"Aviation Photo Thread" (Planes, Helos, Balloons, etc)...

I think rotor and prop blur is subjective, some like more, some like less, others don't care about it at all. Some strive for that perfect disk with a pin-sharp aircraft, others are content with enough blur to convey movement. I personally think blur of things moving quickly (wheels, props, rotors, background) are key to conveying the sense of motion and the image doesn't look "right" to me if everything is frozen. Exception being instances where you are trying to freeze a point in time (waterdrop's initial impact with a surface, for example).

I still have a lot of improvement to do with my aviation stuff. Also noticed images off my host are slightly soft compared to the originals on my computer.

Back in 2012, D700, 70-200 + 1.4TC, 340mm, cropped, at 1/125s...
original.jpg


Same show, same gear, 250mm, cropped, at 1/125s...
original.jpg
 
Irene McC said:
What a beautiful helicopter. Thank you for acknowledging the issue of blade blur. Too many photographers take helicopter and prop plane images at 1/2000th to get a sharp image (which is perfect for jets) not taking into account that we want to see the movement in the rotors in these types of aircraft so that they don't appear static in the air!
Click to expand...
Yeah, but with the fixed aperture not much I could do other than boost ISO. Here was the scenario:

I'm getting in my truck to leave work having just put the camera bag on the floor in the backseat. I hear the helicopter, but can't see it as it's approaching from the far side of our building. I hesitate, then figure what the heck! I jump out, grab the bag, pull out the camera with an 18-70 mounted, grab the 500/8 Reflex, remove the 18-70 and fumble around trying to line up the marks, get the lens mounted, turn the camera on, look at the sky just as the helicopter comes over the roof! I had a split second to set the shutter speed and poof! Gone behind the trees!

I still get geeked though every time I see the output of this lens. It shouldn't be that good for a reflex. Minolta nailed it with this one.
2SHOES said:
Finding the time to think about your settings to get that blade blur is a bit insane, I know from my experience photographing race cars, getting the car in focus, while the wheels are slightly blurred is key to a great photo, but catching that perfect blur in the rotors of a helicopter is so difficult. In my photos of the helicopter above, I used similar settings to what I would use for cars, and realized I had too much blur, but I still like the photos enough to share. It's a fine line, but I think somewhere around 1/500th of a second is about the right shutter speed for helicopters.
Click to expand...
1/500th is too fast if you want blade blur.

Here's a Chinook from an air show several years ago at 1/100.
48504247257_7576038ec1_o.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
B3_0009 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

And a Huey at 1/160.
51249228792_40010fb9f0_o.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
P1063080 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr
 
Brownie said:
Yeah, but with the fixed aperture not much I could do other than boost ISO. Here was the scenario:

I'm getting in my truck to leave work having just put the camera bag on the floor in the backseat. I hear the helicopter, but can't see it as it's approaching from the far side of our building. I hesitate, then figure what the heck! I jump out, grab the bag, pull out the camera with an 18-70 mounted, grab the 500/8 Reflex, remove the 18-70 and fumble around trying to line up the marks, get the lens mounted, turn the camera on, look at the sky just as the helicopter comes over the roof! I had a split second to set the shutter speed and poof! Gone behind the trees!

I still get geeked though every time I see the output of this lens. It shouldn't be that good for a reflex. Minolta nailed it with this one.

1/500th is too fast if you want blade blur.

Here's a Chinook from an air show several years ago at 1/100.
View attachment 375949B3_0009 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

And a Huey at 1/160.
View attachment 375950P1063080 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr
Click to expand...

It really depends on the speed of the rotors, I have some that are too blurry at 1/160th, and some that are not blurry enough at 1/1000th.
 
F-117 Nighthawk from the 2001 London (Ontario) Airshow. Fujifilm 35mm slide, scanned with Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED.
edit: added a couple "fly-in" day shots from the same Fujichrome roll.
2001-06_FU-R100.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
2001-07_FU-R100_16_.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
2001-06_FU-R100_06_.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
Good Morning,

One of my trips to the Reno (NV) air races; always a fun time for young and old alike...:drinks:

Regards,

Edd

Twins.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
RR.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
StangFix1.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
JB-1.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Kitty1.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
T6-1.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Jets.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Bi-1.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Corsair.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
TC1.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
F-22-1.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Legacy1a.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
BreakLR.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
DeeJayK said:
Any idea what that means? Does it indicate you removed 4% of the original? Or that the crop contains only 4% of the original image? Or something else?

- K
Click to expand...
I agree, Keith. I've always been either confused or bemused by the differential use of this term.

I'm never quite sure what it means either.

I think I would prefer something like "This is 25% of the original image." Or "1/25th", or something. I think that I would find that less confusing than the current plethora of usages.

Or even just pixel dimensions - e.g. this is a 400x250 pixel crop from a 5,000x3,600 pixel image.
 
Last edited:
DeeJayK said:
Any idea what that means? Does it indicate you removed 4% of the original? Or that the crop contains only 4% of the original image? Or something else?
Click to expand...

John King said:
I think I would prefer something like "This is 25% of the original image." Or "1/25th", or something. I think that I would find that less confusing than the current plethora of usages.

Or even just pixel dimensions - e.g. this is a 400x250 pixel crop from a 5,000x3,600 pixel image.
Click to expand...

I take it as 100% being the full size that the existing image can be enlarged to from the available data.
So if it's at 96% it's virtually as big as it can get without running into digital distortion / noise etc problems
(ie I cropped a LOT away from the captured image data)

This is how the original SOOC jpg looks:

jpg.JPG
 

Similar threads

agentlossing
Philosophy Album Organization (Flickr, etc.)
Replies
3
Views
205
John King
John King
MoonMind
  • Sticky
Single In Single in April (SiA) 2024 - discussion thread
2 3
Replies
57
Views
1K
drd1135
drd1135
rayvonn
    • Like
    • Cool
    • Winner
Sharpness isn't Everything (Open Thread)
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
5K
rloewy
R
Back
Top