Guys, thanks for the comments, it all helps improve the overall product!
Gunter
If I may offer a few words of wisdom in this regard. Successful commercial aerial photography is all about capturing the image in a better way than your competitors do. Timing is of the essence because whether you are shooting in a studio or outside, the light is the critical factor. Half an hour can make a lot of difference sometimes. Shooting with flat lighting may show some extra detail in the shadows but your customer will always want to see good color on a bright sunny day. You may need to shoot one elevation in the morning and another in the afternoon. So the sun position is the key factor. Partial cloud cover on part of the image is also a no no. Planning is therefore a very important part because you don't want to be shooting into the shadows. As Mobasaflash said, wide angle distortions don't cut the mustard. I shoot with a 50 mm lens in portrait and then stitch the panos. It is a technique that is widely used in architectural photography.
Another technique to create a low light highly manipulated effect, showing the lights on inside the house with that warm glow. This is done about an hour before dusk and then darkened slightly. This is an art form in itself and one that needs to be developed if you want award winning pictures. Most of this stuff can be done in Photoshop.
When you consider that most of the modern camera ISO tests start at 500 ASA and then go up to 25,000 ASA then you can see that low iso settings of say 100 are not going to give you any benefit, The opposite is true in fact. because what you need is the optimized performance from the lens which will be somewhere around F8.
A setting of 100 ASA or less is what we use for differential focussing effects in cinematography. Often used with a Neutral Density filter to cut down the available light. This creates a very narrow depth of field which is NOT what we want in AP.
Hope this info can be of benefit as you develop your business. There is no novelty factor these days, only the best can survive.
Denny, I totally understand what you are saying. There are 2 main problems though.
1. I don't come from a photographic background. Probably my biggest downfall. I do aerial photography because I enjoy the effect of being able to get a camera in the air and taking photos that not many others can. I haven't had any training and don't understand all of the ISO and other terms...yes, I should learn a bit! I have gathered a bit of experience from taking photos, panoramas etc and reading a bit on the internet, but I am still at the basic/intermediate level. Guys like you can apply all of your experience and take stunning photos, apply the correct effects and use the perfect settings...I just set it to auto and snap away
2. I am trying to corner a section of the estate agency market where "stunning" shots aren't required. Most of the agencies like Knight Frank and others are top end agencies, but they still seem to send anyone out with a point and shoot camera, and then put those images in their website. Most of the images I have seen could do with being improved. I don't know why they don't employ a professional photographer to photograph all of their properties, and then display them on their website in a way that makes you say "wow" ie in better quality and larger format.
So what I am trying to say is, for the money I am charging, I can't justify visiting a property 2 or 3 times in a day to get that perfect shot, or visiting every day for a week to get the perfect sunrise or sunset shot. I need to visit once when the weather is good, take the pictures and then get my butt back home to process and email the images. Otherwise I would be charging so much it would scare them away. (They are already reluctant to pay £100 or £200 for a 2 hour shoot!)
Denny is right. The novelty of having an image shot from the air wears off frighteningly quickly - if it hasn't largely done so already. After that the attention shifts back to the basic artistry of the photography. Light and composition. Half an hour can make the difference between 'OK' and 'Wow' but, yes, you have to balance shadow detail with contrast.
Gunter, I totally agree with your feeling that an aerial should show the surroundings. It is pretty much the whole raison d'être. But this facility still has to be used selectively. The shots you took of Fountain Court, Wellington Park, Field of Dreams etc. are taken at an appropriate altitude and show the extensive grounds or surroundings much as the eye wishes to see. In contrast, Pool Cottage seems way to close from that angle and the result feels 'uncomfortable'.
MombasaFlash, thank you for the comments...and thanks for taking a look at my website. Yes, Pool Cottage was a difficult one, but the reason is because there is a row of trees right behind the cottage. In order to get the entire house and property in, I had to stand on the other side of the trees and get to about 40m altitude to actually see everything. A lower altitude wasn't possible. (PS: Did you look at the front page image slider, or the the blog? There are a few more pics on my blog)
I have a job this weekend I need to do as a demonstration. I will post details in another post soon and see what you guys think is the best position and altitude!
Cheers,
Gunter.