Shooting from a plane/helicopter

[dreed]

Looking out of a plane on a recent trip, I was looking down at various valley floors where there were no signs of easy access by vehicle. Whilst it is often possible to hike into such locations, the other dilemma is finding a location clear of trees.

It was then that I started to think - what are the practicalities of shooting from a plane?
Or shooting from a helicopter?

Some of the obstacles I can think of...
... wind against a lens protruding outside...
... shooting through the glass windows ...
... bumpiness and speed of travel ...
... cost ...

Has anyone tried shooting with a still photo camera from either of these for the purpose of nature/landscape photography?

[Lisa Nikodym]

A few comments on shooting from a small plane, from personal experience:

A Cessna, which has high wings, really helps the field of view compared with a low-wing plane.

Unless the plane is flying unusually slowly and is the sort that can have a door easily removed (I believe most planes don't qualify), you're shooting through a window.  The window is plastic, and is likely scratched and slightly "foggy" (because of micro-scratches), and may produce a strong color cast, all of which detract substantially from the image quality of the photo.  You also have to be very careful to eliminate reflections off the window, which is tough to do; you either have to get the angles between the camera/window/sun just right, or use a flexible rubber lens hood and let it rest on the window.

If you have a near-infrared camera, they seem to be considerably less affected by window-related problems than regular color cameras, and produce better quality images through airplane windows.

Unless you are able to ask the pilot to maneuver, it will be tough to get many photos of the things you want because they'll be in the wrong position relative to the window, or the sun is in the wrong direction, or the plane is too level to see anything relatively nearby, etc. etc.  Unless you're in a situation where you can ask the pilot to maneuver where and when you want, it will be quite frustrating.

Be sure to use a reasonably fast shutter speed, and don't lean the camera on the plane itself (because of vibrations), just hand-hold it.

I've gotten a handful of good photos from my spouse's small plane, but it can be tough to get it right, and the success rate is much smaller than with "on the ground" photography.  Still, you can sometimes get some really cool images that people on the ground can't.

Lisa

[Photo One]

A few comments on shooting from a small plane, from personal experience:

A Cessna, which has high wings, really helps the field of view compared with a low-wing plane.

Unless the plane is flying unusually slowly and is the sort that can have a door easily removed (I believe most planes don't qualify), you're shooting through a window.  The window is plastic, and is likely scratched and slightly "foggy" (because of micro-scratches), and may produce a strong color cast, all of which detract substantially from the image quality of the photo.  You also have to be very careful to eliminate reflections off the window, which is tough to do; you either have to get the angles between the camera/window/sun just right, or use a flexible rubber lens hood and let it rest on the window.

If you have a near-infrared camera, they seem to be considerably less affected by window-related problems than regular color cameras, and produce better quality images through airplane windows.

Unless you are able to ask the pilot to maneuver, it will be tough to get many photos of the things you want because they'll be in the wrong position relative to the window, or the sun is in the wrong direction, or the plane is too level to see anything relatively nearby, etc. etc.  Unless you're in a situation where you can ask the pilot to maneuver where and when you want, it will be quite frustrating.

Be sure to use a reasonably fast shutter speed, and don't lean the camera on the plane itself (because of vibrations), just hand-hold it.

I've gotten a handful of good photos from my spouse's small plane, but it can be tough to get it right, and the success rate is much smaller than with "on the ground" photography.  Still, you can sometimes get some really cool images that people on the ground can't.

