Aerial Photography - Technical Question

[mcochran]

I've been involved with various types of photography for about the past 10 years, and I would like to try my hand at some aerial photography. What are the rules of thumb when it comes to altitudes, airspeeds, best times of day, etc?

I would guess a reasonably slow airspeed would be best, but what altitudes are ideal? I've got a 20mm, a 75-135mm, and a 200mm lens with a 2X extender. I would also assume that early morning and late evening would be the best times to shoot so as to make use of the soft, even light (i.e. no harsh shadows) present at those times of day.

One legal question - can a commercial certificated pilot (i.e. me) take off, shoot some pictures, land, and then sell those pictures for a profit w/out breaking any FAR's? I've done a search and haven't found anything conclusive on the subject. I figured I might want to make use of my AOPA dues and bounce the question off them too.

Thanks in advance.

 

[avbug]

Mcochran,

What I know about photography would fit on the head of a pin. A really small one. I've done some callendar work and even took some folks scouting for an imax movie location in a remote area once...and once had a picture I took from the air published in my high school year book. My idea of master photography is one of those little plastic and cardboard disposable jobs from walmart.

What I can tell you is that selling your pictures is legal, and no, you're not breaking any regulation by taking the pictures from the air and making a profit from them. I think you might have more success doing real estate shots than scenic pictures, but that's my opinion. I know of a helicopter company, Boatpix, that thrives from doing aerial shots of folks watercraft from the air, using R-22's. I saw one in Marsh Harbor a few days ago.

What you might be violating are the rules of common sense and safety if you do it alone. Good photography requires concentration, and when you're flying the airplane, your main concentration should be on flying the airplane. If you plan on taking pictures from the air, I'll strongly urge you to consider doing so with someone else flying the airplane while you devote yourself to getting a good shot. Aside from the fact that you're not looking for other airplanes and traffic you're also not paying attention to the airplane when you're setting up and taking a camera shot. Folks have flown into the ground doing that very thing...you might not think it could happen to you, but then...neither did they.

Get a partner and a good platform, and there's no reason you couldn't make a go of it.

 

[uwochris]

I am currently doing aerial photography in a 152 up in Canada.

I can't comment on the type of equipment we use, as it is confidential. But, if you want to do aerial photography, it is good to use an SLR camera. Also, it is wise to set a high shutter speed (we try to shoot at 1/2000, but we may have to change the speed depending on the conditions and lighting). By the sounds of it, your camera seems to be pretty good. The type of photography you do will dictate the lens you use. I have used a 400mm lens before while shooting extreme close-ups for a job that required me to shoot apartment windows over downtown Toronto. Trust me though- holding onto a long lens gets very tiresome after a while and you will develop pretty nasty cramps in your hands.

In terms of aircraft configuration... I usually operate between 60-80 knots. If you go too fast, the picture may be blurred and it can be difficult to compose the picture. If you go too slow, the aircraft feels mushy and it is too difficult to focus your attention on the photograph. I think 70 knots is a good speed overall. I prefer not to use flaps either, especially when it is gusty (i.e. I used to use 20 degrees of flaps and would have problems in windy condition of getting close to Vf speeds)

For the time of day... For the photography we do, having long shadows is not acceptable, so the best time for us is in the afternoon. If you want softer lighting or if you want some dramatic shadows, then shoot in the mid-morning or late-afternoon. The problem with shooting in relatively low-lighting conditions (i.e. early morning, late afternoon, overcast skies) is that you may need to set a slower shutter speed.

I hope this helps.

 

[avbug]

Out of curiosity, Chris, how detailed can you get the shots of those windows, and what's inside? Do you use separate photographer and pilots?

 

[Sticky]

Are you simply looking into small format cameras? Who are you looking to sell your products to? I've flown aerial "survey" aircraft for almost 3 years and have operated most photo and laser equipment. The most advanced equipment can be a bit pricey (about $500,000-$1,500,000), but it can revenue $20K-$30K an hour. It seems to me that the most money is in topography, but a 35mm can't do the job. To sell photography at a high premium, the camera must be calibrated by the USGS with a 9" x 9" film negative and have a means of pinpoint accuracy.

