel. You can follow Erez’s work on Instagram, Facebook and 500px, and subscribe to his mailing list for updates.

If you’d like to experience and shoot some of the most fascinating landscapes on earth with Erez as your guide, you’re welcome to take a look at his unique photography workshops around the world:

Land of Ice – Southern Iceland
Winter Paradise – Northern Iceland
Northern Spirits – The Lofoten Islands
Giants of the Andes and Fitz Roy Hiking Annex – Patagonia
Tales of Arctic Nights – Greenland
Saga of the Seas and The Far Reaches Annex – The Faroe Islands
Desert Storm – Namibia

More in This Series:

  • The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 1: Why shoot aerials?
  • The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 2: Aircraft
  • The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 3: Equipment
  • The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 4: Technique

Selected Articles by Erez Marom:

  • Parallelism in Landscape Photography
  • Behind the Shot: Dark Matter
  • Mountain Magic: Shooting in the Lofoten Islands
  • Behind the Shot: Nautilus
  • Behind the Shot: Lost in Space
  • Behind the Shot: Spot the Shark
  • Quick Look: The Art of the Unforeground
  • Whatever it Doesn’t Take
  • Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes
  • On the Importance of Naming Images
  • On Causality in Landscape Photography

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography part 5: examples and comparison

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – part 4: technique

18 Feb
A glacial river in Greenland

Getting your settings right is important when shooting from the air. Due to low light and strong vibration, many images from this shoot turned out blurry.

In the previous article in this series, I talked about the equipment one might use for aerial photography. So what about technique, and especially camera settings? What should you consider when shooting from the air? 

The important thing to remember here is that you’re shooting from a moving, vibrating aircraft instead of from stable ground. This simply means that in order to keep your shots sharp, you’ll need to use a high shutter speed. Remember that the compensation mechanisms in stabilized lenses are meant to deal with human movement, not high-frequency vibration, and will thus offer little help. Same goes for your own hands’ stability: even if you’re rock solid, the aircraft is not, and you should always bear that in mind or suffer the consequences (as I unfortunately have in the past).

Depending on the angle of view, I’d recommend shooting at least 1/400th of a second to make sure the shot is sharp enough, preferably even faster, and faster still if the focal length is long. When shooting from a plane, expect to need even faster shutter speeds, as wind can often move the lens and even change the zoom settings, as it sucks the lens out of the window. To keep your shutter speed in check, don’t be afraid to use a higher ISO setting. I frequently use ISO 400, 800 and when it’s darker even 1600 and 3200. Having a bit more noise and less dynamic range is a much better alternative to having a blurred shot. You can also use relatively wide apertures, since the subject is far away and depth of field is therefore large.

Shooting at ISO 800 is a no-brainer when light is low and you’re in a Cessna.

While I talked about equipment in the last article, I left one piece of gear to this article, since I wanted to link it to exposure times: Gyroscopes. These are contraptions which use rotational inertia to counter movement and vibrations, allowing the photographer to use much lower ISO values and longer exposure times while maintaining stability and sharpness. Unfortunately, they are large, heavy and very expensive, which leave them out as an option for the casual aerial shooter such as myself and most photographers with me. I personally don’t have any practical experience with gyros, but hopefully I’ll get to try shooting with one in the future.

Another point on technique: it’s very beneficial to shoot in fast-continuous mode. Even if exposure times are high, you never know when the vibrations take their toll on camera stability. Shooting the same image 2 or 3 times will significantly increase the chances that at least one of the exposures turns out crisp.

Another reason to shoot in continuous mode is HDR. HDR is surprisingly possible in aerial photography, and I use it in cases of extreme global contrast. Take for example the image below of the Holuhraun volcanic eruption in Iceland. Taken at night, the lava was quite a few stops brighter than its black surroundings, and so I used exposure bracketing together with continuous mode to quickly shoot two shots of the same scene with different exposure times, which were later combined using Photoshop.

 With the lava many stops brighter than the surroundings, I had to use HDR to get this image.

Another surprisingly possible technical feat is panoramas. As long as all parameters are in check, there’s really no reason not to pano from the air, and one can really get interesting results that way. This is especially important due to aerial photography’s equipment limitation – when you’re stuck with one or two lenses, shooting a panorama allows you to achieve a wider angle of view.

