English version
Version française
Wersja polska
This text was originally written for the "Photography School" of Canon-Board. However, I decided to put it also on the Web, in a bit more standard form. From time to time I will try to make it a bit more up-to-date, add some new hints that I will learn in the meantime, perhaps some new interesting photos etc.
If you have any suggestions/corrections etc, you're welcome to write: muflon@photosite.pl. I can't promise that I will reply to all the emails, but I will try to consider every suggestion.
Daniel Rychcik
First of all: it's mostly about the airshow photography and rather focused on the military planes. There are few words about spotting at the end.
Second: before you ask - not all these rules are strictly reflected in my photos. Often, these are just some good advices from my more experienced friends and/or the things that "I know but sometimes I have trouble applying them". Or, to put it yet different way: it's not a guide on "How to make good photos", because such a thing can not be written. You should treat it rather as some guidelines on "how to go to the airshow and get some good snaps". With the full understanding of the difference between "snaps" and "the good photos"
It's the first (and, actually, the only important) problem. It's kind of similar to the nature photography - you will not make something out of nothing. So, if you like to photograph the strategic bombers, but the only thing close to you is a small local aviation club - you've got to learn with what you've got. And it's worthwhile to learn on what you've got!
... but even if you are lucky to live close to the place where your favourite kind of "birds" live, there is another problem: how to get close to the birds without repressions from the people that take care of them? It's not that bad when it comes to the civilian aviation (see below), but in case of the military airbase it often goes down to:
... or just slow, painful "getting inside" the environment. Unfortunately, usually you can't "just go there". If you are not well known photographer, or you don't have one of the 'advantages' listed above, then sorry - no kiddin' with the army.
It gets a bit easier when it comes to the civilian planes. Typically, if you go to the nearby airport, get a good spot and just start shooting, nothing terribly unpleasant will happen. It doesn't mean that nobody will complain at all! The airport security is sometimes picky, but in fact, apart from telling you to go away they can't do much - fortunately we still live in the (relatively) normal countries. Well, except if the aircraft on approach happens to be the 747 of El-Al... but that's a different story.
Another advice: it always pays off to have a look around, search for some local aviation fan clubs, something that will let you "get hang on it". Apart from the obvious gain in the knowledge, it will let you make some new friends, exchange links to the good spotting places, the photos etc. In the extreme case it might end up in the flying school :)
At the end of the day, there is the simplest (and unfortunately, the most expensive) solution: the airshows - and this is mostly what this text is about: taking photos on the airshows.
To put it simple, the background is meaningless. In the air it doesn't exist (except if our F-15 happens to just make a pass in front of the moon). On the ground - it's mostly about blurring it. Therefore, what seems to make the most sense is to use the central-weighted metering (but not the spot), focused on the plane. Sometimes you might add some exposure compensation, like e.g. if the plane is all white/black. However, if you are not sure about your technique, just use the default camera settings - it should be good enough, too.
The essential exposure mode is shutter priority (Tv). Depending on the contents of the photo and desired effect, you should set the exposure time and let the camera figure out the aperture value. Some details will follow later.
When it comes to the ISO sensitivity, the general rule "as low as possible, but if not possible, then don't worry either" applies. However, in practice it's better not to go further than the equivalent of ISO800 for EOS 20D (or something similar for the different camera).
RAW format is always welcome! In practice, depending how "heavy finger" you have it might be sometimes difficult.
The essential rule: no matter what the focal length, available sensitivity/aperture values etc., when you photograph them in flight don't use the times shorter than the ones that will blur the propeller. Depending on the aircraft or the situation this might mean different things:
Of course all the above values are approximative. After some time the experience will tell you what to use. If you will not obey this rule, the planes will look like "stopped" in the air - it's an undesired effect and makes the photos look not natural.
In any case increasing the exposure time (up to the level of about 1/30s) makes the photos more dynamic, nicer, the impression of movement is increased - but at the same time it gets more and more difficult to have sharp photos. This effect is increased when some elements of the terrain appear in the frame (see below, in the takeoff/landing section).