Feel free to PM me for any specific questions.

Mike

 

[uwochris]

Out of curiosity, Chris, how detailed can you get the shots of those windows, and what's inside? Do you use separate photographer and pilots?

On that specific flight, the details were pretty good. I was 1000 ft AGL and I got as close to the appartments as possible without invading my "comfort zone." With a 400mm lens, if you zoom-in as much as possible, the frame was filled with the windows and balconies of the appartments. Now it was not detailed enough so as to be able to see what's inside. The customer was a window-manufacturing company, and they just wanted some shots of their products to put on their website. I don't remember the name of the company, so I can't "show-off" my work.

We operate single pilot where I am responsible for both photographer and pilot-related duties. This took time for me to adjust in the beginning, but I am used to it by now. We normally work between 500-1000 ft AGL as well, depending on the area we shoot.

 

[Illini Pilot]

i remember reading a story in AOPA about "unusual" flying jobs, and one was a guy who started out single pilot, renting a plane and doing occasional jobs for people. his business has grown so much that he's bought an arrow (seems like a low wing wouldn't be good for photography, but thats me), and special mount and a much better camera, and is doing very well.

i'll try to dig it up on aopa

 

[GravityHater]

is that a pt135 ops? or is it, only if you take a cameraman aboard to let HIM take pictures?

(IE the aircraft must comply with all the 135 regulations for photo work)?

 

[navigator72]

I know, I know

I have been trying to do some aerial photography on the side for some extra income. While I will never make a Million bucks doing this it keeps me in beer money. I currently use a digital SLR. It allows me to see the work while flying and get the images to the client much quicker than regular photography. I have found that realtors are looking for images to use online or print and they don't need large photos. 8x10 is really that largest anyone has ever asked for.

I saw the BoatPix.com chopper last summer and I know they took a picture of the boat but I can't find it without having to pay for it first. They ought to work on that problem so I can see the photo before I buy.

 

[E46_guy]

If I recall, the article in AOPA was about a guy who operated AIRshot Aerial Photogtaphy based in Montgomery, AL. http://www.airshot.com/

You might shoot them an email and see if they'll give you any tips.

I've taken some from hanging out the window in a 172 with a standard SLR, nothing fancy, type camera. Just make sure the camera strap is firmly attached to you or something inside the plane (got a little too close to "bombs away" a couple of times).

TB

 

[navigator72]

Hee hee hee

I was flying with a photographer a few years back and he was holding camera out the window and accidently hit the lens release button a lost his $800 lens out the window and into the ocean.

 

[propsarebest]

I got this bitchin little bracket that I made just for shooting out of the windoows of a cessna. Open the window and it clips onto the window sill. I have a ball head on it and it works pretty good. only problem tho is vibration. If you use a slow shutter speed and a long focal legnth, the vibrations come thru onto the film. I have found that a 300MM lens works just great for lots of pics.

 

[Vector4fun]

Hey, I've got some questions of my own. Understand that my knowledge of photography is much less than Avbug's pinhead folks.

(That was a joke 'bug)

I've worked a lot of photo flights, and my only problem is that lots of times these guys want to be right at a particular altitude, and the altitude will change for each location. Site #1 is 1900'. Site #2 is 2300'. Site #3 at 1700'. etc.

Well look, 10 miles east or west of the field, I couldn't care less, don't hit the towers, watch out for the banner tow. But then they want to do this right on the finals, or right off the departure ends. (apparently commercial property near airports is a VERY popular subject). Now, we can't adjust the glideslope up/down to miss your mission, there's this little thing about stabilized approaches and such, and departure come off climbing to 4000'.

So my question is; What is the problem doing the whole mission at 4500' and just doing some darkroom or computer magic to enlarge the section you want? Just don't understand the problems I suppose.

Personally, I think you guys are all nuts. Group together, buy a Twin Commander, Photograph the whole **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** town four times a year from 10,000', spend the rest of the year in the darkroom drinking some beer and stichin' some negatives together, charge the client like you flew two hours. What's the problem???

 

[A Squared]

Hey, I've got some questions of my own. Understand that my knowledge of photography is much less than Avbug's pinhead folks.