A 2-shot panorama taken from a Cessna above the mountains of Lofoten, Arctic Norway. Due to the aircraft’s movement it was a bit of a difficult stitch, but still very possible and worthwhile.

In the next and final article in this series, I’ll survey several of my aerial shoots.


Erez Marom is a professional nature photographer, photography guide and traveler based in Israel. You can follow Erez’s work on Instagram, Facebook and 500px, and subscribe to his mailing list for updates.

If you’d like to experience and shoot some of the most fascinating landscapes on earth with Erez as your guide, you’re welcome to take a look at his unique photography workshops around the world:

Land of Ice – Southern Iceland
Winter Paradise – Northern Iceland
Northern Spirits – The Lofoten Islands
Giants of the Andes and Fitz Roy Hiking Annex – Patagonia
Tales of Arctic Nights – Greenland
Saga of the Seas and The Far Reaches Annex – The Faroe Islands
Desert Storm – Namibia

More in This Series:

  • The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 1: Why shoot aerials?
  • The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 2: Aircraft
  • The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 3: Equipment

Selected Articles by Erez Marom:

  • Parallelism in Landscape Photography
  • Behind the Shot: Dark Matter
  • Mountain Magic: Shooting in the Lofoten Islands
  • Behind the Shot: Nautilus
  • Behind the Shot: Lost in Space
  • Behind the Shot: Spot the Shark
  • Quick Look: The Art of the Unforeground
  • Whatever it Doesn’t Take
  • Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes
  • On the Importance of Naming Images

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – part 4: technique

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – part 3: equipment

26 Nov

In previous articles I’ve discussed the advantages of aerial photography and shooting from a helicopter as opposed to shooting from a light plane. But are there any special considerations with regard to equipment when shooting from the air?

Since we’ve already established that it’s the superior choice (at least in my opinion), let’s concentrate on the helicopter first. An open door gives the photographer a vast range of angle options, and selecting the equipment can be difficult at first. You can find many good compositions with ultra-wide angles all the way to telephoto lenses.

From my personal experience, the majority of my shots were taken with the wider end of a 24-70mm lens, i.e. If you only take one camera body (and don’t plan to switch lenses on the helicopter), take either a 24-70 or an ultra-wide such as a 16-35. Remember that an ultra-wide might come in handy at times, but when a need for longer focal length comes, it might lack the reach.

Naturally, lens selection also depends on the subject: if you know you’ll be shooting grand landscapes, use a wider focal length. If you’re interested in capturing detail or if you’re limited in your ability to get close to the subject, use a longer lens.

From high up, you don’t always need an ultra-wide lens to capture grand landscapes. This image was shot at 46mm.

Sussusvlei, Namibia

I highly recommend taking 2 camera bodies to an aerial shoot. If you do that, you can use another lens without switching it in midair, which can be complicated, not to mention extremely dangerous in case it goes flying out of the open door or window. The extra lens can be an ultra-wide but I personally prefer a telephoto. With a longer lens you can really delve into the fine detail of your subject, which might be hidden when shooting from the ground, and capture unique perspectives and interesting compositions.

My favorite telephoto lens is the Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS, and I found myself shooting on the long end of the zoom quite a bit. The main advantage for me is that even though you’re flying hundreds of meters above the landscape, you can really get close and intimate with it when using a long lens.

When shooting from a plane, my recommendation is a 24-70 and a telephoto. Anything wider will capture parts of the plane, such as a wing or an engine, most of the time, which renders it almost useless.

At 176mm focal length, the Telephoto lens gave me a chance to capture the details on the erupting lava. Flying any closer was impossible since the air above the lava flow was so warm it made the helicopter tremble.

Holuhraun, Iceland

Once on the helicopter, you will most likely fasten the camera straps to a dedicated part in the seat belt. While this keeps the equipment from falling from the heli, you might finds straps getting tangled after going back and forth between camera bodies, which could in turn cause you to miss good shots. Try to be aware of this, and always make sure the straps are disentangled when time comes to shoot. The entanglement problem is also the reason that while it is possible to take 3 bodies, it’s not recommended.

Space in a light plane can be tight, so often you’ll only use one body. I would use a 24-70mm in that case. 

Greenland

Forget about using square filters, or anything else that can fly off and hit one of the rotors. It might feel calm inside, but try to take your hand out of the cabin and you’ll feel the enormous wind strength out there. There’s no reason to risk your life, and with today’s high-DR cameras you can compensate for global contrast when post processing the image. A polarizer is also a bad idea, as it can substantially darken the image and require a slower shutter speed or higher ISO.