Lisa

Dear Dreed,

NNikko has ably explained some of the initial challenges involved in shooting air to ground. I shoot air to air and air to ground all over the world and it is an exhilarating vantage point for sure. Helicopters and aircraft all have their own special quirks needing different techniques to end up with a satisfactory result. Helicopters don't have the slipstream buffet that you face when shooting out of an aircraft, but there is substantially more vibration in the helicopter's airframe. Aircraft, due to their inability to hover or fly extremely slowly, require lots more turns/circles than helicopters. This can be pretty nauseating to the average photographer and looking through a lens magnifies the sensation considerably. Shutterspeeds of 250 and above are a good idea, keep your arms, shoulders, etc. away from the airframe using a suspension technique to help form transferring vibration to you and your camera body. Use the shortest focal length that will give you the perspective you desire, heavy lenses and longer focal lengths will cause you problems. As NNikko mentioned, shooting through all but the most pristine plexiglass is a really bad idea. I shoot a lot of air to air formation assignments and the only time I'll agree to shooting through something is when there is no alternative, like an F/16 canopy or something similar. There are a couple of aircraft that are FAA approved for flight with the baggage doors removed. The A-36 Beech Bonanza, Piper Saratoga/Lance, are good choices and readily available. Both aircraft will be zipping you along at 140 knots or better, so you need to keep your lens inside as much as practical so it isn't being buffeted by the slipstream. Most importantly, know who is flying you, and know how well their aircraft is maintained, because there are some risks involved in this type of work. Buy yourself a climbing harness and modify it so you can latch yourself to the airframe with just enough freedom to move about the cabin, but not enough to get over zealous and lean out too far. One aircraft I use is a WWII B-25 bomber and we remove the tail gunner cone for head on shooting air to air. That particular aircraft has had a videographer and a still photographer forget to tether themselves in and they exited the tail wishing they had gone through their checklist all the way to the ground.

Whether you choose rotor or fixed wing depends a little on what you are trying to accomplish and what the terrain is like. FAA regulations also enter in, regarding altitudes over different areas, etc. My aviation work is especially challenging because to get a full prop disk on say a P51 Mustang, you have to be shooting at 1/80th or less, while whipping along at 200 knots in tight formation.

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I haven't done a lot of aerial photography but I do enjoy it.

http://www.billcaulfeild-browne.com/assets...nada/index.html

shows a few (the first three) shot with a Canon 1Ds II and the 70-200 IS lens from a float-equipped Piper - but it had a real glass window, not plexiglass. As your other respondents have said. minimum shutter speed of 1/250 and fairly wide apertures - you don't need much DOF! In fact at f5.6 and ISO 400 you can generally use speeds in the range of 1/1000 to 1/5000. They will be sharp!

Of course, a balloon is ideal but not always practical - see http://www.billcaulfeild-browne.com/assets...africa/index.html ://http://www.billcaulfeild-browne.com...ica/index.html

Good luck if you go for it,
Bill

[bill proud]

Looking out of a plane on a recent trip, I was looking down at various valley floors where there were no signs of easy access by vehicle. Whilst it is often possible to hike into such locations, the other dilemma is finding a location clear of trees.

It was then that I started to think - what are the practicalities of shooting from a plane?
Or shooting from a helicopter?

Some of the obstacles I can think of...
... wind against a lens protruding outside...
... shooting through the glass windows ...
... bumpiness and speed of travel ...
... cost ...

Has anyone tried shooting with a still photo camera from either of these for the purpose of nature/landscape photography?

You really need a skilled pilot that knows how to fly you to get what you need . I was contracted by a company to shoot a pipeline for a 100 miles. All the images had to slightly overlap for continuity and be in focus. He did his job and I did mine. Since this was film days he had to loop back while I changed film and then we would pick up from the last frame. Keeping the beginning and ending location points was his part while I reloaded and tried not to hurl.

He also had to maintain a steady speed and elevation while I was shooting. Everything was fine and I made a cool thou for a few hours of work. Did I mention I hate to fly?

Then I had this guy call me who said he had the perfect photo plane. It was one he designed and built. I'm thinking to myself, I'm not going up in any joe blow built plane. What am I stupid? Besides, he was 75 years old. I'm thinking this guy will keel over with a heart attack in mid-flight. I'l be yelling, MAYDAY! MAYDAY!