(That was a joke 'bug)

I've worked a lot of photo flights, and my only problem is that lots of times these guys want to be right at a particular altitude, and the altitude will change for each location. Site #1 is 1900'. Site #2 is 2300'. Site #3 at 1700'. etc.

Well look, 10 miles east or west of the field, I couldn't care less, don't hit the towers, watch out for the banner tow. But then they want to do this right on the finals, or right off the departure ends. (apparently commercial property near airports is a VERY popular subject). Now, we can't adjust the glideslope up/down to miss your mission, there's this little thing about stabilized approaches and such, and departure come off climbing to 4000'.

So my question is; What is the problem doing the whole mission at 4500' and just doing some darkroom or computer magic to enlarge the section you want? Just don't understand the problems I suppose.

Personally, I think you guys are all nuts. Group together, buy a Twin Commander, Photograph the whole **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** town four times a year from 10,000', spend the rest of the year in the darkroom drinking some beer and stichin' some negatives together, charge the client like you flew two hours. What's the problem???

Don, I can't speak about real estate photography, other than to point out that lens resolution and film grain puts a limit on how much you can enlarge from a negative, so it is generally better to start with your subject occupying the entire frame of a picture than to enlarge a small portion of a photo.

I can however comment on mapping photography. Mapping photography is not enlarged, in part because enlarging destroys the precise, calibrated geometry of the photograph. The mapping is done from contact prints made directly from the negatives. The negatives must be the correct scale for the scale of mapping being made, so the altitude becomes critical. THe USGS is one of the larger contractors of aerial photography in the US, and as I recall the requirments for thier photography contractors was within +600'/-400' of the specified height (20,000 ft AGL) ....and yes, they can tell how far you are off, and yes, they will reject the photography if it doesn't meet spec. This is why your friends over at Center occasionally encounter some guy requesting odd altitudes in the flight levels

 

[Jmajoris]

Hi mcochran,

One of the things that you should address is aircraft/liability insurance. If you are a renter, there is not a policy that covers this. If you are an owner, there is. Checking with your broker is a good idea...

Alttiudes are based on the area that you wish to cover. Smaller sites can be shot at 1000'agl, and larger sites will need to be shot higher. A 45 degree angle on an oblique is most pleasing to the eye, so you can plan your altitude based on that.

Operationally, you should set minimums for yourself and stick to them. ie no flying below 1000'AGL, no slower than 80 knots, etc.

For Vector4fun, the issue with doing the whole job at 4500' is quality. Shooting through 4500'+ of atmosphere with a longer lens makes a huge difference in the quality of the image. Remember that on a 45 degree angle that distance is much further. I wish it were that easy.....

I've been involved with various types of photography for about the past 10 years, and I would like to try my hand at some aerial photography. What are the rules of thumb when it comes to altitudes, airspeeds, best times of day, etc?

I would guess a reasonably slow airspeed would be best, but what altitudes are ideal? I've got a 20mm, a 75-135mm, and a 200mm lens with a 2X extender. I would also assume that early morning and late evening would be the best times to shoot so as to make use of the soft, even light (i.e. no harsh shadows) present at those times of day.

One legal question - can a commercial certificated pilot (i.e. me) take off, shoot some pictures, land, and then sell those pictures for a profit w/out breaking any FAR's? I've done a search and haven't found anything conclusive on the subject. I figured I might want to make use of my AOPA dues and bounce the question off them too.

Thanks in advance.

 

[mcochran]

I appreciate everyone's responses.

Can anyone help me with pricing? The C177RG I'd be renting would cost ~$80/hr, and then I've also got to consider the camera equipment and my time.

Do these aerial photography places charge a flat fee for the actual taking of the pictures and the prints, or do they charge you for the flight and then charge you again for the prints?

 

[uwochris]

We charge for flight time, pilot time, and for the prints.

The flight time (and your time!) must definetly be considered. For instance, last week I took some photos of a company that was literally less than 1 nm from the runway which I took off from. I have done other flights which are over 1 hour away for me. It wouldn't make sense to charge just for the picture, as the cost to operate the aircraft depends on your air-time.

If a customer from a far-away place requests you to take a picture for him, then try to rent a plane from a school that is closest to the photo-area.