Generally, all the above rules apply, except that here increasing the exposure time is even more important because the propeller blades move even slower. It's one of the few objects that you can often capture from the front, in the classic 'American movie' frame:
It's a bit simpler than above: in this case the "impresison of movement" is often handled by the smoke traces (or the condensation clouds - see below), or just by "speedy" look of the plane :-) So, typically, if your lens can handle it, you can shorten the time, practically up to the limit in the given conditions - e.g. 1/2000s. Sometimes, it might pay off to switch to the Av mode to set the aperture that is optimal to the lens (1-2 stops above the full opening) and let the camera minimize the time.
One word: panning. So, as with the props: Tv, the time as long as the focal length allows, sure hand and (if you got it) IS Mode 2. There is no lower limit - I often go below 1/30s at 200mm and I have a friend that is able (in a reproducible way) make a sharp (not "not blurred", but a sharp) photo of the departing helicopter at 1/20s using 200mm lens without a stabilizer!
During the airshow quite often you might see the landings of the acrobation teams, where the following planes differ mostly by the numbers and the faces in the cockpit. You can use it - if you have e.g. few planes in a row, then the trick is:
The gliders are quite particular. First, you can't use the "long exposure" trick, because there is no propeller to blur. On the other hand, these are usually small, thin constructions, that don't make the impression of movement just by their "force and dignity". Then, they are so small that it's difficult to catch any details in the flight without using extremely long focal lengths. So, what's left is to count on the smoke traces (fortunately, they are very common element of the glider shows) and possibly trying to make the photos attractive in some other way - reflections of the sun, the pass in front of the moon etc.
I can't say much more here - I see the gliders relatively rarely and I don't yet have "the trick" for them.
It often happens that you shoot alternately using two combinations of different camera settings. As described above, this might mean for example:
There are few cameras that have the possibility to record some "custom modes" and then switch between them easily. But if you don't happen to own one, there is still a solution - exercise! Just try to learn to switch between these two combinations really fast. It takes some time, but after the training, it takes me less than a second to switch my EOS 1D :-)
Apart the flying display, on the airshow there is usually quite a lot to see on the ground. Unfortunately, making photos of the static display is difficult:
Some way to get around the problem could be to show up on place before opening of the gates, rush to the static display and make the photos before the crowd will appear.
As it's quite rare to have a comfort of taking the "normal" pictures of entire plane, what's left are some particular subjects like:
Just as with gliders - I don't feel quite competent when it comes to the static display, so I'll stop here.
The mistake (or rather, a schema) that you can often see in the aviation photography is sticking to the "entire plane, from one tip of the wing to the another one" frame. Such photos are, in a long term, just... boring.
Rule #1: the most important thing is the fuselage. That's what should be most exposed on a good picture, even if it comes at the cost of cutting a bit of the wings or the stabilizers. What's more, if you have a good, high-resolution photo, it often pays off to sacrifice some pixels and cut it in such a way, that the fuselage will become the main object on the photo.
Rule #2: close-ups, fragments. Once again, even if it means decreasing the quality, it's often good to limit the frame to:
Yup - the aircraft has different faces :) From the side it's interesting, because you can nicely see the shape of the fuselage. When it comes towards you, or when it turns showing up the "belly" - you can see the weapons (mostly the fake ones, but whatever ;-)). After it turns to get away, there is a chance for a grill (see below). So, to conclude: don't be afraid to make the pictures in any situation.
Generally, it's a bit bad if on the picture of the aircraft there is a fragment of the terrain that is not quite straight. If possible, such photos should be straightened in the software (but don't be oversensitive, it's not about measuring everything with a ruler, but rather a general feeling). In some particular cases, you can on purpose emphasize the angles, e.g. to make an impression of the air-to-air photo - however, it's really difficult and requires that you know exactly what you are doing.
The thing generally known as the "smoke behind the plane" in reality can be caused by few different things.
The simplest case is the plain, artificial smoke. The plane is equiped with a smoke generator, often with few different colours. In the team aerobatics shows it lets them create some nice, colourful shapes and increases the general feeling of the "movement in the air"
Other kinds of "smoke" are completely natural. They always appear when there is a sudden decompression of the air - the vapour contained in the air turns to water and it stays there in the form of small drops. A spectacular example:
This picture was taken just after a heavy rain - the plane was departing in a very humid air. The propeller blades are built in a way that, when it rotates, there pressure on the "front" side gets much lower, somehow "sucking" it to the front - that's what makes the plane move.
