Large format aerial photography...anyone?

Noah,Bob Cameron who shot all those "Above" Citys books used a 6X7 Pentax with a gyro and it worked perfectly. I was with him in the Helicopter when he shot some of the "Above Chicago" book. I would stay away from shooting color negative and shoot
a transparencie film like 100 Ektahrome or one of the Afga films. In my estimation they
are sharper. The Pentax lenses are plenty sharp film film image and Bob's books are
magnificent. He made millions with his books. Too bad he's gone at almost 100 years old. A great talent and a great guy. David Phillips dpcapc@comcast.net

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noah A

...
If I'm shooting from a chopper at around 500', would I still be ok if I use a fixed infinity focus on 110, 150 and 210mm lenses?

---

Those are two different questions. The fixed focus is surely ok, the time depends on the vibrations in the helicopter.

I have framed in my workroom, four prints (Ciba Geigy calendar copies) of images made by Emil Schulthess in 1982 from his book "Swiss Panorama". Even these reproductions are astounding in detail. I'm looking at the image of the "old town" of Lucerne take from above the river Reuss and the swans in the foreground are distinctly reproduced and with such clarity that their bills are distinguishable.

These images were made using a specially designed 360 degree camera with a rotating shutter. The camera was slung below the helicopter on ropes and operated remotely. BTW his book published by Artemis Verlag in Zurich about 1982 is still available through Amazon. I think there was also a US edition by Alfred Knopf, NY.

The view of Armin sitting in the helicopter reminded me of Emils work. Armin it looks like that big camera is suspended on a sling while in use, sort of like what I used while in the Navy with the Fairchild cameras on a P2V Neptune plane.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Quote:

---

The view of Armin sitting in the helicopter reminded me of Emils work. Armin it looks like that big camera is suspended on a sling while in use, sort of like what I used while in the Navy with the Fairchild cameras on a P2V Neptune plane.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

---

The Linhof Aerotronica is hanging on an aluminium guide rail with a carabiner like for sailing fixed on a door frames hook and a very strong rubber band is going down to the camera holding points, in emergency which never did happen to me I could just throw the camera out of the cockpit I had just to pull on a green string and push the camera out of the door frame!
This was done after in an incident with a photographer which was killed because of the camera with the wight of it falling on the breast of the photgrapher during the incident!
The pilot survifed the crash with almost nothing!

You almost ever get down, but very seldom a little bit to fast!
1 time a week we did the emergency drill, with autorotation and I had to get the camera fast beetwen my legs in really emergency I would liked to smash it out of the cockbit! Its good to drill it and not to use it;--)))
Cheers Armin

Oh and Emil had a very expensive setup with colaboration of the Swiss army some high end engeeniering etc. The setup was in a range of a middle expensive Swiss house!
I remember me on an exipition of his Panos and also some other pics, he was really good one and also a very good business man!
He worked many years till he was totaly happy with his setup!

Armin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noah A

...

If I'm shooting from a chopper at around 500', would I still be ok if I use a fixed infinity focus on 110, 150 and 210mm lenses?

---

I wonder why nobody, not even the Swiss Army hero, answered your simple question...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GPS

I wonder why nobody, not even the Swiss Army hero, answered your simple question...;)

---

Sorry, I simply missed it. At angles around 30-60° at 500ft AGL the distance to the main subject will in the 400-800m range. That is close enough to infinity with normals to slightly longish lenses by my standards.

