What makes a good aircraft photo.

NoelKearney

Spending most of my free time over the last number of years, at airports with a camera close by, I always strive for the perfect photograph. Maybe I set the bar too high, but unless the photo meets certain basic criteria, it ends up in the bin or deleted. For me, there is nothing more depressing or annoying than a nice subject, captured in a bad photo.

So what makes a good photo? â€“ For me, the most important point is that the identity of the aircraft (Reg. / Serial No.) is clearly visible. After that, focus, lighting, clarity foreground & background play their part.

I know that this is not always possible and every location has its limitations, but thatâ€™s what makes this hobby challenging. A picture of a â€˜dotâ€™ in the middle of a field doesnâ€™t work for me. Making a little extra effort, the help of some local knowledge and at times, some luck can be very rewarding. Sacrificing quantity for quality is not necessarily a bad thing.

THoff

Your point about the clearly visible registration number is an interesting one. I agree that ideally, it should be clearly visible, but many of my favorites fail that test because the registration is obscured by the wings or engines, or so tiny as to be invisble to the naked eye.

Most of my images are very similar because the airport I hang out at has predictable weather and thus traffic patterns, and the area open to the public for viewing and photography is limited. If I can't see the registration as the aircraft approaches me, I take another image as it passes to ensure I have that information when I get home. In most cases the initial image of the approaching aircraft is more dramatic and interesting than the one that clearly shows the registration.

NoelKearney

THoff - I agree with the points you made. I had a look at your photos at Santa Monica and they are great. Lighting, clarity, no obstacles in the foreground and with LA skyline in the background what more could you want! Itâ€™s also true that thereâ€™s something special about that final moment just before touchdown, it gives that sense of movement in the picture. And as I said local knowledge plays a big part. On the two occasions Iâ€™ve been to California I never considered visiting SM Municipal, but I will the next time.

THoff

Hey, thanks for the kind words, that's much appreciated. I just looked through my slideshow of Santa Monica Municipal Airport and was surprised how many of those images didn't show the tail number clearly. I knew there some, but I didn't realize how many.

Santa Monica Municipal Airport is a great place to watch and take photos, it has quite a bit activity and variety, and the proximity to the ocean with consistent weather patterns means that the vast majority of the activity takes place close the public viewing area. It is also one of the few remaining places where you aren't looking through a chain-link fence from half a mile away.

red750

Before I discovered airport-data.com, I started submitting to airliners.net. I managed to get 12 photos accepted, mainly because they were digitised versions of old transparencies, and therefore of some historical value. I did get a few recent photos loaded. However, I have had many rejected due to poor quality, primarily because I use a 3x point and shoot - can't afford anything more snazzy. This limits me to static aircraft because the zoom cannot get me close enough to shoot aircraft in the air.

Since joining airport-data.net I have uploaded 130 photos. If you check my gallery, you will notice that I try to apply the a.net approach to my photos - crop close and try to keep foreign objects from blocking the subject as much as possible. I don't use Photoshop - can't afford it -but use the free download XnView to crop, level and resize. Occasionally I adjust brightness and contrast.

In the most recent upload, on my gallery home page, the Bonanza VH-DDD was some distance from the viewing area fence. The original photo was 3264x2448 pixels, and the aircraft was one third the width of the frame. I cropped it much closer, then resized it to a width of 1024 pixels and left the height to the program. The result is as uploaded. I trust that my photos are of acceptable standard, even though they don't meet a.net standard which I feel is pretty much for professional photographers with expensive kit, or very dedicated amateurs.

NoelKearney

Red750, the great thing about this site is that everyone is free to upload any photo of aviation interest that they wish. (I think!) Also I too have submitted photos to airliners.net and had them rejected so I didnâ€™t bother again. As far as equipment goes, I have one Nikon and two lenses, after all this is a hobby and my children need to eat. My initial point was about preparation, thereâ€™s little we can do about the weather on a particular day, but with some planning, maybe local knowledge about possible vantage points (legal ones that is) we can achieve better quality photographs. I could wall-paper my house with all the photos I discarded over the past few years but that makes the good ones more special. Oh and by the way I know many European spotters including myself who would donate a kidney for the chance to photograph that Connie (VH-EAG). Nice one!!