Even high global contrast can be balanced with today’s high-DR sensors.
The Lofoten Islands,

Arctic Norway

One last thing to mention regarding gear is clothing. It can get cold up there, and while I was able to wear a t-shirt when shooting aerials in Namibia, in the Arctic I needed full thermal gear – the most important items were the hat and gloves. There were times my hands were totally devoid of all sensation and I had to stop shooting due to the cold. Be ready for this and try to use gloves that protect your hands from cold winds while allowing you to operate the camera.

In the next article in this series, I’ll talk about technique and parameters for aerial photography.


Erez Marom is a professional nature photographer, photography guide and traveler based in Israel. You can follow Erez’s work on Instagram, Facebook and 500px, and subscribe to his mailing list for updates.

If you’d like to experience and shoot some of the most fascinating landscapes on earth with Erez as your guide, you’re welcome to take a look at his unique photography workshops around the world:

Land of Ice – Southern Iceland
Winter Paradise – Northern Iceland
Northern Spirits – The Lofoten Islands
Giants of the Andes and Fitz Roy Hiking Annex – Patagonia
Tales of Arctic Nights – Greenland
Saga of the Seas and The Far Reaches Annex – The Faroe Islands
Desert Storm – Namibia

More in This Series:

  • The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 1: Why shoot aerials?
  • The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 2: Aircraft

Selected Articles by Erez Marom:

  • Parallelism in Landscape Photography
  • Behind the Shot: Dark Matter
  • Mountain Magic: Shooting in the Lofoten Islands
  • Behind the Shot: Nautilus
  • Behind the Shot: Lost in Space
  • Behind the Shot: Spot the Shark
  • Quick Look: The Art of the Unforeground
  • Whatever it Doesn’t Take
  • Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes
  • On the Importance of Naming Images

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – part 3: equipment

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – part 2: aircraft

19 Aug
My favorite image from the Holuhraun volcanic eruption, Iceland. Not only did I shoot multiple versions, I also asked the pilot to fly as slowly as possible and to return to this angle repeatedly so I could make sure I have the composition just right. This was easily done with the helicopter.

In the previous article I talked about some of the advantages of aerial photography. Now we’ll talk about some logistics, starting with the aircraft. There are two main options here: a light airplane or a helicopter. Yes, you can shoot from a hot air balloon but that’s not really an option in most places, plus it’s far less maneuverable, so I’ll gently disregard it. Also, while drones are taking the world of aerial photography by storm, the considerations discussed in this series don’t really relate to them, and so I won’t be talking about them at all.

It will probably come as no surprise when I say that a helicopter is the better way to go, by far. It might cost a bit (or a lot) more, but the advantages it offers make for a very different, vastly superior experience. 

Perhaps the greatest advantage is that some helicopters allow the doors to be opened or even completely removed for the flight

A helicopter is a flexible craft: it can fly slower than a plane or even hover in place, which gives you much more time to shoot a desired composition. But that’s not all: perhaps the greatest advantage is that some helicopters allow the doors to be opened or even completely removed for the flight. Once the door is off, you have a huge field of view, and wide-angle shooting is possible. You need to be careful not to have the rotor in the shot, but that can generally be avoided when pointing the camera downward.

The huge field of view also means that you have the option to try the same shot more than once should the first try fail, and you can shoot different angles of the same subject even after you’ve moved ahead. That’s a critical advantage which can make the difference between getting a shot and losing it.

Huge icebergs finally released from Kangia Fjord after floating there for years. Can you spot the (fairly large) boat?

Disko Bay, Greenland.

The most common helicopter for aerial photography is the Robinson R44. It’s a small helicopter fit for a pilot plus three passengers, and you can take both doors off in a minute, which is crucially important for getting crisp images without reflections or aberrations (if the pilot refuses to take the door off don’t even bother). Its small size also makes it relatively cheap to fly and maintain (emphasis on relatively).

What’s considered cheap? Well, one of my R44 flights cost me $ 850 (around €760) an hour, the other €1500 (around $ 1670) an hour. It really depends on where you fly, and costs worldwide can vary even more than that in both directions, but primarily upward. In places where a small, cheap helicopter isn’t available, costs can rise quite ludicrously. For example, I’ve recently gotten a quote of $ 4200 an hour for a larger heli in a place whose name I won’t mention. That’s $ 70 a minute. Yes, my reaction was similar to yours.

