what is the 'magic bullet' for shooting air shows?

[taner]

Hi there. <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=525466">I had my

first crack at this thing at the Toronto International Air Show on

Saturday</a>, and was pleasantly surprised by the results from a

technical point of view (rather than artistic one), using strictly

amateur gear: XT350D and a 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM.

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3704213-lg.jpg"></p>

<p>

I was able handle focusing (Using AI servo and only the center sensor,

I got no more than a dozen out of focus shots out of hundreds), and

ISO 400-800 allowed me to use the consumer zoom at f/10-11, where it

becomes acceptable (rather than sharp...). Despite the small apertures

I shot at, I was able get shutter speeds of 1/800 and faster, more

like 1/1500-1/2000 most of the time. Actually, a little too fast for

the propeller shots...

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3703819-lg.jpg"></p>

I wanted to find out what lenses experinced photographers use to shoot

these events, and more about the selection of sensors: do you use all

all of them, or just the center one like I did, and track the planes

yourself?

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3704221-lg.jpg"></p>

I think I spotted a couple of EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS lenses around

that day, and having myself used the lower end of my zoom from time to

time (160-480mm perspective on a XT/350D), it makes sense to me to use

a long IS zoom, rather than long and fast(er) prime with or without IS.

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3703838-lg.jpg"></p>

Thanks for any comments/suggestions.

<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3703812-lg.jpg">

[henrik.ploug]

I have never photographed air shows and I'm not a pro, but I think that your pictures turned out very well both from a technical and from an artistical point of view . So why don't you just continue to use your 350D and your 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM?

[SCL]

Have never done a general public airshow, but spent 3 yrs aboard aircraft carriers and did a lot of photo work (not as a pro, however). Your results are very good. You might find you want to specialize in a particular subset of airshow photography, so before putting too much money into lenses think this through. For aerobatics, a long fl lens in a gimble mount could help you trap things clearly you couldn't do by hand, or even with a ballhead. OTOH you might like photographing the prep work of the crews rather than the actual flying. Good luck in your endeavors & share more of your work with us.

[byronlawrence]

maybe this is a redundant point, but to slow down the shutter speed, just decrease the ISO a bit.

[taner]

Henrik, thanks indeed. I am trying to find out more about the gear more experienced shooters use because of two reasons: first, this is an important annual event in Toronto, so I could do this at least for 3 days every year, and second, I think I would be able rent pretty much all Canon lenses for a day here in Toronto, so why not do it just right on that one day? Long and fast L glass is absolutely out of the question for purchasing...

 

Stephen, thank you very much. I appreciate your suggestion for 'specialization'. Lack of specialization is smth. I have had trouble with all my life (a three second look at my portfolio might reveal that...) Given my amateur interest in this type of photography, I could either go for 'close-ups' on individual planes (much more demanding interms of both technique and gear I think), or more 'choreography'/group formation shots (way easier for an amateur).

 

Les, thank you very much for your suggestions; I was lucky enough to shoot through some amount of cloud formations that day, and for free... I found that the problem was the time of the day and the position of the sun vis-a-vis the show location: I was practically shooting toward the sun half of the time from 1pm to 5pm (still summer) - not the most flattering light!

 

Thanks Byron; I had read here on photo.net that I had to go with slower shutter speed to get the propellers right, but the speed of a hornet (f-18) that went first intimidated me, so I went with really fast shutter speeds for almost every plane - I could have easily (O.K., not so easily on the XT/350D) gone for ISO 200 or even 100 on those shots, and still could have kept shooting at f/11 (lens limitations).

[charles_hansen2]

Start giving some lessons...you don't need any suggestions. Your pictures are great.

[dc, portsmouth, uk]

Great images IMHO....

 

Only minor 'bone' (as already mentioned) is to experiment with the shutter speeds for prop. movement... Otherwise, it seems to me you are doing very well! (and with a good 'hit' rate too, by the sounds of it!)

[taner]

Charles, David; thank you very much for the encouragement.

[rob_murray]

Your doing well with what you have. If you can rent the 400 F5.6 or

300 F4 and 1.4x that would be good. Longer than that will require a

tripod.

[albert lui]

A Taner - Thanks for sharing these cool shots. Very nice compositions. In the days of film, professional photographer Katsuhiko Tokunaga used 300 and 400 mm prime lenses for his ground-to-air shots of military jets. You've got that (equivalent) range covered with your equipment.