In the past I did quite a bit of aerial work but it was all 67 with Pentax equipment. I worked from either fixed wing or helicopter.
A colleague of mine did a lot of aerial work over the years, using only 45. He used a field camera. I don't rememer the type but it wasn't wooden.
In my experience wind is not a problem until the camera is stuck out in the slipstream. Then nothing will stop it vibrating to the point of uselessness. If I needed a near-vertical shot I'd ask the pilot to bank and I'd get enough depression from within the cabin to get the angle I needed.
A potential problem is keeping track of equipment in the tight confines of the cabin. I had just a couple of bodies, some lenses and lots of film. When you have dd's floating around and there's nobody behind you to keep things tidy you'll be busy. It's awefully easy to let something slip and with a door off it becomes a federal offence, at least here in Australia.
My advice is to try out what you've got. Framing and shutter release can be problems on their own. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noah A

My current photographic project involves doing some aerial photography. I started the project with digital, then went 6x7cm with a Mamiya 7 and now I'm shooting 4x5 (I know, it's a slippery slope to larger formats!).

I'm trying to figure out if I can shoot all 4x5 or if I'd need to stick with 6x7 for the aerial work. I'd love to shoot all one format for consistency as well as simplicity when traveling.

Is it at all possible to shoot aerials with my field camera (a wista 45vx)? It's very rigid and has a shoe that could hold a viewfinder--but I've heard that the bellows can cause vibrations. I'm not sure if I understand why, since if the whole camera is vibrating I'm not sure why a soft bellows would make it worse. Perhaps I could add a stiffener between the back and front standard? Focus should mostly be infinity and the photos would mostly be overall views of urban areas.

I'd be shooting 400 speed color neg with a modern Rodenstock 150mm lens (or maybe 135mm). I'd be shooting from a helicopter, usually with the door removed.

I know the alternatives would be a gaoersi or a fotoman (Anyone selling one with a 120/135/150mm cone???). But since my work does involve travel, if I could get by with the Wista that would be great. I'm not doing aerials full-time, it's just a small part of the project.

Of course I would try it locally first before renting an expensive helicopter overseas, but I was wondering if anyone here has any relevant experience...

---

john schnieder had a gowland 4x5 arial for sale, i think only about $2-300.

they are a fixed box and look nice and simple, kind of point and shoot 4x5.

let me know if you are interested and i will contact him, i almost bought it just fr the point and shoot factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cosmicexplosion

john schnieder had a gowland 4x5 arial for sale, i think only about $2-300.

---

Hi Andrew, hope you're continuing to stay ahead of your steep learning curve and are having fun! :)

I sold the Gowland aerial cam a while ago on eBay (the 612 setup you sold me is far more fun to shoot :) :) ), but they're not terrible uncommon. Peter's estate may even still have the parts to assemble a new one. Since they're a simple sheet metal box with handles, a sight, and a Graflex back, they could be recreated by anyone reasonably handy.

Quote:

---

If I'm shooting from a chopper at around 500', would I still be ok if I use a fixed infinity focus on 110, 150 and 210mm lenses?

---

I did not answer this one because of 500' means this feet or what?

I would really do at least for the longer ones 150/210 really focus on 500' and fix it at it why should I loose some sharpness because of not use the exact focus point especially if you are for smaller things maybe even a bit shorter in distance!

Cheers Armin

500ft often is the minimum altitude above ground without special permission. Shooting from a window the actual distance to the foreground will be more like 700-1000ft.

Hey john,

i knew i should have asked you, but its good to see you are still in the woodwork,

he he

i am real glad you dig the camera, i just did a course on basics, and and only half finished but it gave me a kick start and i understand books a bit better, but i think all we are doing is deciding how much light we want to enter.

he he

any way i dont want to hi jack this thread so i will say gowland one more time.

see you soon

andrew

oh and happy happy cristmas to you and your family

Quote:

---

500ft often is the minimum altitude above ground without special permission. Shooting from a window the actual distance to the foreground will be more like 700-1000ft.

---

We always worked with special permission so we could work at 50- 100m from ground, which is also a dangerous low if the motor stops on the heli!
Only for city's and really large company's we worked higher!

Good bless you all in the air!

Sorry I should have been more specific, but yes I meant 500 feet. It is generally the lowest we can go without special permission (which I usually don't have). So therefore it's the worst possible scenario in terms of needing close-focus.

