AH-1 "Cobra" & UH-1 "Cobra"

Bell AH-1 "Cobra" and Bell UH-1 "Huey" at the Olympic Air Show in Tumwater, WA

Nice pair of choppers...

Curious though: Why were you at ISO 2000? 1/2500 @ f/10? Couldn't have been that dark, could it?

nice, my neighbor has one of those Cobra's - he said they're pretty rare. His has that same paint job and that rotating gun on the front. He let me sit in it (I've got the pictures somewhere here), it's a tight cockpit.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14597167
Nice pair of choppers...

Curious though: Why were you at ISO 2000? 1/2500 @ f/10? Couldn't have been that dark, could it?

To give you an opportunity to point out that I'm doing it wrong.

Nice Pictures, I was there and those choppers gave me a real flashback to Nam!

ScatterCrSport wrote in post #14597601
To give you an opportunity to point out that I'm doing it wrong.

With a comment like that... I'm your huckleberry (that means this is going to get rough)

You're new here aren't you? ...Like never seen an aviation picture here before before new; since every aviation picture here has comments which refer to the haves or have nots in the prop blur department. Looking at your past posts, it seems you really like gear (of 2 pages of past posts, there were 3 in transportation and <5 in other topics), but the majority talking about bags, lenses, and the like. Which might explain why you're shooting a 1D4 with a 400 f/2.8 - isn't that Canon's highest priced combo? - with the staggering disparity in gear and image quality.

ISO2000!?!? I don't know if I've shot that high more than once (because I was shooting at night and trying to keep it above 1/30 for airplane shots, somehow the other 150k pictures I've managed to keep under ISO2000). What your exif tells me (other than randomly picking numbers to set your camera to), you set a high ISO, the shot at 1/2500 because the 400 f/2.8 is really effin' heavy and you wanted a super sharp shot, then the camera dialed in f/10 because even 1/2500 couldn't throttle back ISO2000. Although I see you're shooting in Manual, so I would assume you picked the combo of 1/2500 and f/10 to rein in ISO2000


But since I agreed to help...
ISO100-200 (or about as low as you can go, assuming it's direct sun, day light - WA clouds will allow you to drop your aperture to a more optimum level), 1/160 (faster/slower depending on focal length but not above 1/500 if you can help it), and whatever the aperture has to be (I'd mess around to keep it in the f/10 range - acceptably high; but I have let it get into the f/30s to get the shot before)

These are actually the settings I'd use for your Mustang/Zero shot. Helicopters really need to be shot slower than that, but experience weighs heavily at that point. Helicopters are shot best ~1/100 or slower, depending on number of blades and such.

Hope you're able to tolerate my response, but you asked for it - both figuratively and literally.

rammsteinmatt wrote in post #14598069
You're new here aren't you?

My name is Erik. I'm a Gearaholic. After twent-five years as an Automatic Transmission Rebuilder, I've come to the realization that if you don't have the proper tools, you can't do the job!

I'm apprehensive about posting anything on POTN. There are those on here (not you) that ask leading questions and then wait to pounce. I have witnessed and been on the receiving end of condescending behavior. It always ends up in an argument that has the merits of 'how many fairys can dance on the end of a pin'. I try to ignore it, but once in a while, because of previous history, I respond. Tsk, tsk... my bad!

Huckleberry, thank you for the honest and succinct reply. It was the first Air Show that I've ever attended and today was the first time that I posted in the Transportation section. I don't generally lurk in the Transportation section because it's too close to home. I normally shoot prep sports, but like to try other things as well.

I have an EF400 2.8L II (non-IS). It is an obsolete lens that was manufactured from 1996-99. It is Canon's heaviest piece to date (excluding the ultra-exotic). It is a superior piece of glass that suits my needs at an affordable used price.

Why ISO 2000!?!? I approached it from acheiveing an aperture of around f/11 for an adequate DOF & a shutter speed >1/2000 to insure freezing action during high-speed panning shots. That put me in the ISO 2000 range. My intent was to get the highest focal acuity. Prop blur was not a consideration.

Drawing from my experience, shooting a sprinting athlete requires a minimum shutter speed of 1/640th to freeze motion in a panning shot. The low shutter speeds for flying aircraft appeared untenable to me.

At the usual distances involved with airshows, DOF usually isn't a major issue.

For jets, I'll usually shoot at a shutter speed that yields f/4.5 on my 500mm. This is more for IQ though and not DOF. Props, I'll start at 1/320 for a warmup and then work down to 1/180 or 1/125 as I go.