THoff

This actually brings up another question: how do you guys deal with the summer heat?

I find it almost impossible to get pictures of acceptable (to me) quality with the summer heat radiating off the runway and tarmac. Unless an image is reduced in size, any straight lines are wavy and much detail is lost. Unless the day happens to be overcast (rare) or there is a heavy layer of smog (not so rare right now due to the brush fires in the Los Angeles area), it seems pointless to try to take pictures.

NoelKearney

Well here across the pond in Ireland we don't get either. Neither summer nor heat. We're faced with the opposite problem. Trying to balance on a step ladder while holding an umbrella in one hand and a camera in the other. We're still waiting for global warming to get here.

DeanHeald

If the weather is not good (i.e., heat haze, overcast, etc.) you can still take photos for your personal collection, but it is not necessary to upload them to share unless it is a rare photo. Lousy pictures are not nice to look at nor would I want any of mine to be seen on the web.

I think a good starting point for a good photo is to have it properly exposed, sharp, well composed, and having the horizon level. So often times I see photos where the aircraft is a spot in the sky, or the horizon is leaning left or right, or the image is blurry. Backlit photos are usually not attractive to see.

I am a screener at a major aviation website, and thus have higher standards that I expect. You can improve the quality of your shots by visiting websites such as Airliners.net and JetPhotos.net and learning from them if you so desire.

I think that this website is very lenient as far as what is accepted and is done so with the goal of allowing everyone to share their aviation photos.

If you really want to improve your skills, submit your shots to Airliners.net or JetPhotos.net and get some feedback. Otherwise, continue to upload your shots here without feedback.

Whatever your choice, it's just a hobby for most of us. The main thing is to enjoy what you are doing.

Dean

THoff

I think that this website is very lenient as far as what is accepted and is done so with the goal of allowing everyone to share their aviation photos.

I know one website that is even more lenient -- FlightAware. I've seen pictures of kids in a bathtub, celebrations in a bar or restaurant, motorcycles, specks in the sky that could be a bird or a plane (or Superman?), and even the proverbial kitchen sink.

Ztex

I Don't know but think the goal of this website is to have photos of as many registered aircraft as possible. At least that is my goal. I have several thousand photos of aircraft in my collection that would never see the light of day if not for a site like this.

I do my best to make my photos posted here the best possible. But that being said it is not always possible to get the right shot. A lot of my photos are for data purposes only. There are limits to my postings but if it is the only shot I have of an aircraft not in the database, I fudge those limits a bit.

Good photos have proper exposure, focus and a decent subject. Great photos have all that plus an invisible gravity that pulls you into them. Those are pretty rare. I think I have one or two...probably not many more. ;)

Good discussion.

Zane

GuyPambrun

There's some great decisions made by quite a few people as to what constitutes a good photograph. Among those already discussed I would like to throw a one or two of mine out.

I do most of my shooting at a small regional airport in Langley, B.C.. I frequent that site for a few reasons. Primarily because there seems to be quite a load of owners devoted to private aviation ( my first love after military stuff ) with a few small sized companies based out of there. Quite a few helicopters as well but I never seem to be there at the right time.

If you look at my shots for the most part you can see I like to get aircraft in the air because that's where I think they belong. I always try and get something in the background besides the sky. I do that to try and add a sense of size and to show the planes purpose. Background blur is important to me as well because it shows motion. I make exceptions when I get lucky enough to attend a function with an aerobatic display such as the Thunderbirds or Snowbirds. For those I don't mind a shot without a background once in a while.

Because I visit the same site on a regular basis I always try and replace a ground shot with something in the air or a shaded aircraft with better detail and I always try and get prop blur. To me not much spoils a shot more than a dead prop.

Depending on the body / lens combo I used I will post process my shots but on a limited basis. A touch of sharpness or removing a pole that got in the way makes sense to me.

