Warbird Information Exchange

What would be your dream (warbird) photo shoot? .... if air to air, what aircraft would you most enjoy shooting from and what aircraft (or several) would you most enjoy shooting? Would you shoot from below into the sky or from above shooting towards to ground? Sunny?, cloudly?, ... if shooting on the ground, what would be your ideal shots of flying warbirds? What would be your ideal shots of static warbirds? ... And last question ... what would be your dream camera? ...

Here's an example of what I think is a very nice job indeed from our friends across the pond ... Must have been a wondeful experience with a Beautiful airplane.

http://forum.planetalk.net/viewtopic.php?t=7271

Mark the soon to be warbird photographer ...

FIFI, the MAAM P-61, and Jim Beasley's The Enchantress.

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

Everything Django said, FROM an SR-71

Chunks

A B-25 with the escape hatch removed and access to the tail position
a Ryan NAVION with the canopy removed
mix your shots between sky and ground (UP & DOWN) search for, and utilize clouds they can sometimes turn ho-hum into holy moley! always keep a 'starlight' filter in place along with a polarizer filter again, that little twinkle of reflected light off a canopy or prop blade can make an otherwise 'so what' photo and the polarizer can fine tune backgrounds or subject saturation, Shoot a bunch of stuff digitally, take it home and analyze the poo out of them, make mental notes and go again, eventually you'll hit the magic combo that will work for you but may not for someone else-by all means HAVE FUN WITH IT!!!!

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Not too sure about the air to air stuff, as I haven't done any (yet!) I dont think it would matter as much what plane I was in, just as long as it was a good shooting platform.

I have more experience with static shots, but I can be picky. I tend to wait until a number of things come together so I can get a really interesting shot. For example, I have a few pictures layed out in my head right now, but I'm waiting for the combination of the right aircraft, lighting, background, (and in many cases a good display of the northern lights too!) I love night pictures; I think something with some full prop circles and an interesting background would do nicely.

I'm afraid if you tried to shoot those warbirds from an SR-71, you would probably have nothing to show for it but a blur ...

Another interesting question would be if you would rather shoot still photos or film footage? ... personally I may tend to drift towards film footage. I'm not sure I would be good enough for great still shots. from what I have seen many times here on WIX, it practically takes pure genius to take great still photography.

I would also tend to think that even with warbird photography mood is essential, I would imagine that shooting a P-51 from another P-51 would possibly have you thinking about adding the mustang you are shooting from in the shot as well. Possibly gives the viewer the idea they are in the Mustang the shot was taken from ... is this approach used as well?

Same philosophy applies to static or ground shots, start dragging a light wheeled 6 ft ladder around so you can get that little different perspective on ordinary stuff, a P-51 is much more impressive in a photo if you shoot it level with the spinner because then you can pan in the top of the wing, catch the canopy cracked open, helacopters take on a different perspective if you are up 'in' the roter blades or shooting details of the top of the fuselage that normally aren't seen from ground level etc. etc. plus you have a dead steady paltform to aim from! go play

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Still isn't as tough as it looks. Basic camera, two good lenses, and a couple of very basic rules to operate the camera, and a couple of very basic rules about what you are shooting would set you to go. Mind, you wouldn't be getting as great an image as a pro, but ask some of our resident artistes how many they throw away. I was a field shooter and I trashed at least 90% of my work before it ever got printed. I'd imagine air to air and tracking from the ground can be just as challenging. Another big one to learn is light metering, which isn't as hard as it once was thanks to the digital age

But I'd shoot digital video if I had a chance. A really good digital video camera (not a digital camera that has video as an extra, but a real digital video cam) has a quality not unlike what your film cam's are using. Remember 28 Days later? That was digital with very little light work. Just natural light and a digital video cam, mostly. And that was years ago. Since digital increases in quality exponentially, I'd expect them to be able to shoot pictures of that peacemaker on the moon by now.

Oh yeah, I'd want to shoot Camarillo's Zero against a Corsair, out over Point Magu, and on Digital Video from a C47 cause it is nice and slow and would make (I'd imagine) a good platform. Short of that maybe a CH-46/7 out the back gate cause I could swing that cam close to 270* and I could shoot em from above and get some really cool dogfighting that way :p.

