RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Part’

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

 

Chris’ Gear of the Year part two: Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III

26 Dec

The Canon 16-35mm F2.8L II USM has been a workhorse for landscape photographers like myself for many years. Although I use this lens nearly every time I head out to shoot a location, I do have sort of a love-hate relationship with it. The corners are always fairly soft and never seem to get sharp (even after you stop the lens down) and chromatic aberration can be an issue as well (it can be removed through post processing, but at a slight cost to sharpness). Coma is also a pretty big issue with this lens, which makes it a less than desirable choice for astrophotography, but I’ve always made do and corrected those issues through post-processing.

This lens has impressive corner sharpness and amazing sunstars at very early apertures compared to its predecessor. Seattle, WA.

Photo by Chris Williams

Canon 5DSR, Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III, 16mm, F11, 1/160, ISO 100

There was always one thing that prevented me from moving on to a wide-angle that outperformed the Canon lens in terms of sharpness, vignetting and CA: the sun star. The sun star that the Canon lens produces is simply jaw-dropping and there are even Photoshop actions that you can purchase to replicate it. That’s one of the main reasons that I decided to purchase the lens in the first place and one of the main reasons that I never moved on.

This is an example of the type of sun star that the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L II produced. This lens is capable of taking some beautiful images, but it definitely did have its faults. This was taken in the Columbia Hills of Washington state.

Photo by Chris Williams

Sony a7r, Canon 16-35mm F2.8L II

When Canon released the 16-35mm F4L USM a few years back, I have to admit, I was extremely excited because I was hoping that it would lead to the release of an updated version of the 16-35mm F2.8L. Finally, after years of waiting, the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III was announced in Fall 2016.

In this sample image you can see how well the lens handles coma at 16mm shot wide open at F2.8; this is a huge improvement over the previous iteration of the lens.

Photo by Chris Williams

Canon 5DMK IV, Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III, 16mm, 1.6sec, F2.8, ISO 100

All of the major issues that plagued the previous iteration of the lens have been largely addressed by Canon. The CA is almost non existent, the distortion was handled gracefully and the corner sharpness has improved dramatically at 16mm and beyond. In fact the best performance occurs when the lens is shot wide open at 16mm. Coma was a fairly major issue in the previous iteration of the lens and Canon has reduced it a great deal; so much so that this lens is now an excellent alternative to a fast prime lens for astrophotography. I knew Canon had the engineering to fix the issues with the optics, but one of the biggest questions that remained was; how did the sunstar fair?

Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III USM Sunstar

Canon 5D Mk IV, 35mm, 1/100, F20, ISO 100

Canon 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Sunstar

Canon 5D Mk IV, 35mm, 1/100, F20, ISO 100

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the sun stars that the new lens produces. It’s much more symmetrical and much cleaner in terms of flare than the previous iteration of the lens. The rays themselves are very clean and defined and very pleasing to the eye. Aesthetically pleasing sun stars are also achieved at much earlier apertures in the updated lens (as early as F10), which can minimize the effects of diffraction. All-in-all we see the changes as improvements, but it really comes down to personal preference. 

Sun star aside, I’ve owned the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L II for a number of years and the performance wide open has always been a major point of frustration for me, especially in terms of coma, CA and corner sharpness. The update that was made to this lens addresses all of these points and corrects the major issues seen in its predecessor, and it’s really quite impressive. The lens is a bit soft in the corners at the long end, but once it’s stopped down it does sharpen up quite nicely at focal lengths at and beyond 24mm. The bottom line is that Canon really threw down the gauntlet with this one to get it right and the results speak for themselves. This lens really is a feat of engineering. They always say the third time is the charm, and I couldn’t agree more. 

See our Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III
sample gallery

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Chris’ Gear of the Year part two: Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III

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

 

2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 part 2: Full-Frame Interchangeable Lens Cameras

09 Jun

For those wanting to step up from entry-level to midrange ILCs, there are many things to consider, including the choice between a DSLR or mirrorless camera, what sensor size suits you best, how important video is to you, and of course the lens system.

While full-frame cameras typically offer superior low light image quality and more control over depth-of-field, crop-sensor cameras are extremely capable in their own right – and (usually) more compact and less costly.