Another example could be the condensation cloud that can be observed during the sudden turns at the sub-sonic speeds:
This time, the reason for the condensation is the fact, that the wing rapidly "moves down", causing sudden decompresion above it.
Without going into the details: the afterburner is the thing that makes these "nice colour flames" behind the jet. It's good to be ready especially, if you think that the pilot will want to show off making an impressive takeoff. If you start to hear the word "grill" among the crowd, something might be going on...
Two news here: a good one and a bad one. The bad one: the airshows are usually organized in the summer. So, it's hot, the ground is warm, as is the air above. It's not always clearly visible throught the viewfinder, but in this situation taking pictures of the airplanes taking off/taxiing far away from you might not make much sense. In such situation try, check it on the LCD display and, if the problem can be clearly seen, don't waste the memory.
The good news is that, especially when combined with a "grill", the very same hot air can help you to create an impressive picture:
This subject can be split in two. First, the smoke figures. It's good to know, even approximately, how does a demonstration of the team look like. It will let you, for example, easily change the lens to a wide-angle, if you know that in half a minute all the Frecce Tricolori will draw a nice heart on the sky.
Second thing are the close-ups of the formation flights: pass-by, spirals, the "belly to belly" flight etc. Also here the knowledge of the display pays off. But even if you don't know, it's often enough to just look and try to guess what might happen. For example, the "crash" of Red Arrows is easy to predict:
In such a situation you have a choice (and a time to decide): either you want a maximum sharpness - then you set the shortest time possible, or you also want to blur the second plane - then, longer exposure and sure hand. As a side-note: here you probably can't get away from the burst photo series.
The day or two when the main airshow takes place is one thing.. but all this stuff has somehow to get there :) The pilots have to get acquainted with the terrain, exercise the display etc. If the organizers don't have anything against (and you can afford to spend few days in the neighbourhood), you should use this opportunity. Often, you have a chance for the experience equal, or even better than during the main show.
If the main show takes 2 days, then, even if the schedule is very similar, it's still useful to go to both. It lets you plan the work better. For example:
.. are there too :) Wave your hand, cap or flag... especially when they taxi close to the public after the finished demonstration. They often reply in a very sympathic way:
The plane spotting is a special case of spotting. To put it short, it goes down to observing the movements of particular objects, writing them down (e.g. registration numbers), being interested about them, the history etc. "The objects" could be the trains, the planes etc. The most experienced spotters quite often have the knowledge equal, or even bigger than the people that work with the planes proffesionally. The most lucky ones manage to join the hobby with the work.
A bit different :) The word "spotter" has gone through the evolution a bit similar to the "hacker". Nowadays, the common meaning is the guy that spends hours at the runway, he's got a camera and/or notepad and takes pictures and/or writes down the registration numbers. Or just does nothing but staring at the planes :) The numbers themselves have become the secondary thing, what counts is the passion for the flying machines.
Like in the case of the "hackers", there are some outraged voices that for the "true spotter" the photo is optional, that the numbers are important, that all these youth around the fences are the fencers, not really getting it at all - but in reality these opinios are considered as seriously, as the war of the geeks from the 70's about the proper meaning of "hacker" - which means... well, not really ;-)
It goes without saying that here we will talk about the "false" version of the plane spotting :)
On the airshows it's clear: we come on some specific days and you live with what we've got, period. Contrary, when planning some long session at the fence of the local airport you have the choice - you know the forecast, you know what season is it and what you can expect.
Therefore, an advice: if the weather is crappy, the sun is hidden somewhere behind the clouds, there is no nice light - give up, try another time. Well, except if there is really something extraordinary going on, some rarity arrives etc. - then it has the priority over the weather.
In any case it's good to consider the location of the sun. Of course, it would be ideal to have it all the time behind your back. So, if you plan the all day airport trip, anlyse the layout of the runways and, for example, if you happen to be lucky and the movements are performed on the E-W axis, you should start at the south-eastern side and slowly move west during the day. It might also depend on the direction of arrivals/departures (for the non-motorized ones a scanner and ATIS frequency might be useful) - unfortunately, we have no influence on that. Neither on the fact that the southern side might be guarded by the electric fence and the scary dogs keeping an eye on some very-important-factory. Once again, if you don't have what you want, you live with what you have...
