Show us what you shot.

[Kilby]

A few pro tips that may help.

If your camera has aperture priority then shoot at F8 as this will give you the sharpest pictures, you then need to set your ISO speed so that it will produce a shutter speed of between 1000 and 2000 sec. This will depend on the available light. If you have auto focus then disable it and fix the focus just off infinity. You may need to tape the ring to stop it moving. If you have image stab. then enable it. I hate these wide angle distortions where all of the verticals bend at the edges. So I use a standard 50mm or 80 mm lens. (Full frame 35mm) or (35mm-55mm. 22.3X14.9 image sensor) for a much more natural look.
I also prefer to use the camera in portrait mode rather than landscape as it produces much better stitched panos and 360 x360's. Shoot in raw mode and then use the individual RGB channels to color correct. Last but not least. Shoot when the light is good. If you want good color saturation then shoot with the sun behind you, slightly offset. If you shoot down and into the sun all you will see are the shadows. Have fun....

Nice one, Denny. I've been meaning to ask for just this type of info. ;-)

 

[DennyR]

1/1000 or 1/2000....I normally use 1/500 or 1/640, I find that to be plenty. I keep my iso on 100 as I prefer higher quality, especially if the end result is going top be scaled up by as much as 600%!

Ross

For a beginner, I believe it is better to be a little faster as the image quality between ISO 100 and 800 is negligible with modern cameras that can use 8000 ISO and above at a push. Shooting at 400 asa on a bright sunny day at F8 gives you about 500 sec. At 100 asa that would mean you were shooting at F4 or even F2.8 which would not be quite as sharp, (cast in stone) so the degradation would be far worse than that from a higher asa. Even my 1.2 lenses are better at F8/F11. I think that most of my pictures here were shot at around 320-400 asa and they do enlarge to 600% and meet the highest standards that the industry requires, I doubt that many will ever need that. The light on a bright sunny day does not vary that much around the world. Flying at 20,000 feet from England to Cyprus the incident light reading did not change at all.

Just to prove the point Ross lets see some of your best AERIAL efforts at 100 asa and we can then compare the difference? We all have our own way of doing things (each to his own) and this method has served me quite well over the last 35 years. Even with the old film cameras.

 

[Macsgrafs]

No problems Denny, take your pick:-

http://www.facebook.com/#!/media/set/?set=a.40451100790.73026.658455790&type=3

Some where shot with a sigma 24-70 F2.8, but the majoirty with a soft Canon 28mm F2.8 cheapie lens, so not the sharpest on the edges. All shot at 100 ISO & 1/400 - 1/640th second shutter, ranging from an F4 t0 F8.

You mention that iso 320-400 is fine for what the industry requires??? If the industry is web baqsed & not for print, then I agree.

Ross

 

[Macsgrafs]

Scaled down slightly by FB I'm afraid.

Ross

 

[Droider]

Aye Up Ross.. any chance you can share outside of facebook

Dave

No problems Denny, take your pick:-

http://www.facebook.com/#!/media/set/?set=a.40451100790.73026.658455790&type=3

Some where shot with a sigma 24-70 F2.8, but the majoirty with a soft Canon 28mm F2.8 cheapie lens, so not the sharpest on the edges. All shot at 100 ISO & 1/400 - 1/640th second shutter, ranging from an F4 t0 F8.

You mention that iso 320-400 is fine for what the industry requires??? If the industry is web baqsed & not for print, then I agree.

Ross

 

[DennyR]

No problems Denny, take your pick:-

http://www.facebook.com/#!/media/set/?set=a.40451100790.73026.658455790&type=3

Some where shot with a sigma 24-70 F2.8, but the majoirty with a soft Canon 28mm F2.8 cheapie lens, so not the sharpest on the edges. All shot at 100 ISO & 1/400 - 1/640th second shutter, ranging from an F4 t0 F8.

You mention that iso 320-400 is fine for what the industry requires??? If the industry is web baqsed & not for print, then I agree.

Ross

My main business is high end publishing, advertising and CGI but I do have some very large prints. some of which are 4 gig in size. and 20 feet long for airports.
Time and light was runner-up in the photographer of the Year two years ago. As I said ISO 100 or 400 is hardly any difference even in the shadow areas with a decent camera, that is why they developed this technology. We are not talking about the old days of film. But 2.8 on a zoom lens against F8 on a prime is a massive difference. Nobody buys pictures that are soft around the edges. The jobbing end of the market place (small time estate agents etc. is the crap end of the business) You get paid once if your lucky and that is it. I have some UK pictures that have been selling and selling for the last 25 years to publishers around the world. Some books that are published in house have sold more than 50,000 copies.

There are a lot of misconceptions in the aerial photography world, we have seen the "My camera has more pixels that your camera" and "I have the best print quality in the business" These guys don't last because they completely miss the point and don't concentrate on taking pictures. The male jewelry syndrome again. The people who do last just go out there and take stunning pictures every time, not low contrast record shots of boring subjects. They don't cloud the issue with technique as it is second nature to them. They visualize the shot thinking about where text would be placed, where color will dominate etc. The theme is the key, it is no good just taking a shot for the sake of it in the hope that someone may find a use for it.

My 2 cents worth.....