[erin.e]

You have a "good eye" and timing.Fast telephoto lenses help, mainly for quicker AF response. Also sunlight, side lit, aircraft pics of flying planes look very flat on overcast days. I general compensate +1 stop to get shadow detail. your success rate will drop if you use a slower shutterspeed to blur the props on airscrew diven craft, but you will get much more dramatic images. I use a 70-200 2.8 and sometimes a 1.4 convertor. As suggested above, dropping the ASA/ISO rating is a good way to get slower shutter speeds, a polariser also knocks a couple of stops off,<div></div>

[Ian Taylor]

The airshow this year was a bit of a bust. Who wants to see a Hercules fly past 15 times?

 

Saturday would have been the best day to shoot, due to the great cloud backdrops. Given the circumstances and gear, I reckon you got some nice results.

[henrik.ploug]

Moving propellers can be done in Photoshop with motion blur. It's cheating, but who cares?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I haven't had a chance to look through my air show pictures from Monday yet (other than to throw out the ones which are blatantly blurry) - too busy working, and also going through pictures from the cottage earlier on the weekend.</p>

 

<p>This was my first air show with my 20D, and second with my 300/4L IS, and first (I think) with the 1.4x TC. Many years ago, I'd shot with the 100-300 USM and found the best way was to focus on infinity and leave the lens at MF; air shows pretty much happen at infinity. I tried that with the 300/4, but the focus ring is so big that I always end up accidentally changing the focus. I tried AF with only the central AF point selected, but I missed a few shots that way because it's hard to keep an approaching plane right on that one sensor, and once the lens hunts to its close focusing limit, even with the limiter set to 3m rather than 1.5m, it's game over for that shot.</p>

 

<p>What I ended up doing was setting the 20D to select an AF point automatically. They're close enough together, and each one is large enough (three times the size indicated in the viewfinder, according to Chuck Westfall), that one of them will almost always acquire the plane.</p>

 

<p>I had IS on, mode 2. For jets, I shot in Av at one stop down from wide open (f/5.6 for the 300 on its own, which is probably unnecessary since it's quite sharp wide open; f/8 with the 1.4x) and picked an ISO which gave me high enough shutter speeds; that was usually 200 without the TC, 400 with. For props, I shot in Tv and chimped a bit to try to find a shutter speed slow enough to show some prop blur but high enough to avoid handheld shake; generally, I used the same ISOs here. I have safety shift on so that if my chosen aperture or shutter speed makes a correct exposure impossible, the camera will automatically adjust it for me.</p>

 

<p>One thing that's nice with digital is not having to guess how to meter. I took a test shot with evaluative metering and no compensation, adjusted compensation, and repeated the test until I got reasonable detail in the planes. I believe that worked out to be +1.</p>

[taner]

Thank you all very much for your encouragement and suggestions. Cheers.

[henrik.ploug]

To Les Sarile:

 

Every time you use Photoshop to remove noise from a picture, sharpen it, darken the edges or highlight the subject, you are cheating. So where do you draw the line?

[henrik.ploug]

Les Sarile,

 

I agree, it's a personal decision. Take a look at this guys portfolio. All his images are highly manipulated in Photoshop, but he is one of my favorite photographers on photo.net:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=487369

[a long time ago]

I think the line is are you a photographer or a graphic artist.....Is it the hunt or the kill that you are after..you are right it makes no difference but some of us just like to "do it" outdoors with the whole world watching not hunkered over a keyboard in the basement. I'm sure I've offended a bunch of photoshoppers.. and I don't mean to..most of us "work" the files a little. And I envy the skills of the gentlemen mentioned above.... just try not to belittle us shooters for trying to do it in the field.<div></div>

[henrik.ploug]

kevin wassell,

 

I'm not trying to belittle shooters, who are trying to do it in the field. I try to do it in the field myself. But sometimes the result doesn't live up to my expectations, and then I will try to get it right in Photoshop.

 

But I feel, that Les Sarile is trying to belittle me for cheating in Photoshop. If I get you right (Les Sarile), you think, that I'm cheating myself, because I rely on Photoshop to correct the images, that didn't turn out the way I wanted them to.

 

My point is: We all do. Where we draw the line is a personal decision. Some people will not clone out disturbing wires for example. They feel that it would be wrong. Other people won't blur the background, because they feel, that's not right. Pavel Kaplun will do anything to get his pictures look right. And even though he's a graphic artist, he is also an excellent photographer, and some of his pictures could have been done without Photoshop - but they probably haven't.

 

So just because some people have different standards than you, don't give you the right to ridicule them.

[henrik.ploug]

I don't see what my age has to do with anything. I'm old enough to know, that when you participate in a discussion, it's a good idea to use arguments instead of personal comments against the opponent.

 

As for the article there is no October 2005 edition of Outdoor Photographer (yet) - at least not on the homepage. But perhaps you could reveal some of the arguments in the article?

[henrik.ploug]

Let's just end the discussion here. We're getting nowhere.