Anyway we went up and I took photos. He had these air baffles on the front to block wind but they didn't do well and most of the images were not good. He came back to land on this dirt airfield near his hanger and he bounced the plane. I was sitting in the back seat which also had flight controls and my leg bounced and hit the throttle. We had head coms so I heard him say something like 'what the f***!' He powered up and had to come back for another shot at it. I was needless to say scared witless. I knew I had a stick. While we are on our journey he decides to take a leak in a bottle and I had to maintain control while he was, well you know, but I didn't know I had a throttle.

We're at 10,000 feet, he's whizzing and I'm holding the stick of an experimental airplane. I don't know about you but I get queasy when I see the words 'experimental' and 'airplane' in the same sentence. Did I mention I don't like to fly?

So I hold this stick with a death grip trying not to make the slightest movement that I know surely will send us into a death spiral until he is finished, which is like,.... eternity.

He wants to go again but I told him I got leprosy and he shouldn't be around me during the quarantine stage, which is like, forever.

I'd show you the plane if it will upload

[bill t.]

Many helicopters let you remove the doors pretty easily, and sometimes also the left side stick and pedals which is worth doing since it gives you elbow room.  Don't forget to dress warm when it's cool and take your wool mittens and ski mask just in case.

There are couple problems with helicopter photography.  The downwash from the rotors stirs up the air quite a bit and somewhat limits sharpness.  Your sharpest shots will be looking down rather than towards the horizon.  When hovering in one location, the vibration goes up a lot, and the downwash problem increases to the point where you are unlikely to get a technically good shot while hovering.  It's best if the heli is always moving forward.  Too bad for me, since I like to shoot stitched panos.  If you want really sharp shots from a heli you need to have a remote camera that (anti-vibration) mounts between the curved up parts of the landing struts, and the heli always needs to be moving forward to keep the camera out of the downwash.  You can rent these from motion picture equipment companies for only a few thousand dollars a day.

A pilot was kind enough to give me a quick once-around Albuquerque Studios where most of "Terminator Salvation" was shot.  Here's the contact sheet.  That particular heli had just been used for on-the-deck car chase stuff, fortunately we didn't do any of that on my flight.  Be sure to arrange for nice puffy clouds on the day you go out, but not too many.

http://www.unit16.net/helicopter_080817/

[Kirk Gittings]

Interesting Bill, I am shooting some of those same exact buildings from the ground.

[bill t.]

Interesting Bill, I am shooting some of those same exact buildings from the ground.

Good luck, it's a wonderful Euclidean plane filled with interesting rectilinear parallelepipeds and, best of all, plenty of space to back up into!

The Cathedral at Albuquerque, aka stages 3 & 4 with the door open.  Threw Euclid out the door on this one.  Eat your heart out, Hollywood!

[BernardLanguillier]

A recent image shot from a helicopter with doors removed.



Lens used was a 300 f2.8 VR on a D3x at f2.8 and auto ISO (I believe I could get at least 1/1250 sec at ISO 100). The image is not really as sharp as what I can get with a robust tripod and the best Zeiss glass at f5.6, but it is still very OK. I would probably stop down to f4 if I were to shoot again in the same conditions.

Wind was clearly a problem on the back seat of the 4 seater.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eleanorbrown]

I shot from small planes over the period of two weeks last summer in alaska and put what i learned on my blog:
http://web.mac.com/eleanorbrown/ELEANOR_BR...ve_learned.html

By all means make arrangements to OPEN THE WINDOW but keep the camera and lens inside!  Even with spanking clean windows the clarity and color balance with window closed is much more problematic.  And above all, hope to smooth air currents!!!  good luck!  Eleanor

Looking out of a plane on a recent trip, I was looking down at various valley floors where there were no signs of easy access by vehicle. Whilst it is often possible to hike into such locations, the other dilemma is finding a location clear of trees.

It was then that I started to think - what are the practicalities of shooting from a plane?
Or shooting from a helicopter?

Some of the obstacles I can think of...
... wind against a lens protruding outside...
... shooting through the glass windows ...
... bumpiness and speed of travel ...
... cost ...

