W. J.;
OK, I'll take a shot at it. This is based on my experience, some
2nd-hand info, based on direct experiences of friends, as well as
third-hand from folks they asked.
I've been looking into photo'ing from a helicopter during my virgin trip
to Hawaii next month, so I've been asking a lot of questions.
"W. J. Liles" wrote:
>
> ClassicVW@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 8/15/99 4:03:29 AM EST, cmib@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> > > Top tip: if you fly with the doors open or off, attach your photographic
> > > equipment to you or Tootie Mae...
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > And don't forget to attach you and Tootie Mae to the plane!
>
> > And more importantly, does it have more Titanium in it than an OM-4Ti ?
> >
> > Wayne Harridge
>
> > Fascinating! Would it too much to ask if you can scan a photo or two of
> > the plane (with or w/o you/passenger). Best,
> >
> > /Acer Victoria
>
> Thanks to all for such wonderful suggestions, somehow I knew I could
> count on you. Ways to keep from falling out of the airplane certainly
> are practical.
Yeah, lotsa comedians, eh?
> However, I actually was sorta hopeing someone would have
> at least teeny bit of advice on what films to use, is infrared film
> helpful to show foliage differences,
Interesting question. I'll speak of both kinds, since you didn't
specify.
B&W IR film (Kodak HIE) will make leafy foliage stand out as it'll be
quite dense on the negative. Everyhing else will have pretty realistic
tonalities, although the sky will be darker than natural.
Ektachrome IR may be better though in that it shows vegetation as
varying shades of red, magenta and pink. You could probably identify
which color applies to which type of vegetation by photoing a known area
for a baseline.
> what lenses are best to use (the
> airplane does vibrate),
My sources tell me this is less of a problem in a plane as opposed to a
helicopter. But it should be the major concern. Getting sharp pictures
will depend to a great extent on shutter speed. Since you'll be hand
holding in a 'bouncy' environment, you'll want the **fastest** shutter
speed you can get. So this implies 2 things: fast film and fast
lenses. Now the film is a tradeoff. It depends on the detail you
desire. It's always wise for detail to use the slowest film possible
for the job. And that depends also on the lens. I would want to go up
with the fastest, sharpest lens I have in every category, and use it
wide open or 1 or 2 stops down (or, you might base the stop to use
partly on Gary's lens tests. So, 100/2 over 100/2.8 etc. If you're up
there with a 70-210/4.5-5.6 you may be disappointed in the results. A
135/2.8 would be much better.
For example, using the sunny F/16 rule, and 100 speed film: F/16 +
1/125th is one possible exposure. But if you open up to f/5.6, you've
got 1/1000 which would have a much better chance of a good shot. But
with that zoom you're now shooting wide open on the longer focal
lengths, so the resolution will suffer. But with the 135/2.8, you're in
the lens' sweet-spot area. I'm biasing toward longer focal lengths here
as I'm thinking that wide angles from a plane will include too much area
to see much detail like you want. But I could be wrong, so bringing a
35/2 or 50/1.8 might be wise.
time of day to show best detail, etc. I have
> some ideas but no experience.
If you just want identifying-type photos, I'd think noon would be best
when everything is evenly lit. This applies especially to the IR
films. Early and late when the sun is low may provide dramatic shadows,
but it doesn't seem it would help what you're trying to do.
I hope this is of some use.
George
>
I like this one :>)
> What's the difference between a pilot and a doctor? Pilots don't
> think
> they're doctors.
>
> W. J. (Jerry) Liles
> Terror of the skies!
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|