In the image below you can see a wide-angle shot of the dunes of Sossusvlei, Namibia, taken from an R44 helicopter with the doors taken off. It’s quite striking to see these intricate dunes from this angle, and the helicopter allowed me to take a very wide shot and include the entire dune, which is a huge advantage.

Shooting from a light plane is different. You usually shoot from an open window, and that’s in the best case scenario: about a year ago I did a photography flight in Greenland in which I had the dubious pleasure of shooting through a 15cm hatch in the front window. This means that shooting-angle selection was extremely limited (forget about ultra-wide lenses), and that once you pass a good shooting angle, the shot is gone unless you circle back. This disadvantage is emphasized by the faster movement speed, which frankly gives you a feeling of anxiety to be ready and shoot before it’s all gone.

To sum it up, though cheaper than a helicopter, a light plane with a small hatch (as opposed to a large window) is very limited in shooting angles, supplies less opportunities to get the right shot, and as a result yields much less keepers when the flight is done. I’d seriously reconsider before ever doing it again.

A Cessna with a large window you can open is a very different story. Shooting is much more comfortable and angle choice much less limiting. If you lean back (careful not to push against the poor pilot! I know I did that a few times…), no wind interferes with your lens and stability is quite good. I shot from such a Cessna in the Lofoten Islands and the experience was wonderful. 

Kjerkfjord, surrounded by mountains struck by beautiful pink light. Shot from a Cessna during sunset on my Lofoten Islands workshop this January.

In the next article I’ll discuss technicalities and parameter selection for aerial photography.


Erez Marom is a professional nature photographer, photography guide and traveler based in Israel. You can follow Erez’s work on Instagram, Facebook and 500px, and subscribe to his mailing list for updates.

If you’d like to experience and shoot some of the most fascinating landscapes on earth with Erez as your guide, you’re welcome to take a look at his unique photography workshops around the world:

Land of Ice – Southern Iceland
Winter Paradise – Northern Iceland
Northern Spirits – The Lofoten Islands
Giants of the Andes and Fitz Roy Hiking Annex – Patagonia
Tales of Arctic Nights – Greenland

More in This Series:

The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 1: Why shoot aerials?

Selected articles by Erez Marom:

  • Behind the Shot: Dark Matter
  • Mountain Magic: Shooting in the Lofoten Islands
  • Behind the Shot: Nautilus
  • Behind the Shot: Lost in Space
  • Behind the Shot: Spot the Shark
  • Quick Look: The Art of the Unforeground
  • Whatever it Doesn’t Take
  • Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes
  • On the Importance of Naming Images
  • Parallelism in Landscape Photography

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – part 2: aircraft

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – part 2: aircrafts

13 Aug
My favorite image from the Holuhraun volcanic eruption, Iceland. Not only did I shoot multiple versions, I also asked the pilot to fly as slowly as possible and to return to this angle repeatedly so I could make sure I have the composition just right. This was easily done with the helicopter.

In the previous article I talked about some of the advantages of aerial photography. Now we’ll talk about some logistics, starting with the aircraft. There are two main options here: a light airplane or a helicopter. Yes, you can shoot from a hot air balloon but that’s not really an option in most places, plus it’s far less maneuverable, so I’ll gently disregard it. Also, while drones are taking the world of aerial photography by storm, the considerations discussed in this series don’t really relate to them, and so I won’t be talking about them at all.

It will probably come as no surprise when I say that a helicopter is the better way to go, by far. It might cost a bit (or a lot) more, but the advantages it offers make for a very different, vastly superior experience. 

Perhaps the greatest advantage is that some helicopters allow the doors to be opened or even completely removed for the flight

A helicopter is a flexible craft: it can fly slower than a plane or even hover in place, which gives you much more time to shoot a desired composition. But that’s not all: perhaps the greatest advantage is that some helicopters allow the doors to be opened or even completely removed for the flight. Once the door is off, you have a huge field of view, and wide-angle shooting is possible. You need to be careful not to have the rotor in the shot, but that can generally be avoided when pointing the camera downward.