We’ve split the $ 1200-2000 ILC marketplace into two segments – full-frame sensor cameras (discussed in this roundup) and crop-sensor (APS-C/Four Thirds) covered here.

This group of full-frame cameras is split right down the middle, with three DSLRs and three mirrorless models. Sony is, by far, the major player in the full-frame mirrorless market, with most of the other manufacturers sticking with DSLRs.

Here are the cameras we’ll cover in this enthusiast full-frame roundup: 

  • Canon EOS 6D
  • Nikon D610
  • Pentax K-1
  • Sony Alpha a7
  • Sony Alpha a7 II
  • Sony Alpha a7R

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on 2016 Roundup: $1200-2000 part 2: Full-Frame Interchangeable Lens Cameras

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Sigma offers part replacement to prevent lenses scratching Pentax K-1

13 May

Lens manufacturer Sigma has announced that it will replace parts on its Pentax-mount lenses that are known to scratch the new Pentax K-1 full-frame camera. The company says that certain lenses that it produces clash with the shape of the upper part of the mount on the K-1 and that using one of the listed lenses ‘could leave a small scratch on part of the camera body’.

Sigma has issued a list of current and past lenses that it knows create a problem, and advises Pentax K-1 owners not to use them until the repair is carried out. Three current lenses are included in the advisory: the 30mm F1.4 DC HSM Art, 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art and APO 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM. A time scale for the repair service to begin has yet to be announced though.

The company also says that some of its lenses are not recognized automatically by the K-1, and that users will need to manually enter whether the lens is designed for full frame or APS-C sensors via the camera’s menu system. The announcement makes no mention of whether this issue will also be fixed.

Press release:

Use of Pentax mount SIGMA interchangeable lenses when attached to the Pentax K-1

Thank you for purchasing and using our products.

We have found that some SIGMA interchangeable lenses for Pentax mount could leave a small scratch on part of the camera body when they are attached to the PENTAX K-1, released by RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. on April 28th, 2016. In this circumstance, please do not use the following lenses for Pentax mount on the PENTAX K-1.

We are planning to provide a repair service to replace a part of the lens for this issue. We will make a further announcement on our website when specific details, such as the service period, are finalized.

In addition, please also refer to the usage notice related to this announcement below.

Phenomenon
When some SIGMA interchangeable lenses for Pentax mount are attached to the PENTAX K-1, the upper part of the mount can be scratched.

This phenomenon is due to the interference with the shape of the upper part of the mount on the PENTAX K-1 camera body and it does not occur to any cameras other than PENTAX K-1.

Applicable products
Current Line-Up

  • 30mm F1.4 DC HSM| Art
  • 35mm F1.4 DG HSM| Art
  • APO 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Discontinued Lenses

  • 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
  • 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
  • 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM
  • APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
  • APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM
  • APO 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC HSM
  • APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM
  • APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Usage Notice for customers who are using Pentax mount SIGMA lenses on a PENTAX K-1
In some cases, depending on the lenses to be attached on the camera, the angle-of-view cannot be recognized automatically. Please select an angle-of-view that is appropriate for the lenses to be attached from “Crop” in the camera’s menu.

When DG lenses are attached, please select “FF”.
When DC lenses are attached, please select “APS-C”.

We appreciate your continued support for our company and products.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Sigma offers part replacement to prevent lenses scratching Pentax K-1

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Searching for Paddling Water in Southern Colorado – Part 2

12 Apr

I started my February trip to southern Colorado with visiting Paint Mine Interpretive Park at Calhan east of Colorado Springs. I spent there evening and next morning photographing fantastic clay and sandstone erosion formations. I added some pictures to my […]
paddling with a camera

 
Comments Off on Searching for Paddling Water in Southern Colorado – Part 2

Posted in Photography

 

Searching for Paddling Water in Southern Colorado – Part 1

06 Mar

I paddled all winter in Fort Collins and northern Colorado: Horsetooth Reservoir, South Platte River, St Vrain Creek. One day in late February I decided to check some paddling waters in southern Colorado for a change. Paint Mine Interpretive Park […]
paddling with a camera

 
Comments Off on Searching for Paddling Water in Southern Colorado – Part 1

Posted in Photography

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »