# Blue Angels, and airshow photo help.



## PropilotBW (Nov 2, 2015)

Just a couple from the show this past weekend.  The lighting wasn't optimal.  It was overcast most of the day, and when the sun actually did come out, it was on the opposing side of the spectators, so most of the images were backlit.  It was disappointing results. 
Comment or Critique if you'd like.


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 2, 2015)




----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 3, 2015)

Bump.  

I'm just trying to figure out why the shoot didn't turn out as I hoped.  It could be the equipment tracking capability.  Most likely the shooter.  
The above photos could be potential keepers, but the disappointment is that I have several hundred photos like the one below.  (cropped only)  Underexposed aircraft and poor panning.  

Camera was set to Center or Spot metering for most of the shooting.  Most turned out very dark still.  
I attempted to shoot the prop planes in Shutter Priority at 1/125-1/200.  Auto ISO
Jets were shot at 1/1600, Auto ISO


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 3, 2015)

The C131 Hercules propeller blades ?  did you pan that and how did the lines things appear .. just from the air ?


----------



## Braineack (Nov 3, 2015)

whatever he did it's awesome.


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 3, 2015)

Braineack said:


> whatever he did it's awesome.



Thank you very much, I appreciate that.   It's PFM.


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 3, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> The C131 Hercules propeller blades ?  did you pan that and how did the lines things appear .. just from the air ?





Braineack said:


> whatever he did it's awesome.



It's not really photographic skill.  I did pan with the shot, but the vortices were produced by lift from the propellers, same way a wing produces vortices at high angles of attack.  It was a very high humidity day, as seen on the Blue Angels as well.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 3, 2015)

PropilotBW said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > The C131 Hercules propeller blades ?  did you pan that and how did the lines things appear .. just from the air ?
> ...


Either way, it's totally cool.
Wished you had gotten the C131 coming towards you like that though.


----------



## charchri4 (Nov 3, 2015)

> Thank you very much, I appreciate that.   It's PFM.



What's a PFM?


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 3, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> PropilotBW said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



Me too!    
Nothing but blur coming at me all day.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 3, 2015)

PropilotBW said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > PropilotBW said:
> ...


You have to get that shutter speed way up
1/160 is good for portraiture but not an airplane flying fast in the air.

f/22?
= = = = =
Camera: Olympus E-M5MarkII
Lens: OLYMPUS M.75-300mm F4.8-6.7 II
Shot at 117 mm
Exposure: Manual exposure, Shutter priority AE, 1/160 sec, f/22, ISO 125, Compensation: -0.3
= = = = =

for fast flying jets I'm at 1/1000 or higher
for "fast" airplanes 1/640 more or less dependent .. have to make sure body is not blurry but slow enough to get propeller blur.


your 1st photo --
Auto exposure, Shutter priority AE, 1/1,600 sec, f/6.3, ISO 250


----------



## Mr.Photo (Nov 3, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> You have to get that shutter speed way up
> 1/160 is good for portraiture but not an airplane flying fast in the air.
> 
> f/22?
> ...



Not entirely true.  When I shoot prop planes I keep my shutter at all times at 1/125 to 1/250 or so.  Any faster than that and the prop is all but frozen with only a slight indication of blur.  The trick is to try and actually create a blurred disk of the prop.  The F22 is likely due to the OP shooting in Shutter Priority mode which means the aperture will adjust automatically to get proper exposure.  A Neutral Density filter would have helped with that.

This shot was taken at 1/160 of a second.  The plane was closing on me at over 180 MPH.  I used the slow shutter speed to try and create a prop disk and panned with the aircraft to keep it as sharp as I could because of the slow shutter speed.


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 3, 2015)

Mr.Photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > You have to get that shutter speed way up
> ...



What a beautiful Pitts!  Nice shot.  Do you use Matrix metering or spot metering for your airplane shots?  

That's correct, I was using Shutter priority, and didn't really want it to be f/22, that's just what happened.  That's a great recommendation for a ND filter.  What density of filter do you usually use?  2-3 stops?


----------



## Mr.Photo (Nov 3, 2015)

PropilotBW said:


> What a beautiful Pitts!  Nice shot.  Do you use Matrix metering or spot metering for your airplane shots?
> 
> That's correct, I was using Shutter priority, and didn't really want it to be f/22, that's just what happened.  That's a great recommendation for a ND filter.  What density of filter do you usually use?  2-3 stops?



Thanks, that Pitts is a beautifully restored airplane that is housed at a little private airstrip called Sugarbush airport.  This was actually shot during practice before a little airshow that they put on every couple of years.  The plane was doing a low altitude high speed pass to drop it's tow line after towing up a glider with the airport owner in it.

My ND filter is a 0.6 which equates to about a 2 stop reduction in light.  I haven't had much opportunity to try mine as of yet, but hope to soon.  I would think though that 2 stops should be sufficient (especially on a cloudy day such as what you experienced).  On a bright sunny day it's possible that a 3-4 stop filter might be needed, but I'm not entirely sure on that.  I need to take my filter out to the local airport on a sunny day to see what kind of results I get.