 

[Stacky]

Ross, 320 to 400 is fine for what I do in the advertising world, for example I shoot most of the photography for these guys http://linenhouse.com.au/ and the photography gets used from web, to magazine, to poster to billboard. Some of the images depending on location and conditions have been shot at 640 and 800.

You mention that iso 320-400 is fine for what the industry requires??? If the industry is web baqsed & not for print, then I agree.

Ross

 

[Stacky]

Denny are you sure on your numbers here?. 400 iso on a bright sunny day should give you 1/500th at f16

For a beginner, I believe it is better to be a little faster as the image quality between ISO 100 and 800 is negligible with modern cameras that can use 8000 ISO and above at a push. Shooting at 400 asa on a bright sunny day at F8 gives you about 500 sec. At 100 asa that would mean you were shooting at F4 or even F2.8 which would not be quite as sharp, (cast in stone) so the degradation would be far worse than that from a higher asa. Even my 1.2 lenses are better at F8/F11. I think that most of my pictures here were shot at around 320-400 asa and they do enlarge to 600% and meet the highest standards that the industry requires, I doubt that many will ever need that. The light on a bright sunny day does not vary that much around the world. Flying at 20,000 feet from England to Cyprus the incident light reading did not change at all.

Just to prove the point Ross lets see some of your best AERIAL efforts at 100 asa and we can then compare the difference? We all have our own way of doing things (each to his own) and this method has served me quite well over the last 35 years. Even with the old film cameras.

 

[DennyR]

I would say that is good for an incident reading so I suggested a little hotter for the fact that looking down at dark objects may need a bit of adjustment. I looked at a few images that were shot in aperture priority and then looked at the meta data and found it often needed opening up. The danger of course is that if you burn the highlights it's throw away, but you can save it if its a little underexposed.

Stacky Nice to hear from someone who knows what he is doing!

 

[Stacky]

Denny, you see thats where experience counts, i hadnt given the downward view a thought there. Great tip for those of us just beginning the aerial side things. Cheers
Mike

 

[DennyR]

I don't want to fall out with anyone over a difference of opinion here. My old drinking mate and hell raiser Oliver Read RIP used to get up on the bar stool and enter into one of his acting renditions and say to me rollie you bastard I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.

Sadly missed.

 

[Macsgrafs]

Denny, I'm not here to argue with you either...we all shoot things different ways. I always try & shoot with the lowest ISO possible & NEVER go above 200!!! 99% of my photos end up on pub & club walls throughout the world. I am luckier than most on here as aerial photography is not my main line of business, its just a fun sideline for me
I shoot 2 things to make my living...naked women & high speed military jets, great combination I know the former used to pay me £250,000+ per year & the later about £20,000.
I have international accreditation & have won numerous 1st places in competitions, but I no longer enter them as there is no point...as you said, those that are doing well get out there & get the shot.

Dave let me try posting firstly my 36" x 24" shots, these end up on 20" x 32" gallery wrapped chunky frames ( with fully adjustable corners & not the cheap fixed crap)
View attachment 3911View attachment 3912View attachment 3913View attachment 3914

The last shot above took first place & landed me a contract with Dartington crystal!!!!

Now lets try some aerial shots that I still have (I lost 7 years of photos 2 years ago when my harddrive crashed, lesson learnt...BACKUP!!!!)
View attachment 3915View attachment 3916View attachment 3917

I'm sure for those who us PS, you can view file info & see what settings I used, for those that dont I will gladly post the settings if needed!

Please, let's NOT turn this into a battle of "My way is the right way".

Ross

 

[MombasaFlash]

Personally, I prefer your photographic style Ross. I also appreciate your lack of arrogance. Never did trust a name-dropper.

 

[Macsgrafs]

Personally, I prefer your photographic style Ross. I also appreciate your lack of arrogance. Never did trust a name-dropper.

Thank you MF, its appreciated. I'm always happy to see others get great shots, makes all this buggering about worth while

Ross

 

[MombasaFlash]

On a more objective note, I too prefer to keep the ISO rating down and rarely exceed 200 ASA if possible because I prefer the more balanced colour rendition. Grain and contrast increase progressively with higher settings with sometimes rather harsh results. That said, it is only a preference when there is plenty of light.

 

[Macsgrafs]

Very true MF. The only time I go above 200ISO is shooting in a church, especially when the bride looks so good

Ross

 

[DennyR]

Personally, I prefer your photographic style Ross. I also appreciate your lack of arrogance. Never did trust a name-dropper.

This started out as a way to help those who need some help. If stating proven facts is arrogance then so be it - I never trust a wanna be.

 

[MombasaFlash]

This started out as a way to help those who need some help. If stating proven facts is arrogance then so be it - I never trust a wanna be.

I really would much prefer not to have this sort of exchange but what spoils the taste of your otherwise helpful posts, is your frequent penchant for adding some little derisory comment at the end that invariably smacks of superiority.

... Stacky Nice to hear from someone who knows what he is doing!

It is unnecessary and it is arrogant.



FYI 'wannabe' is all one word.

 

[Droider]

Aye Up Chaps.. PLEASE can we keep this civilised.. I have a GREAT deal of respect for all the Pro Photographers on here.. Everyone has their canvas and ways of painting it. Lets please just respect that.

Lets share and learn please.. plane and simples! (I cant do the Meerkats thing in text!)

Dave

 

[Stacky]

Sorry, I didnt intend to offend anyone in this.