Has anyone tried shooting with a still photo camera from either of these for the purpose of nature/landscape photography?

[John Camp]

I shot from Blackhawks in Iraq with a D3 and the Nikon f2.8 zooms, shooting a little more open and a little faster shutter speeds than I normally would, because I'd been told the high-speed vibration from the chopper could affect the quality of the shots; and maybe it would, but with just a little higher shutter speed, things worked fine. (I was shooting only in the daytime, mostly under overcast skies.) The thing that most affects the quality of the shots is the air, because you're usually shooting through a lot of it. I flew several times in and around Baghdad, just before a winter storm system came through, and on the first day, with lots of dust and smoke in the air, everything looked soft; the second day, after a rain-and-snow storm, everything was very sharp. So keep that in mind, when you're envisioning what kinds of shots you want. (Nothing wrong with soft, unless you don't want it.)

I've also shot out the window of a fixed-wing plane a few times, once after a forest fire in Minnesota. I don't know what kind of plane it was, because this was years ago, but probably a Cessna (it was high-wing), and it's harder than you'd think to actually shoot at a down-angle; that is, to get a shot like Bernard's, as opposed to more classical landscape like Eleanor's. The forest fire had actually run through a hog farm, and killed dozens and maybe hundreds of hogs, and we could see their bodies on the ground, but to get close enough, and vertical enough for a shot, the pilot had to fly both low and then tip up on a wing to get enough down-angle. He was happy to do it, but I was a bit uneasy.

You can try most of this out for a few hundred dollars. You need to go to a general aviation field, tell them what you're doing, tell them you can fly when they're not busy, and ask for a good rate. Lots of times they have planes and pilots (often newer pilots) sitting around, and for a couple hundred bucks, they'll take you out for a spin. Helicopters may cost more, but I don't know, because I never tried to rent one.

[eleanorbrown]

Yes, a good suggestion is to have your pilot tip the wings and a plane with high wings is a must.  My pilot asked me if I wanted to shoot "straight down" and I said sure....first few times, no problem but the next time we tipped my eyes went somewhere else and I lost all orientation momentarily.  Can get testy is one is not used to that sort of thing!   More moderate wing tips works well tho.  Also my pilot in in the Wrangell Mountains was willing to look for the light he knew I wanted and fly to that.   Eleanor

I shot from Blackhawks in Iraq with a D3 and the Nikon f2.8 zooms, shooting a little more open and a little faster shutter speeds than I normally would, because I'd been told the high-speed vibration from the chopper could affect the quality of the shots; and maybe it would, but with just a little higher shutter speed, things worked fine. (I was shooting only in the daytime, mostly under overcast skies.) The thing that most affects the quality of the shots is the air, because you're usually shooting through a lot of it. I flew several times in and around Baghdad, just before a winter storm system came through, and on the first day, with lots of dust and smoke in the air, everything looked soft; the second day, after a rain-and-snow storm, everything was very sharp. So keep that in mind, when you're envisioning what kinds of shots you want. (Nothing wrong with soft, unless you don't want it.)

I've also shot out the window of a fixed-wing plane a few times, once after a forest fire in Minnesota. I don't know what kind of plane it was, because this was years ago, but probably a Cessna (it was high-wing), and it's harder than you'd think to actually shoot at a down-angle; that is, to get a shot like Bernard's, as opposed to more classical landscape like Eleanor's. The forest fire had actually run through a hog farm, and killed dozens and maybe hundreds of hogs, and we could see their bodies on the ground, but to get close enough, and vertical enough for a shot, the pilot had to fly both low and then tip up on a wing to get enough down-angle. He was happy to do it, but I was a bit uneasy.

You can try most of this out for a few hundred dollars. You need to go to a general aviation field, tell them what you're doing, tell them you can fly when they're not busy, and ask for a good rate. Lots of times they have planes and pilots (often newer pilots) sitting around, and for a couple hundred bucks, they'll take you out for a spin. Helicopters may cost more, but I don't know, because I never tried to rent one.