If you can pan with sprinters in close, you can pan aircraft. Same muscles involved...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14599032
At the usual distances involved with airshows, DOF usually isn't a major issue.

For jets, I'll usually shoot at a shutter speed that yields f/4.5 on my 500mm. This is more for IQ though and not DOF. Props, I'll start at 1/320 for a warmup and then work down to 1/180 or 1/125 as I go.

If you can pan with sprinters in close, you can pan aircraft. Same muscles involved...

I'll ease into your recommended settings next time... hopefully I have the presence of mind to remember what to do when. The technical & artistic aspects of photography appeal to me. It's a long and winding road built on fundamentals.

ScatterCrSport wrote in post #14599442
I'll ease into your recommended settings next time... hopefully I have the presence of mind to remember what to do when. The technical & artistic aspects of photography appeal to me. It's a long and winding road built on fundamentals.

A little "deep" maybe but I'll grant you that like any technique, slow shutter and panning takes time to perfect...

Helos can be very artistic if you get the right settings and conditions...

You can also draw some inspiration over on this thread!

It's not a terrible shot. I have boxes of slides that look just like it.

ScatterCrSport wrote in post #14598980
I'm apprehensive about posting anything on POTN. There are those on here (not you) that ask leading questions and then wait to pounce. I have witnessed and been on the receiving end of condescending behavior. It always ends up in an argument that has the merits of 'how many fairys can dance on the end of a pin'. I try to ignore it, but once in a while, because of previous history, I respond. Tsk, tsk... my bad!

"leading questions" quite often are a result of incomplete info in the initial post. I can see where sometimes it seems like "condescending behavior", but usually someone asks in order to learn how to best help you. Sometimes not. But the question at least gives your thread a <Bump>, & the following answer should be more useful than the typical, "Awsome shot!" which is only useful as an ego boost, no?

I suggest that you don't get locked in to only one way of doing things. Yes, some editors want a totally sharp image. But would the image be "bad" is the athlete's feet were slightly blurred? To me, that says "FAST!".

How about this image?
Would it be better if it were needle sharp? That's a matter of opinion. I don't always want everything in the car in a panning shot sharp, but feel that at least some part of it should be. But it's the effect that I was going for, & the "trick" is to know what you want & how to get it, right?

More info: Shooting airshows in Manual

PhotosGuy wrote in post #14601031
I suggest that you don't get locked in to only one way of doing things. Yes, some editors want a totally sharp image. But would the image be "bad" is the athlete's feet were slightly blurred? To me, that says "FAST!".

I admit, I'm guilty of going after the sharpest images. Historically, that's the way I shoot. I commonly blur backgrounds to emphasize a subject. A little foot motion works well on kicks.

Coming from an essentially B&W chemical/journalistic background into the digital era has been a major transition. I have no formal training other than webinars, workshops, videos & helpful advice. I have always read a lot, which is where I picked up most of the fundamentals. Pursuing 'the shot' puts constraints on artistic license. More often than not, 'a shot' is what I end up with.

When I got 24 frames (before & after) of a record-breaking 96 yard interception return for touchdown (with two team mates going up for the ball, faces, emotion, sharp focus, nailed exposure), the Editor asked, "did you get any of the Quarterback?" Of course I did, but I never submitted any. BTW, the interception was on the opening drive and set the tempo for the whole game.

Flat boring flash lighting is the norm. Single-phase field lighting is a White Balance nightmare if you seek to employ any ambient light at all. They cycle yellow to blue at 60Hz.

In an outdoor arena, having the crowd or chain gang in the background is about as artsy as it gets.

I'm here because I want to expand my horizons.

Bring back memories from VietNam. The "Cobra" was nickname the "Warlord".

Well from my point of view I'm impressed. Firstly this didn't turn into one of those hate threads and secondly if that shot is untouched at ISO2000 I want a 1Dmk4

Desertraptor wrote in post #14609303
...if that shot is untouched...

Peter,

Here are some camera settings & the PP adjustments. I'll let you draw your own conclusion on how untouched the image is.

RAW (AI Servo)(Spot Metering)(AF-ON button)
CF’s (similar to Peter Read Miller)(Servo Tracking 3)(lens specific MFA)
Lightroom 3.6
Import
Exposure +0.10
WB Eye Dropper @ Blade Center Patch
Lens Profile EF400 2.8L IS
Sharpening 55
Sharpen Radius 1.8
Sharpen Detail 40
Luminance 50
Luminance Detail 50
Crop
Export sRGB JPEG (POTN parameters)

In my opinion, Canon RAW files are underexposed straight out of the camera.