Most of the time I'd be a bit higher for safety and yes, not shooting straight down so we'd be looking at more distance. But it's the closest focus I was worried about if the camera is fixed at infinity. Clearly it shouldn't be a problem.

I'll look into the gowlands or possibly I'll build my own. Thanks for all of the suggestions.

I just stumbled across this forum topic, and I've got to rush off...

But first let me add: another option is the Cambo Wide;

http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/cambo/index.html

It's a 4x5 handheld that accepts sheet film as well as Horseman 612 holders. I have one that's been in my arsenal for about 15 years, and I'm in the process of scaling back on my equipment, but I don't have the time to take some photo's at the moment. Give me a day or so...

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

I've done a bit of 8x10 aerial work with a Gowland. A rigid camera is a good choice. Gowland cameras a fine but you could also use a military speed graphic (the solid box ones) or make a shield for a Crown as I suggested earlier. I prefer "normal" to "long" focal lengths for fixed wing work and generally wider lenses for helicopters(this might sound wierd I know but take it into consideration when shopping for a dedicated aerial camera) If you're shooting sheet film use plastic film holders and practice where you'll be putting the dark slides. You don't want them sucked out! Also don't let any part of the camera come into contact with the fusilage or you will have vibration problems. Dampen vibrations with your body. An important consideration for these big "box cameras"(which is really what they are) is the lens and shutter. You'll want one that has fast shutter speeds(500 is nice) and a lens that performs well wide open or nearly so(like a 150mm Nikkor M for example) The best fixed wing aerial photoship for low altitudes IMHO is a SuperCub. Have a safe flight!

In the infinity regime where DOF is not a consideration, such as aerial photography, how does aperture effect the image quality? Telescopes use as large of an aperture as possible to reduce diffraction, but are LF lenses corrected well enough that using larger apertures provides better resolution at infinity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetterSense

In the infinity regime where DOF is not a consideration, such as aerial photography, how does aperture effect the image quality? Telescopes use as large of an aperture as possible to reduce diffraction, but are LF lenses corrected well enough that using larger apertures provides better resolution at infinity?

---

No. Look at any lens resolution chart. Wide open is not the best resolution. Nor is stopped all the way down.

I have flown on aerial jobs with some very experienced pilots most of whom are also personal friends. The small, fixed wing aircraft costs a fraction of the helicopter's expense to operate and maintain. The commercial photographer who can work out of such an aircraft and deliver excellent results has a significant competitive advantage over one who is operating out of helicopters, which are seldom needed or appropriate for most assignments.

Even most experienced pilots feel uncomfortable at first with one of the most useful maneuvers for the photo-reconnaissance aircraft, the side-slip. Slipping requires crossing the controls and goes against all basic flight training and instruction, but when you have a pilot that can or learns to do it for you, it is a great technique.

Let's say you need to photograph a house for a real estate ad. You first circle the house a time or two and determine your best composition. Tell the pilot when you pass the point, because he probably can't see it himself but can use other terrain he can see as a reference. When you start to circle on your photo run you should be somewhat higher and further out from the house than when you found your best composition, because slipping will cost altitude and also carry you in closer to the house. The advantages are that you will stay in the "sweet spot" much longer than if you just fly by or around and your ground speed past the house will be significantly reduced.

The Champ, the Cub, the Cessna 150 and 172 are all great slippers. The 85 HP J3 Cub is the best for warm weather flying. The 172 has the advantage of space for a light-weight assistant who can feed you your holders. Remember to keep your own feet off the rudder pedals as you stretch and strain for that perfect exposure!

Armin:

"Here I'm short before the start in Biasca in the Tessin south part of Swiss!"

That is an amazing setup.
I can't help but wonder if using it today in North America would get you shot down however! :( :(

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Noah,
I have shot a lot of aerials over the years.
Everything from Satellite "look a likes" at 10,000 feet with no door and full all out banking right (it was a blast but the pilot always seemed nervous...to classic building and site shots.