The huge field of view also means that you have the option to try the same shot more than once should the first try fail, and you can shoot different angles of the same subject even after you’ve moved ahead. That’s a critical advantage which can make the difference between getting a shot and losing it.

Huge icebergs finally released from Kangia Fjord after floating there for years. Can you spot the (fairly large) boat?

Disko Bay, Greenland.

The most common helicopter for aerial photography is the Robinson R44. It’s a small helicopter fit for a pilot plus three passengers, and you can take both doors off in a minute, which is crucially important for getting crisp images without reflections or aberrations (if the pilot refuses to take the door off don’t even bother). Its small size also makes it relatively cheap to fly and maintain (emphasis on relatively).

What’s considered cheap? Well, one of my R44 flights cost me $ 850 (around €760) an hour, the other €1500 (around $ 1670) an hour. It really depends on where you fly, and costs worldwide can vary even more than that in both directions, but primarily upward. In places where a small, cheap helicopter isn’t available, costs can rise quite ludicrously. For example, I’ve recently gotten a quote of $ 4200 an hour for a larger heli in a place whose name I won’t mention. That’s $ 70 a minute. Yes, my reaction was similar to yours.

In the image below you can see a wide-angle shot of the dunes of Sossusvlei, Namibia, taken from an R44 helicopter with the doors taken off. It’s quite striking to see these intricate dunes from this angle, and the helicopter allowed me to take a very wide shot and include the entire dune, which is a huge advantage.

Shooting from a light plane is different. You usually shoot from an open window, and that’s in the best case scenario: about a year ago I did a photography flight in Greenland in which I had the dubious pleasure of shooting through a 15cm hatch in the front window. This means that shooting-angle selection was extremely limited (forget about ultra-wide lenses), and that once you pass a good shooting angle, the shot is gone unless you circle back. This disadvantage is emphasized by the faster movement speed, which frankly gives you a feeling of anxiety to be ready and shoot before it’s all gone.

To sum it up, though cheaper than a helicopter, a light plane with a small hatch (as opposed to a large window) is very limited in shooting angles, supplies less opportunities to get the right shot, and as a result yields much less keepers when the flight is done. I’d seriously reconsider before ever doing it again.

A Cessna with a large window you can open is a very different story. Shooting is much more comfortable and angle choice much less limiting. If you lean back (careful not to push against the poor pilot! I know I did that a few times…), no wind interferes with your lens and stability is quite good. I shot from such a Cessna in the Lofoten Islands and the experience was wonderful. 

Kjerkfjord, surrounded by mountains struck by beautiful pink light. Shot from a Cessna during sunset on my Lofoten Islands workshop this January.

In the next article I’ll discuss technicalities and parameter selection for aerial photography.


Erez Marom is a professional nature photographer, photography guide and traveler based in Israel. You can follow Erez’s work on Instagram, Facebook and 500px, and subscribe to his mailing list for updates.

If you’d like to experience and shoot some of the most fascinating landscapes on earth with Erez as your guide, you’re welcome to take a look at his unique photography workshops around the world:

Land of Ice – Southern Iceland
Winter Paradise – Northern Iceland
Northern Spirits – The Lofoten Islands
Giants of the Andes and Fitz Roy Hiking Annex – Patagonia
Tales of Arctic Nights – Greenland

More in This Series:

The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 1: Why shoot aerials?

Selected articles by Erez Marom:

  • Behind the Shot: Dark Matter
  • Mountain Magic: Shooting in the Lofoten Islands
  • Behind the Shot: Nautilus
  • Behind the Shot: Lost in Space
  • Behind the Shot: Spot the Shark
  • Quick Look: The Art of the Unforeground
  • Whatever it Doesn’t Take
  • Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes
  • On the Importance of Naming Images
  • Parallelism in Landscape Photography

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – part 2: aircrafts

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 1: Why shoot aerials?

18 Jun

Man has always had the dream of flight – but so has the photographer. It’s a unique experience to shoot from the air, and it has some incredible benefits in many senses. But as one might discover, it often carries a number of problems and a hefty price tag. I personally started my romance with serious aerial photography about three years ago, and I’ve been hooked ever since. My experiences have mostly been amazing but admittedly not always so, and I’ve come to wonder what makes photography flights in different settings so… well, different.