*EDIT*i just read your post, Inspector :p great mind think alike. I'd love to have them run right up under me as I stood on the ramp, and have them come in from a relatively level attitude, to maybe 50 feet beneath me, spaced maybe 6 seconds apart...Now that would be SWEET!

Another great one would be a 109 vs a Yak. Not enough attention paid to that part of the war.

Did I talk too much? I always talk too much

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

You never talk too much, usually not enough ... Great feedback, just what I wanted to read .... by all so far .... I just learned more about photography in 7 posts than I did 45 minutes ago .... And Scott wanted to shut this place down? ....

I agree with The Inspector,
A B-25 with escape hatch out, and the tail glass out. You can get some good shots looking right, downward, upward, and when you crawl into the tail, you get a great head shot. ( Examples to folllow )

_________________
California Air Heritage Foundation
B-25J / C-47B / And the list goes on....
"Never start a fight with 7 men when all your packin' is a 6-Gun! "

Proud Supporter of....American Aeronautical Foundation 501(c)(3)
http://www.aafgroup.org

I hope to someday get a chance to shoot A2A again. I'd love to shoot an A-26 from a B-25.

As Inspector was saying he likes the ladder I go the opposite way and spend alot of time laying on the ground. It look silly but my pictures look different than everyone elses as well.

_________________
-Al Sauer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spookythecat

Dave, those are some seroiusly nice photos you've got there-

Al, I'm gettin' too old and too fat to crawl around on the ground, getting down takes some effort, lets just skip over the gettin' back up parts!

Perhaps I can get 262crew to repost the really low angle shots he took of Impatient Virgin last Sept @ the Flight Has No Future warbird gathering @ KPAE, I know you got some great stuff both static and A2A

I might get older, but dang it! I REFUSE to grow up!!!

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Good question!

Taking publishable air to air is a lot harder than it looks. Some of us are lucky with happy snaps a2a piggybacking others' photo shoots; and you can be lucky and good or great shots that way, but don't forget that's luck (and other's work).

Taking usable a2a film is even harder, because of the 4th dimension - time. Most amateur a2a film makes you feel seasick, and you can't pick a good frame from an average set, unlike still. Many poor a2a shoots for stills have salvaged a couple of OK shots.

It's also expensive, whoever is putting up the cash. Obviously you need at least two aircraft, crews for them at the same time and place, and you have to get to the right location when the weather's OK. Standing next to a pro photographer with all-but-one of the above lined up is not a great experience. Often there's no second go.

Sadly there are also too many morons who write in to magazine editors and complain that they can't read the serial number when someone takes a classic backlit or imaginative shot, which unfortunately means lots of that kind of thing is ruled out. Aircraft are often beautiful aesthetic abstract shapes, and this is something that more could be made of in photography rather than the DDSV* that is so often demanded.

There are a few really good photographers who take excellent, dramatic shots with punch; most of them have some degree of professional training, as well as gee-whiz kit - but the most critical thing is that 'eye' for spotting an opportunity, setting it up and making it happen.

To answer the question; I'll take what I get, I'm not a photographer, but I sure wish I saw more than 'here is a pretty aeroplane flying along' to choose from when laying out a page.

Cheers,

*Deadly Dull Side ViewTM Damien Burke's term of (often justified) contempt.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Speaking as a photographer of sorts myself, all I can say is --Great post, James. Equipment is so good these days that most of us can manage quite nice images -- but good enough to make a magazine page pop is still what separates the great ones from the rest of us.

Another thing to remember is that the great shots tend to come from carefully planned and carefully briefed situations. This produces very different results from what I might get riding along on some air show passes somewhere.

Mind you I wll always happily take any opportunity that comes along, and will produce some worthwhile stuff, but not the kind of photographs James is talking about here.

And by the way -- Great shots there, Dave...

_________________
Neal Nurmi

---Wingman Photo---

Thanks Neal. Another point is getting an unobstructed clear view is often hard; removable glazing (sometimes not possible) while canopy frames and dirty / distorted glazing are enemies.

Travelling backwards is sometimes not fun. People have died from falling out of aircraft in a2a shoots (notably in Catch 22) and from mid air collisions. Even bread and butter shots can be a challenge and all have en element of additional risk to be managed.

Just a few thoughts from the editorial office, of the good and bad that our colleagues undertake - they probably won't go on about it - most of 'em prefer to talk with a lens...

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com