[Gemmtech]

Just open the windows      I find shooting from planes easier than from helicopters, but both are fine to shoot from, below are some samples.  Some tips, airplanes are smoother IMHO, you can slow a single engine Cessna down to about 80mph and basically glide.  You can definitely shoot panos and stitch them together, I have a couple I'll post.  You can shoot through glass if needed and process the reflections out, but what a PITA.  Last week I shot from a helicopter in Vancouver, the pilot warned me that they would be flying at approximately 150mph and to keep the camera inside; I stuck the lens (Nikon 24-70 & 70-200 both F2. out the window and it was fine, I even have a pano of Vancouver that worked out well.  Communicating with the pilot is key, you'll have a headset on and can tell him when you want to shoot so you can open the window of the plane and then have him get into the position you want.  As stated above, aerial photography allows you to take photographs that you can't from the ground.

[KevinA]

Cessnas have windows that open, you will need to undo the holding stay and only open it below 80mph. Helicopters are the best but at least double the cost. Some helicopters have opening windows or sometimes an engineer will remove the side perspex, some helicopters have sliding doors you can open and close in flight, useful if very cold, others you just take the door off. No need to lean a long way out of a helicopter, if you need a vertical get the pilot to lean it over.
Helicopters are a much better platform to shoot from, especially if low level is required, a R44 is much better than a R22, I like R 44's as much as the most popular Jetranger, mostly I use twin Squirrels to comply with air law in the UK over built up areas. These are wonderful machine but at about £20./$30 a minute you can easily burn money. Most commercial helicopter pilots are experienced in flying for stills photography or video and most helicopter companies have the correct insurance and documents for this work. If you fly anything with a door off or open make sure you have a proper harness for this work, DO NOT depend on the normal belts or shoulder straps, they come undone very easily when fiddling with equipment. I shoot from 12mm to telephoto from helicopters, about 28mm is the widest from a Cessna 172.
One clear instruction at a time to the pilot like "left" "hard left" "fly straight" often you will need to think three dimensionally like "next orbit a bit wider over that lake but 200ft lower"
The pilots word is final never put pressure on them to fly beyond their capability or the law.
Have fun.

Kevin.

[KevinA]

Just open the windows      I find shooting from planes easier than from helicopters, but both are fine to shoot from, below are some samples.  Some tips, airplanes are smoother IMHO, you can slow a single engine Cessna down to about 80mph and basically glide.  You can definitely shoot panos and stitch them together, I have a couple I'll post.  You can shoot through glass if needed and process the reflections out, but what a PITA.  Last week I shot from a helicopter in Vancouver, the pilot warned me that they would be flying at approximately 150mph and to keep the camera inside; I stuck the lens (Nikon 24-70 & 70-200 both F2. out the window and it was fine, I even have a pano of Vancouver that worked out well.  Communicating with the pilot is key, you'll have a headset on and can tell him when you want to shoot so you can open the window of the plane and then have him get into the position you want.  As stated above, aerial photography allows you to take photographs that you can't from the ground.

Why would the pilot fly at 150mph if you are there to take pictures? you can slow a helicopter down to "0". If helicopters were the same price as a 172 I would never shoot from a fixed wing again. If you fly a fixed wing slowly in windy conditions it can feel like being in a washing machine on spin, those wings react to the airflow much more the rotors do. vibration in helicopters is mostly engine induced so don't rest the camera on any part of the machine when shooting if it is really strong you can always use a gyro like a Kenlab. Not necessary if decent shutter speeds are obtainable.

Kevin.

[Craig Lamson]

The pilots word is final never put pressure on them to fly beyond their capability or the law.
Have fun.

Kevin.

Just be careful and understand that bad things can happen.  No photo is worth dying for.