If you're interested, here's a couple of links to more photo's from the airshow mentioned above as well as some to an airshow I attended earlier this year.

Sugarbush Airshow 2013

Great New England Airshow 2015


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 4, 2015)

Mr.Photo said:


> PropilotBW said:
> 
> 
> > What a beautiful Pitts!  Nice shot.  Do you use Matrix metering or spot metering for your airplane shots?
> ...



Nice albums!  There are some really good pics and nice vibrant colors in that Sugarbush Airshow album!   
What type of editing did you do to those photos, if any?


----------



## Braineack (Nov 4, 2015)

The problem I see with using that slow a shutter speed is that most of the time you're giving up having a sharp image to have blurred blades (as seen in the above albums) ...

I had one chance to get this shot.  I went with getting the shot over blurred blades:




Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress &quot;Aluminum Overcast&quot; by The Braineack, on Flickr


ouch, i just cut my finger on how sharp that image is...


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 4, 2015)

Braineack said:


> The problem I see with using that slow a shutter speed is that most of the time you're giving up having a sharp image to have blurred blades (as seen in the above albums) ...
> 
> I had one chance to get this shot.  I went with getting the shot over blurred blades:
> 
> ...





That's an awesome shot!  Your props still have a slight bit of motion blur.  Minus 2 points for sharpness!  

That was exactly my problem.  Inexperience/first try.   I over-read the blogs and website suggestions for shooting airshows.  I was really trying to get the hang of panning at 1/125th of a second.  
 I was lost for what settings to use for my equipment and lighting conditions.
I'd say it's a nice challenge to get back out there and get a do-over.      ....someday.


----------



## Mr.Photo (Nov 4, 2015)

PropilotBW said:


> Nice albums!  There are some really good pics and nice vibrant colors in that Sugarbush Airshow album!
> What type of editing did you do to those photos, if any?



Not really much in the way of processing.  It just so happened that it was perfect conditions for shooting.  It was a late mid summer day with the sun at my back over my right shoulder.



Braineack said:


> The problem I see with using that slow a shutter speed is that most of the time you're giving up having a sharp image to have blurred blades (as seen in the above albums) ...
> 
> I had one chance to get this shot.  I went with getting the shot over blurred blades:
> 
> ...



I agree that this is a very sharp image, but it looks as if the airplane is merely gliding with the engines off.  As an aviation enthusiast I want the sense of motion of the airplane.  This is where the prop blur is critical as well as having the airplane sharp.  This is where practice makes perfect.  1/125 to 1/250 is plenty adequate for getting a sharp photo with practice.  While I'm still no pro at panning, I take every opportunity to practice and sharpen my skills that I can.  I go to the dog park occasionally and practice panning on the dogs running.  As a motorcyclist I go to a popular road in the area and photograph the fast riders going through the corners.  I've even stood out near the highway and photographed cars as they go by.

The trick is learning how to adjust to various distances and closing speeds.  The closer the aircraft is to you (or the tighter you're zoomed in) makes tracking the target much more difficult, but if you can master this than everything else gets much easier.  Occasionally I get in to a really tight spot and if I feel that there's a risk I might get a blurry shot I will ditch getting a nice blurred prop disk and push the shutter speed slightly to no more than 1/320 as I know I'm much more consistent at that speed.  This will still produce a decent prop blur, any faster than that will start to create static prop blades which in my opinion kills the shot.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 4, 2015)

correct on all points.


----------



## charchri4 (Nov 4, 2015)

Both shots are beautiful but I was just wondering if there is perhaps a middle ground between the B17s props stuck and the Pitts prop nearly invisible?  Something like the Mustang on OPs post?

BTW I hear you on the only 1 chance to get the shot. On the other hand you can always say the shot was planned that way for artistic reasons   LOL!


----------



## Mr.Photo (Nov 4, 2015)

charchri4 said:


> Both shots are beautiful but I was just wondering if there is perhaps a middle ground between the B17s props stuck and the Pitts prop nearly invisible?  Something like the Mustang on OPs post?
> 
> BTW I hear you on the only 1 chance to get the shot. On the other hand you can always say the shot was planned that way for artistic reasons   LOL!



The invisible disk is partly due to the colors used on the prop blades, and the way the light hits them as well as the background.  With a nice bright sky as the background the prop disk will show much better than it would with the darker background like I had in the Pitts shot.


----------



## PropilotBW (Nov 5, 2015)

charchri4 said:


> Both shots are beautiful but I was just wondering if there is perhaps a middle ground between the B17s props stuck and the Pitts prop nearly invisible?  Something like the Mustang on OPs post?
> 
> BTW I hear you on the only 1 chance to get the shot. On the other hand you can always say the shot was planned that way for artistic reasons   LOL!


 Man, that's a SWEET bumper!!!  lol


----------



## charchri4 (Nov 5, 2015)

LOL yeah missed it by that [-----------------------] much!


----------