At the airshows it's similar: before leaving always check in the Internet the exact layout of the airfield, try to see how the public zones will be placed - and think in advance how you will use the time and the light during the show.
There are quite a bit of webpages that keep and catalog the plane pictures from all over the world. The most widely known and probably the biggest one (currently about a million of photos) is http://www.airliners.net. The particularity of Airliners.net is that they have extremely tough criteria of selecting the photos. Sometimes, almost ridiculous (huh, it's my own place, at least here I can complain ;-)) - once I've got the following refused:
giving as a reason... the bad centering in the frame! However, in general this strong selection is one of the reasons that Airliners.net is still the reference page in this domain.
Few other well-known addresses:
Or, more precisely, the AM receiver working in the airband range (108-137MHz). It's useful for... well, to put it simple, it increases the general "fun factor" of the whole game :) You can listen to some funny conversations between the pilots and the tower, get some laugh on the Italian accent, not be surprised by some sudden "touch and go" of the display team making the exercise before the airshow etc.
Probably the most popular model is the Maycom AR-108 - small, handy, it lets you easily listen to the ATC in the range of around 2-3km from the airport.
Oh well, "listen"... it's a bit sticky topic. Depending on the level of the anti-terrorist madness in the country the actual situation may vary. In Switzerland, where I live, using of the scanner is legal, period. However, it's enough to go to the other (French) side of the Geneva airport and it's suddenly not so clear...
Whatever you might think, to make great aviation pictures you don't need a 1D and a stack of long fixed-focal lenses :) In fact, it's mostly about the focal length: the middle-class zoom that ends with 300mm, reasonably fast (USM) is usually enough. IS mode 2 is often useful (vertical stabilization), it makes the panning during takeoffs/landings a bit easier. But of course, the more the better - a 100-400 range (with a digital crop factor 1.6x) practicaly gives enough comfort for all the tasks.
Going down to the details: two lenses that I see most often among the "serious amateurs" are:
.. put on the 20D or (less often) 300D/350D body.
I own the first one, quite often I have a chance to try the second one - it's slower, doesn't have the IS, it's a bit less comfortable to use (ring zoom instead of the push-pull) - but it works and gives good pictures too. However, as I know few people that have sold Sigma and bought a Canon, I haven't heard about switching the other way around. Some interesting (less often seen) alternatives are Sigmas: 100-300/4 and 120-300/2.8.
When it comes to the proffesionals, usually "on the other side of the barrier" - no surprise here: 600mm, often with the Wimberley heads plus 300 or 400/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, everything mounted on the proffesional camera bodies.
Tripod/monopod? Well, not really. Taking pictures on the big airshows (if you don't have a press accreditation) it's sometimes a bit like a war:
you wake up in the morning, at 7am you rush through the gates, you get to the carefully planned spot, preferably with some friends. After two hours the place is completely crowded. Next to you there is some really instable guy on the ladder, he will fall down at any time. All the time your lens gets bumped by someone. Wanna pee? No way, later it will take you an hour to recover the position.
And it's like that for few good hours...
Databank - it's an individual thing, but I think that only
very careful shooting can let you survive a day with just the memory cards.
Well, of course everything depends how many/which cards you have ;-)
But can I go there with a small camera, no DSLR and long lenses? Hmm... haven't tried. The main concern would be probably the speed. While slow zooming should not be a big deal - anyway, you usually are around the long end of your lens, the AF focus and the shutter lag might be. This can be (to some extent) overcome using two tricks:
(or: what didn't fit elsewhere, but I thought I might mention it)
Sun-blocking lotion - absolutely neccessary. Regardless of the forecast, don't go to the airshow without it.
Related to the above - a baseball cap :)
Ear protection - it's also individual. For me the sound of the F-16 doing the afterburner takeoff 50m away is like a music :) but it's always good to have them just in case. If you go with the children - obligatory, no matter how they will protest.
The batteries - what's best is to have two times as many as you think you might ever need. Remember that in the hot summer they will discharge much faster than usually.
Congratulations, if you have gotten so far. If you would like to see how some of all the above applies in the real life, you're welcome to visit my photo gallery: http://photosite.pl/aviation.
Farewell from the Patrouille de France!
