Aerials: 125-150mm sharp@ f/8 for 4x5 minimal vignetting

[Don Dudenbostel]

Let me start by saying I worked for an aerial research and remote sensing company in the early 70's and have been shooting aerials ever since. In addition I'm a pilot.

Several things here, it sounds like you've never done this before. You're going to have your hands full! One, a 172 is not very big. You're going to be very cramped dealing with your camera and film holders. You MUST NOT in any way interfere with the controls of the aircraft. The pilot must have full range of motion of all controls. Second if your camera has a bellows you'd better construct a cowling to keep it from blowing off the camera just in case you get it in the slip stream. Your pilot can slow the aircraft down safely by adding flaps and get you down to around 75knots. But you can't do any tight maneuvers at those speeds. if you're in the US and in a populated area youll be limited to a minimum altitude of 1000 ft AGL. In less or unpopulated areas you can drop down to 500 ft AGL. It's possible your pilot might get cleared to a lower altitude but that depends on location, obstacles, density of population and air traffic. Higher Altitude will allow you to shoot at a slower shutter speed too. You can pretty much forget shooting a wide lens from a 172. Even with a normal you'll probably get a lot of shots with the strut in the frame.

Pick a coll clear day. Aircraft fly better when the temp is low as the air is more dense. Remember it's colder up there than it is down here. You drop roughly 2.5 degrees f for every 1000 ft. It'll be tough to use gloves and do what you're trying to do. Try to fly when winds aloft are less. Your pilot can check that in his weather breafing. You'll want to minimize conditions where you'll have turbulents. Aerial work is strenuous both physically and mentally.

If I had a choice, a helicopter with the door off is better. Even then you need a cowling to keep from losing the bellows in the rotor wash. The air moving down from the rotor is traveling about 150mph. In the 172 it'll be 75-120 knots and unless you have a tight grip on your camera you might lose it. Second choice of aircraft, a J3 Cub shooting with the door open and from the front seat. I flew an Aeronca 7AC Champ for a lot of aerial work and both the Champ and Cub will fly slow. The Cub wing strut is more forward and gives a much less obstructed view. Still they are tiny aircraft. Next choice is a Cessna 177 Cardinal. It's essentially a 172 with no wing strut. The best would be a Cessna 210. It's a good size, more stable 6 passenger aircraft with plenty of power when you need it and there's no wing strut. I've done a lot from a 210 and they get you to your location fast and you'll have much more room and a clearer view. The downside is it'll be more expensive and harder to find.

Keep us posted how it goes.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I wanted to add a recommendation, use gaffer tape to secure your aperture and focus. I always do this as it's too easy to knock focus, aperture and shutter speeds off.

I'd also take the equipment I'm going to use and take it to the airport and do a dry run while sitting on the ground. See just what you'll be up against before getting in the air. You should probably do this prior to the day of the shoot. Even shoot a couple of frames and process them to see if you're getting parts of the aircraft in the shot.

I know you want to do this on 4x5 but the best camera I've used for oblique aerial work is a Pentax 6x7.

Keep in mind, you CAN NOT extend any part of the camera outside the window if the aircraft. The air flow may pull the camera out of your hands or destroy it. In any case you wouldn't be able to hold it steady enough to make a sharp photo. Remember you're moving between 75 and 120knots. This is like shooting in a hurricane.

[jp]

Also consider that you may not have a place to put things... Things like light meter, film holders, etc.. You may be buckled in tight and if there is just two seats, one is for you. A good front pocket for film holders. Meter before you take off. If you drop something, you may not be able to get it or it may be a safety problem if it gets in the way of controls. If you are big, you might not have room in your lap for storage as you will be cozy with the stick or yoke. I have only shot LF as part of a herded mass on a commercial flight.. "put away your electronics for the landing", so out comes the speed graphic. I have shot digital and rolleiflex from privately owned or museum owned small planes. Digital is easiest... and yes high shutter speeds are good.

[Mark Sampson]

The only photographers I know of who successfully used LF shooting from the air are Bradford Washburn (who used an aerial camera) and William Garnett (who later went to smaller formats). Mr. Dudenbostel's comments seem spot-on to me.
I played around shooting aerials in the 1980s, as a passenger in a Cessna. I used a Nikon and a 105mm lens; I enjoyed it, and made a few good pictures, but it was too expensive to continue.
Marilyn Bridges, who has a great body of work photographed from the air, learned to fly herself. She used a Pentax 6x7 SLR- in fact endorsed the camera in magazine ads. Emmett Gowin has done beautiful aerial work as well, maybe you could find out what his methods were.

[Oren Grad]

Emmett Gowin has done beautiful aerial work as well, maybe you could find out what his methods were.

Hasselblad 500EL, IIRC.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Hasselblad 500EL, IIRC.

Yes. Here is a photo of him and camera.

[Don Dudenbostel]

There are two problems with the 500 EL. The company I worked for in the early days had 5 with 5 sets of lenses and 20 70mm backs. We also used 9x9inch but that's another story. We mounted the 500 EL's in a mountain the belly of the plane. Sometimes I shot obliques as well. Sadly the finder isn't as good as the Pentax 6x7. I adopted 3 6x7's for my use after leaving the company. The optics of the Pentax and the design is much less cunbersom than the EL. Also at altitude in the winter when humidity is very low I've had static marks due to the EL motor advancing the film too rapidly. I never experienced static issues with any other camera but did with each body on multiple occasions. Warm and humid weather there was no problem.

I've logged easily a couple of thousand hours shooting aerials and have done quite a bit while flying myself by holding the stick between my knees on a 7AC Champ. It can fly at 50 mph, stalls at about 35 mph and the pilots window slides back for easy access for shooting. It's a great platform for aerial work. The only drawback is it's slow to get to the shooting site but on the other hand it's a pleasure to fly so who cares if it's slow.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford (66th TRW), an aerial recon base in the Sixties. Y'all can Google the aircraft and mission.

One point - photo interpreters were absolutely more important than even the best resolution lenses. Most important images were stereo and what the PI could 'see' was astounding. My best friend was a PI. What the human brain can 'see' is astounding with 3D. Enjoy your amateur cyclops pursuit.
.

[Don Dudenbostel]

Once in a while you get to do some really fun aerials. The DC3 was shot with the Pentax 6x7 and 135 macro and the F16 was with a Rollei 3003 and probably a 50 Planar. The DC3 was for a charter company and F16 for an annual report.

Excuse the low res images. I had them on my phone and uploaded them from that. The F16 shoot involved shooting 3 F16's and 3 F15's. It took four hours to do the shoot. Unfortunately my client took the film and I only have a few extras.

[Bob Salomon]

I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford (66th TRW), an aerial recon base in the Sixties. Y'all can Google the aircraft and mission.

One point - photo interpreters were absolutely more important than even the best resolution lenses. Most important images were stereo and what the PI could 'see' was astounding. My best friend was a PI. What the human brain can 'see' is astounding with 3D. Enjoy your amateur cyclops pursuit.
.

The one that really impressed me was what the PIs could do with what they couldn’t see! We ran 5” IR B&W over Cuba and while the vehicles were long gone when we shot the area the PIs could tell from the residual heat signitures what kind of truck had been parked there, how big it was, about how heavy it was and what it probably was carrying! All that of pictures of empty parking areas in the early 60s!