I never needed more than 6x6 or 6x7.
Looking forward to see what rig you end with and some of the work from the project.

I am more pilot than photographer, and a pretty lousy pilot. Perhaps that is why I have never managed to get beyond digital in the air. I would love to try aerial LF, especially as it would force me to stop trying to both fly and shoot. Yes, I know, stupid.

What rings my bell is the Lockwood Aircam (aircam.com). Cheap, cheerful, and no question of its capabilities for DSLR work. But, has anyone tried to use LF or even MF analog gear in one of these? I remember that handling a MFD camera with long lens was a nightmare in an open biplane. I wonder if the airstream around the AirCam is friendlier.

Linhof made a Slipstream Cover to place over a LF camera to protect the bellows (and everything else) from the wind...

Attachment 220780

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal Chaves

I have flown on aerial jobs with some very experienced pilots most of whom are also personal friends. The small, fixed wing aircraft costs a fraction of the helicopter's expense to operate and maintain. The commercial photographer who can work out of such an aircraft and deliver excellent results has a significant competitive advantage over one who is operating out of helicopters, which are seldom needed or appropriate for most assignments.

Even most experienced pilots feel uncomfortable at first with one of the most useful maneuvers for the photo-reconnaissance aircraft, the side-slip. Slipping requires crossing the controls and goes against all basic flight training and instruction, but when you have a pilot that can or learns to do it for you, it is a great technique.

Let's say you need to photograph a house for a real estate ad. You first circle the house a time or two and determine your best composition. Tell the pilot when you pass the point, because he probably can't see it himself but can use other terrain he can see as a reference. When you start to circle on your photo run you should be somewhat higher and further out from the house than when you found your best composition, because slipping will cost altitude and also carry you in closer to the house. The advantages are that you will stay in the "sweet spot" much longer than if you just fly by or around and your ground speed past the house will be significantly reduced.

The Champ, the Cub, the Cessna 150 and 172 are all great slippers. The 85 HP J3 Cub is the best for warm weather flying. The 172 has the advantage of space for a light-weight assistant who can feed you your holders. Remember to keep your own feet off the rudder pedals as you stretch and strain for that perfect exposure!

---

When I was Rec Tec in the USAF we began our own side business doing aerials of houses, all over the country, on 5x5” roll film.
At the time our squadron was flying RF 101 Voodoos. Someone would give us the location of the home and we would “arrange” for a Voodoo to fly it. We then ran the 5” roll film through one of our Versamat processors and print up to 20x20” on either the Durst 184 or, if there was a lot of dodging and burning necessary on ou 10x10” Logetronic CRT enlarger. Only problems with the LogE we’re very long exposure times and having to spot the small “flying saucer” mark where the CRT scan stopped.

RF 101 Voodoo is a far superior platform than anything I have piloted for aerial photos! Your whole story sounds like a great time! I work with a U2 pilot and he was very excited to see my USAF Biogon that is modified for the Technika. He knew exactly what it was and could explain in detail the camera systems that it was initially designed to be used for. I was very impressed that for a pilot he had such a good understanding of photography and lenses. Perhaps he was an over achiever, but I guess at the heart of it a good reconnoissance pilot is a photographer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Salomon

When I was Rec Tec in the USAF we began our own side business doing aerials of houses, all over the country, on 5x5” roll film.
At the time our squadron was flying RF 101 Voodoos. Someone would give us the location of the home and we would “arrange” for a Voodoo to fly it. We then ran the 5” roll film through one of our Versamat processors and print up to 20x20” on either the Durst 184 or, if there was a lot of dodging and burning necessary on ou 10x10” Logetronic CRT enlarger. Only problems with the LogE we’re very long exposure times and having to spot the small “flying saucer” mark where the CRT scan stopped.

