Aviation photography

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Hello everyone,
I use a Nikkon D7500 with a Tamron 150-600mm lens. I use also a Canon 600D with a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens.
Airplanes are my passion, and mainly I shoot airplanes at 30.000 ft and higher.
most of the time I cant get a crisp clear photo. Sun reflecting, heat waves, or no or few contrast plane/sky.
So my question is : any tips and tricks ?
PS I used a polarisation filter as well with some good results, but only when the sun is 90 degrees to my lens.
Since I am disabled, my terrain is only my little Backyard.
Tx
Sorry for my spelling, I am Dutch speaking
 
I tend to agree w with Warren - early in the day is probably best. However, assuming you're at ground level and shooting to 30,000 feet, you're still going through 5.6 miles of air - it's tough...
 
I tend to agree w with Warren - early in the day is probably best. However, assuming you're at ground level and shooting to 30,000 feet, you're still going through 5.6 miles of air - it's tough...
Thanks Steve. Yes it is tough, but sometimes I can get some nice shots
E70B608A-4DD3-477F-9DB6-818CDD798347.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
@Michel Declerck Don't mind getting a few shots of planes myself and much easier or at least more predictable than birds. Thought I would share a couple of mine with you.


Avalon_Air_Show_0025.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I have never thought of taking high altitude shots. I also use use Flightradar24 so you have given me another way of looking at things. I should imagine for high altitude shooting you would be using a tripod. If so, do you use a gimbal? Any tips and tricks you can share would be appreciated.

Thank you very much.
 
You must be living in a dry climate area. Shooting through 6 miles of air can't be easy or practical in many areas (like Seattle). I'm fortunate to have one of the main approach routes to SeaTac Int'l Airport directly over my backyard. This 747 was probably at 2,000'.
747-01.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
747-01.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I have never thought of taking high altitude shots. I also use use Flightradar24 so you have given me another way of looking at things. I should imagine for high altitude shooting you would be using a tripod. If so, do you use a gimbal? Any tips and tricks you can share would be appreciated.

Thank you very much.
Hi, no never used a tripod for high altitudes. Always ISO 100, and shutter speed preference. Try to shoot in blue hour or golden hour. Never while the sun is high. Try, try and try again to find the best settings for your gear and location. Good luck.
 
@Michel Declerck I would urge you to shoot in raw. I just tried an experiment with your picture and ran it through Topaz Gigapixel. The result posted here. Bear in mind that this improvement is on a copy of your jpeg, imagine the results you could draw out of that image from an original raw with maximum data retained. Take a look at Steve's post, a video on raw vs jpeg, in this thread. https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/why-bother-with-raw.388/#post-2612 I love his comparison of raw/jpeg to a lego set. Awesome video @Steve

I used to believe in "straight from the camera is best", but that largely came from the need to provide my customers with images almost immediately and in a few cases, immediately. I can tell you, I am so glad I changed my attitude and took the time to learn a little bit about post processing. It totally changed my way of looking at images and taught me the reason why camera manufacturers developed raw. The reality is that post processing is the same as a darkroom and remember the words of Ansel Adams.
'50% of the Creative Process Occurred in the Dark Room'
 
@Michel Declerck I would urge you to shoot in raw. I just tried an experiment with your picture and ran it through Topaz Gigapixel. The result posted here. Bear in mind that this improvement is on a copy of your jpeg, imagine the results you could draw out of that image from an original raw with maximum data retained. Take a look at Steve's post, a video on raw vs jpeg, in this thread. https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/why-bother-with-raw.388/#post-2612 I love his comparison of raw/jpeg to a lego set. Awesome video @Steve

I used to believe in "straight from the camera is best", but that largely came from the need to provide my customers with images almost immediately and in a few cases, immediately. I can tell you, I am so glad I changed my attitude and took the time to learn a little bit about post processing. It totally changed my way of looking at images and taught me the reason why camera manufacturers developed raw. The reality is that post processing is the same as a darkroom and remember the words of Ansel Adams.
'50% of the Creative Process Occurred in the Dark Room'
Thanks for your reply, I will consider RAW and post processing. I take a look at Steves post in this matter.
 
Back
Top