Large format aerial photography...anyone?

[engl]

When it comes to the movements (and rotation is one of them) there is no difference if you hand held the camera on earth or in a vibrating airplane - except that in the airplane you vibrate with it too...

Yes I agree, I did not express myself correctly regarding movements (as you say, rotation is a movement). I meant that rotation is the only source of blur when shooting things "sufficiently" far away. Only shifts in position is not going to have any effect. This should be pretty obvious when doing aerial photography from a airplane, the camera is moving a lot during the exposure, but results can still be razor sharp.

I agree about wind, it is going to be the main cause of blur in most situations. I have not claimed otherwise. I was just making the point that the design of a monorail/field camera with bellows also makes it more affected by craft vibrations than a rigid camera.

[GPS]

OK, indeed, the wind is the enemy n.1 I have a lot of experience in shooting LF in strong winds. I even made cameras with firm infinity stops to shoot in winds because I was not able to keep my head and focusing loupe steady in that kind of photography. So you come to the paradoxical situations when your camera (anchored on two tripods) is more steady than you yourself trying to balance yourself leaning on - the camera... ;-)

[Kirk Gittings]

I used a Hassy with eye piece because that was what I owned and did not want to invest in aerial specific equipment because I did it so infrequently. But reviewing my feeble memory......it seems like the camera of choice for artsy kind of aerial photographers has been the Pentax 6x7. Back in the 80's there was a very famous artsy aerial photographer, I can't remember his name for the life of me right now. I seem to remember him using a Pentax 6x7 as well as Paul Logston, who was a fine aerial photographer, who mainly showed medium size prints in galleries here in New Mexico.
And didn't Marilyn Bridges use a Pentax? Actually the portrait of her on her website shows her holding a Pentax 6x7 so....

[Drew Wiley]

The photographer for the Blue Angels uses a 4x5 speed graphic with a wire finder, and
might begin to aim the thing and put his finger to the button when he's still several
miles behind the rest of the flight formation. I've seen him work from a hill behind my
house where I can see them fly over the entire BNay. Remarkable how he gets up to
speed, flys by at near supersonic speed and gets everything composed in a split second. But he has a special optical quality window for photog. Or you could try
traditional 9x9 inch aerial film, like Bradford Washburn used. Quite a point n' shoot!
I'm making a 4x5 fixed focus camera for infinity out of old Sinar parts, and keeping
the apparatus competely rigid yet lightwt with carbon fiber strips. Or at least, that's
the idea, once I get back to the project.

[Drew Wiley]

Regarding the Pentax 6x7, it was also made famous by Shirakawa's aerial shots of the
Himalayas and other coffee-table books of the era. I use this camera for windy conditions, and handheld it this spring during high winds on the summit of Haleakala
for some crazy shots of clouds past the lava. But the bigger neg of 4x5 is soooo much
nicer to print from!

[Kuzano]

We have a local group of fliers who fly powered parachutes. One of them also belongs to our local camera club.

They did a photo presentation to our club one "program" night. Now, I have paraglided in recent years, and the prospect of mounting an LF camera on a powered parachute seems very interesting to me. Their program was well received and they provided some awesome images. They fly the mountain ranges, lakes and beaches of Oregon. They had some great images looking down... yes down.... on Mt Jefferson, The 3 sisters, wilderness areas, and high desert dry lakebeds. Powered parachutes fly at average speeds around 40 miles per hour. Seems rather tame in terms of wind on the camera or body.

I've often considered this mode of air transport and would love to have such a craft. This post raises the question, for me, of a powered parachute for aerial photography. I would think a fixed aerial body camera would be necessary, but perhaps a stout 4X5 with lenses in the shorter focal lengths would work as well, since the bellows would be fairly compacted. I'd probably opt for quickloads and easyloads, since I have a couple of hundred envelopes in the film fridge.

The fellows using the Powered Parachutes have both single and dual passenger models and take people up for demo flights and such. ????? Hmmmm.... come spring?

[Merg Ross]

Back in the 80's there was a very famous artsy aerial photographer, I can't remember his name for the life of me right now. I seem to remember him using a Pentax 6x7.......

Perhaps you are thinking of Bill Garnett. The Pentax 6x7 was his last camera, his first was a 4x5 Graphic. In between he used different models of 35mm Pentax. The quality of his images was outstanding, even the big prints from 35mm. There are books on his work, worth a look (or owning). He lived in Napa, CA.

[Armin Seeholzer]

So boys I worked for 3 years as an Aerophotog in Swiss with a Linhof Aerotronica 6x9 and later with a prototyp Aerotronica High speed as my fav. camera. I was about 900 hrs in a helicopter and was shooting 70'000 pictures around Switzerland for a company!
Its some time ago 1991-93.
But I see not a problem with the downwash of the heli, if he uses not to short lenses he can sit and hold the camera inside the heli where it is not so much wind at all, maybe it depence a bit on the form of the heli this has to be testet. But with the Hughes/Schweitzer Heli the small one for max 3 personen it could work wonderfull with my Horseman HF / FA or a Wista/Linhof.
As bigger the neg as better the print, this is never so important then with Aerials!
A good tracking of the Heli is also important a high frequency of fibration is the killer of sharpness a low frequency fibration is not a problem with 1/500 Sec and shorter. I used most of the time the 1/800 on my Linhof Aerotronica my friends used almost only 1/500sec.
If I would do it today I would take a Nikon D 3X and a lens with the VR II and I think it would work quite well! But I would use it with only 1/1000 sec or shorter!
Because as smaller the neg as shorter the times must be!

I really would try it with your Wista but do not take a lens shorter then the 150mm ( I would even prefer a 180/210mm ) so you can frame inside the heli without getting the door frames of the heli!

Good luck

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes that was him Merg! He amazed me with some of his images. Did you know him at all? He worked in California too I believe.

William Garnett

[Armin Seeholzer]

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

Cheers Armin