---

This photo is from the Linhof Praxis book (because the photo itself -not the subject photo-was taken with a linhof camera) Any idea what type of RC plane/camera/film would make this type of super detailed horizon to horizon shot? And would you need a special type of enlarger?

Attachment 220782

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Embdude

This photo is from the Linhof Praxis book (because the photo itself -not the subject photo-was taken with a linhof camera) Any idea what type of RC plane/camera/film would make this type of super detailed horizon to horizon shot? And would you need a special type of enlarger?

Attachment 220781

---

Your link doesn’t work.

Attachment 220783 re-trying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Salomon

Your link doesn’t work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Salomon

Your link doesn’t work.

---

We contact printed these horizon to horizon show on a LogE machine. That let us burn and dodge simultaneously.
If prints were required we pasted them together after feathering the paper edges. Prints were made with a regular enlarger.
Largest one we ever did wrapped a couple of times around our squadron entrance hallway. It was a continuous shot from Shaw AFB, SC to Moses Lake Air Force station in WA state.

I photographed with a Master Technika and 4X5 Crown Graphics many times out of a J-3 Cub with the door down. The camera is not out in the slipstream. I also photographed with these same two cameras out of a Cessna 172 and a Piper Warrior. In these, I photographed right through the plexiglass widows with very good results. I tried Grafmatic magazines, but soon settled on double cut film holders as more reliable and trouble-free. I also made extensive use of the FujiFilm GW690 camera. It is an excellent aerial camera. I assisted another photographer once who hired a Bell Jet Ranger. Vibration was severe and the pilot would not hover. Air speed was always at least 50 kts. I much prefer to work out of a well-handled 85 HP J-3.

I have two areal cameras just made for this task, a Graflex K20 4x5 roll film camera and a Keystone F8 that has been modified to take a 5x7 bag magazine. These used to be fairly common on Ebay.

Japan is using big drones to examine mountainous dams, they have many very difficult to access

I wonder how big military drone sensors are?

Top Secret I suppose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal Chaves

Even most experienced pilots feel uncomfortable at first with one of the most useful maneuvers for the photo-reconnaissance aircraft, the side-slip. Slipping requires crossing the controls and goes against all basic flight training and instruction, but when you have a pilot that can or learns to do it for you, it is a great technique.

---

Slipping is a basic flight maneuver and IS part of basic flight training. I’m a licensed pilot, and at least in my training, side slips were a basic maneuver required to pass the checkride- plus they are a actually a bit of fun :)

Probably medium format size (due to chip yields), but selected error free. Could also be radiation hardened.

Like i.e. Fujifilm GFX 100

The optics are the interesting item in this connection.

The Danish air force (RDAF) used 70 mm Vinten cameras in their photo Drakens (RF-35) from 1970 to 1993. So this sensor size (with film) was already good enough in the seventies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_35_Draken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Per Madsen

The Danish air force (RDAF) used 70 mm Vinten cameras in their photo Drakens (RF-35) from 1970 to 1993. So this sensor size (with film) was already good enough in the seventies.

---

Per, it is more likely that the Draken couldn't carry larger (4.5" x 4.5", 9" x 9") aerial cameras as used by, e.g., USAF and RAF. Vinten's F95, which shot 6x6 on 70 mm film, was used by many air forces including USAF and RAF. The F95 was initially supplied with TTH lenses, later, after TTH stopped making lenses for it, Elcan lenses.

Finding large format roll film for aerial cameras is a PITA. Decades ago I used to buy past dated Kodak stuff but I think that's all History now

My perception is that most LF cameras for aerial photography are fixed on infinity so bellows would appear to be pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Whyte-Venables

My perception is that most LF cameras for aerial photography are fixed on infinity so bellows would appear to be pointless.

---

Pretty much. Prop wash and wind don't like bellows.
My current aerial camera (I parted with the K-17 after the hernia repair:( ) is a Gowland. Pretty much an aluminum 8x10 box camera.