Concord's final flight: When you've only got 1 frame to get it right

[dreed]

I read this and I'm embarrassed - there's no way I'd know exactly what shutter/f-stop to get it all right. Back in the days of film, there was no chimping and frame rates weren't in double digits, so you had to know what you were doing. I'm astounded that one shutter press captured this but that is a testament to the photographer's skill.

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/concorde-last-flight-photo/index.html

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Such a detailed story, yet these crucial details still missing: camera, lens, f/stop, shutter speed, and ISO used?

[Rob C]

Such a detailed story, yet these crucial details still missing: camera, lens, f/stop, shutter speed, and ISO used?

Why would knowing that make a difference?

Rob

[LesPalenik]

The important thing is the shutter speed - I'd go with a minimum of 1/2000s.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why would knowing that make a difference?

Oh, for Christ's sake, Rob! Maybe because I was already in a situation to shoot fast moving planes and wished I had a prior knowledge of what works, what not, rather than discovering on the spot? Or maybe because I had a chance to photograph from a helicopter in Miami recently and would have also liked to know how (didn't take the chance, though).

Canon 5Ds, 280mm focal length, 1/2000s, f/11, ISO 1000

Synchronicity by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

[kers]

Oh, for Christ's sake....

YES ?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Or maybe because I had a chance to photograph from a helicopter in Miami recently and would have also liked to know how (didn't take the chance, though).

Canon 5Ds, 280mm focal length, 1/2000s, f/11, ISO 1000

Synchronicity by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

So this was taken from your flying carpet, which was cheaper than the helicopter?   
Very impressive shot, Slobodan.

[Alan Klein]

Nice catch Slobo.

[Peter McLennan]

Ground to air is effortless.  Air to ground is harder. Air to air is harder still. Air to air to ground (which characterizes the Concorde shot) is by far the most difficult.

[Rob C]

Oh, for Christ's sake, Rob! Maybe because I was already in a situation to shoot fast moving planes and wished I had a prior knowledge of what works, what not, rather than discovering on the spot? Or maybe because I had a chance to photograph from a helicopter in Miami recently and would have also liked to know how (didn't take the chance, though).

Canon 5Ds, 280mm focal length, 1/2000s, f/11, ISO 1000

Synchronicity by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

Well, what you did worked, so what was the problem?

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, what you did worked, so what was the problem?

The problem was that I was guessing*, and some of it worked. For instance, I stopped down too much, which caused the ISO 1000 (and noise). I guessed that 1/2000s might be enough, but I also tried 1/3200s 1/4000s, which resulted in ISO 2000 and even more noise, and loss of dynamic range and sharpness.

* I was guessing based on reading about other people's experience in similar situations. Knowing the Concorde photographer's settings, for instance, would have been a valuable addition to my theoretical knowledge.

[Frans Waterlander]

Now wait a minute! Here is a photographer in a chase plane to document the last, historical flight of the Concorde and he can only take on shot? Pretty unbelievable in my book.

[Peter McLennan]

Oh, for Christ's sake, Rob! Maybe because I was already in a situation to shoot fast moving planes and wished I had a prior knowledge of what works, what not, rather than discovering on the spot? Or maybe because I had a chance to photograph from a helicopter in Miami recently and would have also liked to know how (didn't take the chance, though).

Canon 5Ds, 280mm focal length, 1/2000s, f/11, ISO 1000

Synchronicity by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

It's just photography.  All the rules are the same. Nothing changes, except the subject, which is constantly and rapidly changing.  That's why aerials are so difficult.

No offense, but Slobodan's image, while pretty, is very easy to make given the right hardware.  IMHO, more credit goes to the pilots of those F-18s and the weather.

Some of the images from the space station have been made with very long lenses and shutter speeds in the order of 1/4 sec, back-panning to match the earth's motion. Now THAT is photographic skill.

In other words, the answer is "whatever works on the day".

[Ivo_B]

Why would knowing that make a difference?

Rob

 
I guess there is more shutter criticality in shooting a Mach 2,04 airplane than there is in shooting a blonde under a California sunbounce. 

[Ivo_B]

I guess there is more shutter criticality in shooting a Mach 2,04 airplane than there is in shooting a blonde under a California sunbounce. 

I’m not saying the one is ‘soweazy’ and the other not. It’s all in the correct use of the qwiupment. 🥳

https://youtu.be/fl8hPfs3o8c

[Rob C]

And that's the point: every shot that's not studio formula is different, with a different set of problems, some that have solutions and some not.

Knowing which camera settings made the Conkie shot doesn't mean zilch in different weather, atmospheric conditions etc. etc. Even the relative size of the aircraft makes a difference to perspective, proximity to camera and problems such as DOF coming from that. Frankly, I was surprised at the question from somebody with Slobodan's ability.

But hey, I'm not going to get into a hassle over it.

Nice set of aircraft, but I'm led to wondering what the pilot of the near one had for dinner the night before.

:-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Speaking of Concorde image... the plane was in a landing phase, where speeds are usually 150-200 miles per hour. Certain cars can match that and exceed. If the helicopter was moving in the same direction, the relative speed was even lower (max forward speed for helicopters is about 250 m/h). So, if all elements aligned perfectly (and I am sure they didn't), it is theoretically possible that the photographer was shooting a stationary object.

If I remember correctly, my planes were flying at 400+ m/h and at a very close range. For those interested, and again if I remember it correctly, the wing-tip to wing-tip distance was 18 inches between the planes. This is just FYI, not meant to compare my skills or image with that of Concorde's.

[Peter McLennan]

What counts is not aircraft speed, but angular rate. 

Easy: aircraft approaching head on, angular rate near zero.

Like this:


Slightly more difficult: aircraft moving fast, but laterally, and at a great distance.  Angular rate low.


Really hard: aircraft moving fast and very close.  Angular rate high.

Like this:



Steep bank, directly overhead, a few hundred feet above me.  D300, 70-200 @ 140mm 1/750th @f8.  Barely fast enough shutter.

There is precisely zero chance the helicopter photo ship was travelling at anywhere near the same speed as Concorde, which in the image is in supersonic configuration. 

Especially with a photographer hanging out the door.

[Alan Klein]

Nice shots Peter.  There's some movement in the first but still very nice.  It's more interesting than the second even though the second is sharper. 

[Rob C]

Interesting point about the mode of the front part of Conkie. I thought those aircraft were prohibited from going supersonic over Britain. I also thought that the half-opened penknife attitude was essential for low speed flying. Clearly, I'm not much into such matters, thinking that the less I know, the less I worry. It's bad enough knowing something about jet engines through having worked with so many broken turbine blades in my early pro learning curve. I have not flown for about fifteen years. It still surprises me how when I was working, I couldn't get enough of jetting away somewhere. Must have had the gypsie in my soul.

Rob