In this series of articles I’ll try to survey my own experience with aerial shooting, including the different aircrafts to shoot from, what equipment to use, what technicalities to put an emphasis on and of course, the prices. I’ll talk about some of my aerial shoots, and explain what distinguished them and what I learned. Aerial photography can be wonderful and exhilarating, but it can also be disappointing if you don’t know what you’re getting yourself into. I hope the following articles help with this.

An aerial panorama of one of the most epic light shows I’ve ever seen. Wonderfully clear sun rays were peeking from between the thick cloud layer and the jagged mount Molhøgtinden and its surrounding peaks in the Lofoten Islands during my workshop there. I was stunned with excitement and couldn’t believe my eyes. After a few seconds I shook my head, picked my jaw up and went back to shooting. This image is the result.

So what makes aerial photography so darn good? A great many things. First of all, it allows for a new – and extremely different – angle of shooting. There’s a huge difference in the angle of view when shooting from the ground, or even from a mountaintop, and when shooting from hundreds of meters above the landscape. The same scenery gains another dimension, and the viewer gets a much better understanding of the surroundings. Perspective deformations are also less pronounced since there’s less of a difference in distance to the subject’s different parts.

An aerial shot of Deadvlei, Namibia. It’s incredible to realize that most of the clay pan is actually devoid of trees – which is hard to perceive when you’re down there.

It can be claimed that only from the air, one can see the landscape for what it really is. Unseen parts of the setting can be exposed, for example ones that are obscured by mountains, and with good visibility, one can see and shoot much farther than from the ground. In the image below, shot from a helicopter in Holuhraun, Iceland, several of these advantages are demonstrated: first of all, when shooting from the ground, it was impossible to get a shot of the lava which includes the caldera itself. Secondly, this angle allows for inclusion of the lava river in the background, which contributes a great deal to the composition.

In addition, some landscapes are hard to get to – not to mention shoot – from the ground, especially close enough to make them interesting. A good example of this is an erupting volcano. If the lava flow is strong, it can be impossible to go near the eruption point itself, but from the air, it can often be seen quite clearly.

But it’s really not limited to volcanoes. Instead of traversing miles and miles on foot, camping, climbing and struggling, one might take a short flight, shoot a location and fly back in time for dinner. Sounds enticing, and it truly is. Moreover, it’s quite addictive, so much so that when visiting a new location, I often feel like I have to shoot it from the air, even if there isn’t much sense in it. One mustn’t forget that aerial photography is an experience to cherish, not to be taken for granted. Do it when you must, when it offers real benefits, and not just as a means to shoot without making an effort.

The terminal of Ilulissat glacier, Greenland.

In the next article in the series I’ll talk about the two most popular aircrafts for aerial photography.


Erez Marom is a professional nature photographer, photography guide and traveler based in Israel. You can follow Erez’s work on Instagram, Facebook and 500px, and subscribe to his mailing list for updates.

If you’d like to experience and shoot some of the most fascinating landscapes on earth with Erez as your guide, you’re welcome to take a look at his unique photography workshops around the world:

White Wonderland – Lapland
Land of Ice – Southern Iceland
Winter Paradise – Northern Iceland
Northern Spirits – The Lofoten Islands
Giants of the Andes and Fitz Roy Hiking Annex – Patagonia
Tales of Arctic Nights – Greenland
Earth, Wind and Fire – Ethiopia

Selected articles by Erez Marom:

  • Behind the Shot: Dark Matter
  • Mountain Magic: Shooting in the Lofoten Islands
  • Behind the Shot: Nautilus
  • Behind the Shot: Lost in Space
  • Behind the Shot: Spot the Shark
  • Quick Look: The Art of the Unforeground
  • Behind the Shot: Watery Grave
  • Whatever it Doesn’t Take
  • Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes
  • On the Importance of Naming Images
  • Hell on Earth: Shooting in the Danakil Depression
  • Parallelism in Landscape Photography

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography – Part 1: Why shoot aerials?

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of Watermarks and When and How to Use Them Effectively

20 May

When going out and photographing you put your heart and soul in to capturing that special moment, and later, you may pay great care and attention to finishing the image off in post-processing. You are so proud of the results you simply cannot wait to share it online, or add to your portfolio on your website!

One of the most popular practices amongst many photographers is the humble watermark; an opaque logo or text layered on top of an image. But is watermarking really necessary to protect your images – and is it really beneficial, or does it just get in the way?