DeanHeald

I like to see level shots. It really bugs me when they are not level. I also like well-composed, centered shots. I agree with all of the things that have been mentioned before.

Dean

JetPhotos.net screener

trevorc28

I like to see level shots. It really bugs me when they are not level. I also like well-composed, centered shots. I agree with all of the things that have been mentioned before.

Dean

I suppose we are all different, I'm new to this forum but I find perfectly centred shots boring. I like shots where the aircraft has somewhere to go. it's interesting to see a screener from another site saying they like shots centred. Does that mean that personal preference of a centred subject mean that photographers with a different preference are more likely to be excluded or is a good picture a good picture regardless of personal taste.

DeanHeald

The subject should be well-composed, not necessarily always perfectly centered as you may have gathered from my comment. Your statement of the aircraft having somewhere to go is a personal opinion and a valid one, as long as the aircraft is well-composed. One could make the argument of showing the aircraft coming from somewhere. As long as it's well balanced, that could work too. Your thoughts are welcome Trevor and they make for a constructive discussion for all.

Dean

I like to see level shots. It really bugs me when they are not level. I also like well-composed, centered shots. I agree with all of the things that have been mentioned before.

Dean

FBE

I agree with many statements that have been posted, photos in level is one of the most important for me too, as well as, sharpness, colors, size of the aircraft compared to the picture size and so on. To see the registration ... this probably the most important for spotters. However many of us have their own quality levels they want to achieve. I tried some other databases where screeners decide whether a picture is good or not. I will never do that again, got to often p... o... . I like how this page works, you by yourself decide, yes this is a picture to share with others.

Fritz

FloridaMetal

I often take 2 or 3 shots of each aircraft that comes in to whatever airport I am spotting at - if it is something more rare I take several shots just in case a couple don't come out.

I typically post two shots of each aircraft here (sometimes more if there is an interesting background or it is doing various things like taxiing, take off, interiors, arrivals all with same plane)

For a basic spotting day at MCO and TPA with typical stuff I will post two shots - one that shows it on approach - typically giving a 3 Dimensional approach to the plane - slightly under it so we can see wing shape and from the front - my second photo usually shows it as it directly passes or has already passed so you can see the registration. While some people like to get 90 degree side views - its debateable what makes a better picture

moxy

I think we all strive to take good or at least, interesting photographs. The quality may not always be as high as one would like but we canâ€™t all afford top of the range cameras and lenses or be brilliant photographers. Iâ€™d class my own efforts as adequate at best but then itâ€™s a hobby, itâ€™s not paying my mortgage.

Some of the main problems with consistently taking good photographs are weather, light, airfield accessibility and time constraints. Sometimes one has to photograph an aeroplane under grey skies, from a less than ideal angle or distance and very quickly before it takes off and disappears. These certainly wonâ€™t always be brilliant technically but maybe more atmospheric for the viewer. Saying that, I envy Doug Robertson and what seems like endless blue skies at Santa Paula (what a smashing litte aerodrome, must get there some time).

On this site we find a great variety of photographs, side on, three quarter views, landing, take-off, cruising etc etc., not forgetting the excellent airport shots. These may not all be of wonderful quality from a photographerâ€™s perspective but they are all valuable in some way. They are a moment in time that will never be repeated. The backgrounds (which are sometimes more interesting than the subject) and the airfield shots are an all important record of how things are now or were, before the seemingly endless march of money orientated property developing destroys my green and pleasant land and everyone elseâ€™s, replacing it with a blanket of houses, retail and distribution parks which nobody appears to want and which stay empty for years.

I personally find the pictures on this site much more interesting than those on Airliners.net which to me are somewhat sterile. A-D com seems to attract people who have a love of aviation and flying in general rather than those that seem more interested in aviation photography for itâ€™s own sake.

Enough of my ramblings though just to finish, I am not too keen on photos of aeroplanes with covers on. Nevertheless, I have been guilty on the odd occasion but prefer to see the cockpit and engine areas not a tarpaulin.

ROB