Boat photographer and videographer killed:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070912/NEWS/709120364

NTSB report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA07FA147&rpt=p

[peteh]

Dear Dreed,

NNikko has ably explained some of the initial challenges involved in shooting air to ground. I shoot air to air and air to ground all over the world and it is an exhilarating vantage point for sure. Helicopters and aircraft all have their own special quirks needing different techniques to end up with a satisfactory result. Helicopters don't have the slipstream buffet that you face when shooting out of an aircraft, but there is substantially more vibration in the helicopter's airframe. Aircraft, due to their inability to hover or fly extremely slowly, require lots more turns/circles than helicopters. This can be pretty nauseating to the average photographer and looking through a lens magnifies the sensation considerably. Shutterspeeds of 250 and above are a good idea, keep your arms, shoulders, etc. away from the airframe using a suspension technique to help form transferring vibration to you and your camera body. Use the shortest focal length that will give you the perspective you desire, heavy lenses and longer focal lengths will cause you problems. As NNikko mentioned, shooting through all but the most pristine plexiglass is a really bad idea. I shoot a lot of air to air formation assignments and the only time I'll agree to shooting through something is when there is no alternative, like an F/16 canopy or something similar. There are a couple of aircraft that are FAA approved for flight with the baggage doors removed. The A-36 Beech Bonanza, Piper Saratoga/Lance, are good choices and readily available. Both aircraft will be zipping you along at 140 knots or better, so you need to keep your lens inside as much as practical so it isn't being buffeted by the slipstream. Most importantly, know who is flying you, and know how well their aircraft is maintained, because there are some risks involved in this type of work. Buy yourself a climbing harness and modify it so you can latch yourself to the airframe with just enough freedom to move about the cabin, but not enough to get over zealous and lean out too far. One aircraft I use is a WWII B-25 bomber and we remove the tail gunner cone for head on shooting air to air. That particular aircraft has had a videographer and a still photographer forget to tether themselves in and they exited the tail wishing they had gone through their checklist all the way to the ground.

Whether you choose rotor or fixed wing depends a little on what you are trying to accomplish and what the terrain is like. FAA regulations also enter in, regarding altitudes over different areas, etc. My aviation work is especially challenging because to get a full prop disk on say a P51 Mustang, you have to be shooting at 1/80th or less, while whipping along at 200 knots in tight formation.

In looking at your profile on LL ,your link to your website is missing a o as in   www.jimwilsonphotgraphy.com is where the link went. so....photography was spelled wrong. The photos are GREAT !I love Mustangs....any of Hawker Sea Fury's?

[Gemmtech]

Why would the pilot fly at 150mph if you are there to take pictures? you can slow a helicopter down to "0". If helicopters were the same price as a 172 I would never shoot from a fixed wing again. If you fly a fixed wing slowly in windy conditions it can feel like being in a washing machine on spin, those wings react to the airflow much more the rotors do. vibration in helicopters is mostly engine induced so don't rest the camera on any part of the machine when shooting if it is really strong you can always use a gyro like a Kenlab. Not necessary if decent shutter speeds are obtainable.

Kevin.

I wasn't there to take photos per se, just an unexpected tour, the speed wasn't as bad as I thought it might be, but as stated above helicopters are a lot rougher than planes IMHO even at zero mph, actually I believe they get even more vibration hovering.  I've shot from both numerous times and planes are just smoother.  Obviously there are other factors, namely wind, but again my experience leads me to believe planes are smoother and easier to shoot from, YMMV.  You should never rest any part of the camera on the plane/helio I would think that would be common sense for anybody  

[BernardLanguillier]

I wasn't there to take photos per se, just an unexpected tour, the speed wasn't as bad as I thought it might be, but as stated above helicopters are a lot rougher than planes IMHO even at zero mph, actually I believe they get even more vibration hovering.  I've shot from both numerous times and planes are just smoother.

That really depends on the type of helicopter/plane you are flying and the conditions.

I have been in a Dauphin in NZ a few years back that was so incredibly stable and quiet that I could hardly feel I was flying... I was in a small cesna days later above Milfod and had the roughest ride ever.

Cheers,
Bernard