Image 3

For the benefit, if are unfamiliar with what a watermark is, it is placing a logo or text  (or a combination of the two) with a reduced opacity over the main image. So why watermark in the first place?

Don’t know how to make a watermark? Check out: How to Watermarking Images With Photoshop and Lightroom.

What do watermarks do?

Watermarks prevent, or reduce the chance, of your images being stolen or used without your permission.

You’ve worked very hard – from capturing the image to editing it, and the last thing you want is for somebody to use your image without your permission; especially if it’s for the their financial gain. You would also like to have control over who uses your image. Many people believe that by adding a watermark to their images it will stop people, or at the very least deter them, from using their images without permission.

However, there is no real proof that a watermark does indeed reduce this from happening at all. It’s now all too easy to crop a watermark out of an image, or for the more savvy, clone it out altogether. Some thieves may not even bother with any of that; they may just simply take the image, with or without a watermark, and use it. The truth that is once your images are online, you cannot stop your images from being used without your permission – watermark or no watermark.

 A watermark on your work looks professional

This is a yes, and no answer. A good watermark can, in a very loose sense, look professional. However, the vast majority of watermarks – at least the ones I’ve seen – bring the level of professionalism right down. They are either simply too big, too distracting, have too much going on, or are poorly designed. They can even be a mix of all those things. A bad watermark can quickly degrade even the best image.

If you’ve decided that you still wish to watermark your work, here’s a quick example of bad, and good watermarks.

Watermarks

Example 1 (above left)

The watermark in the first example here has no reduced opacity, and is also straight across the middle of the image. By having it in that position, it is obstructing the view of the subject. In addition, it is also far too large. This would count as a bad example of a watermark.

Example 2 (above middle)

In this example, the opacity of the watermark has been reduced, which helps the image behind show through more than the first example. However, the watermark covers the entire image. The design is also quite generic which is okay for a stock website, where the images might be sold. But for a personal watermark, it looks too plain.

Example 3 (above right)

This is how a watermark should look; it’s small and discrete. It won’t stop people from stealing the image as it could easily be cloned out. However, if you wanted to try and prevent theft, this watermark could be placed closer to the main subject.

Generally, a watermark should:

  • Be small and monochromatic – or have very little color. Large, colored watermarks, detract from the image as they can compete with the subject too much.
  • Be placed in a descreet area of the image that does not interfere with the view of the image, but will make it more difficult to remove or clone out.
  • Have limited text
  • If the watermark is small, then having text will be all but near impossible to read

When and where to watermark

Watermarks can have their place on images. Although, they should not be on every image that you post online. Social media platforms, such as Facebook and Pinterest for example, could benefit with a subtle watermark on your images. In this case, if other users do share your photo, you can at least get a little exposure, provided they do not crop the watermark out.

Another instance where a watermark could be of benefit, is when you are showing images to someone as proofs or previews; perhaps after a wedding, or a model photoshoot for example. In those cases, the watermark could say SAMPLE or PROOF; something to make it known that those images are not the final product. In this scenario, the watermark is not intended to stop the unauthorized use of the images – rather it is there to make it known that, if these images are used, they are not the final product.

On the other hand, if you have a website that you use to show off your work, or even to potential clients as a portfolio, watermarking your images will not be of great benefit, as they generally do not look that professional.

Image 1

Conclusion

I am of the opinion that watermarks are used all too often nowadays, by photographers who want to get their name out there and prevent the theft or unauthorized use of their work, which is perfectly understandable. However, I believe that in most cases, a watermark does not add any significant purpose to your work. A watermark does not stop anyone from stealing your image, nor can it guarantee that your name will gain greater exposure if your images are shared. Rather, watermarks only degrade the quality of your work as they are most often not designed correctly, and are an obstruction to your image.

The only way that you can guarantee that your work will not be stolen, or used without your permission at all, is to never post or upload your images anywhere on the internet.

I enjoy sharing my work on the internet. But likewise, I like to share work that people can enjoy without the degrading distraction that a watermark provides. What are your thoughts? Do you use watermarks? Please share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below.

Image 2

googletag.cmd.push(function() {
tablet_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_tab-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78623” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );

googletag.cmd.push(function() {
mobile_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_mob-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78158” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );

The post The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of Watermarks and When and How to Use Them Effectively by Daniel Smith appeared first on Digital Photography School.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of Watermarks and When and How to Use Them Effectively

Posted in Photography