Dull airshow photos - whats gone wrong ?

Airshow fan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3
Edit My Images
Yes
I went to an airshow yesterday and the photos of planes flying all seem to be dull, I would love to know where I am going wrong the conditions on the day were poor but nowhere near as dull as my photos have come out.

I was using a Nikon D40x on shutter priority - shutter speed 1000 and -0.7 comp. This might not be the best of settings I went with them as another website suggested them.

I have few more airshows coming up over the next few months and really want to try and get better photos next time around.

dulljp.jpg
 
Looks like an (under) exposure problem to me.

19578292.jpg
 
Yep looks like its underexposed, You should maybe have checked your histogram after a couple of shots and set exposure compensation to 0 or +, because looks like camera has metered for the sky and not the plane.
 
Depending on your focal length, you should be able to bring your shutter speed down from 1/1000 which will let more light in. You also may need to up the ISO on the dull days to get the correct exposure.
I've got sharp shots on a 300mm prime down as low as 1/160. Lots of panning practice too to get a nice sharp crisp shot. :thumbs:
 
Looks similar to my pics. Was this at Cosford by any chance?
 
I was using a Nikon D40x on shutter priority - shutter speed 1000 and -0.7 comp. This might not be the best of settings I went with them as another website suggested them.

Please don't take this personally, but there are a number of problems in relying on settings recommended on this or other web sites/magazines/blogs/etc. The main one is thay they aren't there at the show your attending so have absolutely no idea what the lighting is like - that's down to you to assess and choose the settings accordingly.

You need to take care of what you see in the viewfinder - especially the light meter - before triffering the shutter.

Good luck for the rest of your airshow season :)
 
Thank you all for the advice, I did not check the histogram once yesterday to be honest.

Will pay more attention to that and the condtions on the day next time rather than what a website says is the correct settings to use.

Therefore a couple of good lessons learnt for next time.

I am a little confused about the camera having "metered for the sky and not the plane" how would I go about setting the camera up so it meters on the plane next time ?

The photo was taken at Cosford, have been having a play around with the camera this afternoon I guess its a case of getting as much advice and taking as many photos as possible in order to improve.

One last question for now is im using a 75-300mm lens what sort of speeds should you be using with a lens at the 300mm end ?
 
Too be blatantly honest, no matter what settings you used, the conditions you were taking the photo's in definitely do not lend to creating decent images. Dull overcast skies just kill off any detail in the aircraft and even changing the exposure in those conditions against that background wouldn't have improve things greatly. Chalk it down to experience and like most of us aviation togs, pray for the sun....... Good light conditions = good images if you set the camera up right. poor light conditions = detail-less images
 
Too be blatantly honest, no matter what settings you used, the conditions you were taking the photo's in definitely do not lend to creating decent images. Dull overcast skies just kill off any detail in the aircraft



That's interesting - a fair number of my pictures have little details in the aircraft.
 
That's interesting - a fair number of my pictures have little details in the aircraft.

Details are shown by shadows, shadows are created by a point light source (the sun) overcast skies are a large light source, creating shadowless pictures, great for flattering ladies, crap for anything else.
 
Having a pre-determined exposure comp setting sounds like an odd thing to do and not sure why someone would suggest that -0.7 should be used (unless they assume sky is bright but then camera will handle that anyway.

As for "camera having "metered for the sky and not the plane"" would need to spot meter on the plane as risk of blowing sky but you could check what was happening and how much of a problem that was at the time.
 
When shooting against a cloudy sky it is highly probable that the sky will be the brightest part of the scene, or very close to it. That being the case, I would actually spot meter the sky and manually set an exposure to put the bright sky at between +2 and +3 (when shooting raw). That will give me a reasonable ETTR exposure and, even if the lighting and contrast is dreadful, at least allow me to capture as much tonal detail in the aircraft as I can.

If you try metering from the aircraft then you will introduce a lot of variables which might end up with you blowing the sky or needlessly underexposing the aircraft. The variables include - tonality of the aircraft, how much of the frame it occupies, whereabouts in the frame it is positioned, what metering pattern you choose, how much variation in brightness between the plane and the background.

My approach seeks to simply fit the dynamic range of the scene within the capabilities of the camera as best I can. It may look a bit poo SOOC, but equipped with an abundance of image data I can then use my raw editor to craft something I like the look of.

Here's an example....

20120619_090750_000.jpg


Of course, it's still pretty pants, because of horrible light and (I think) the remainders of smoke bombs lingering in the air, but at least my "bright" exposure has captured as much data as possible without blowing what little detail there was in the sky.

Also, while you often have little control over these things, I would certainly try to look all around me and, if there were brighter areas of sky as well as darker regions, I'd try to put the bright bits behind me and the darker bits ahead of me where I expected my subject to pass. That will narrow the contrast gap and make life easier all round. Unfortunately, in my limited experience of such events, the organisers seem determined to have the spectators facing south and into the sun for most of the performance. so cloud or no cloud you usually have a trickier job than you otherwise might.

FWIW my approach is exactly the same when shooting BIF too. I always try to put the light behind me and aim to ETTR for the brightest part of the scene, whether that would be the sky or the bird. Example before edits....

20120619_092052_000.jpg


I knew in advance that the sky would be brighter than the bird, so I metered for the sky ahead of time and locked the exposure manually to avoid any upsets whilst tracking the bird. It's also much easier to meter like that than from a small subject that is whirling about all over the place.

Note, exposing highlights at +3 works well when shooting raw with Canon cameras. I think for Nikons the upper limit is more like +2 1/3 when shooting raw. You might need to shave 1/3 stop off those figures for either brand if shooting to JPEG. I'm not sure, because I never shoot JPEG.
 
As usual, Tim gives a very detail explanation of his thinking and supports it with examples. :clap::clap:
 
Too be blatantly honest, no matter what settings you used, the conditions you were taking the photo's in definitely do not lend to creating decent images. Dull overcast skies just kill off any detail in the aircraft and even changing the exposure in those conditions against that background wouldn't have improve things greatly. Chalk it down to experience and like most of us aviation togs, pray for the sun....... Good light conditions = good images if you set the camera up right. poor light conditions = detail-less images

Yup - Take a look at these
Taken at cosford on sunday, Absolute rubbish!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloydh08/7388998490/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloydh08/7393383738/

(im not posting the photos here as unfortunately they are not mine)
 
Last edited:
Yup - Take a look at these
Taken at cosford on sunday, Absolute rubbish!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloydh08/7388998490/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloydh08/7393383738/

(im not posting the photos here as unfortunately they are not mine)

Look again - the angles and timing are great - but the sky is detail-less and subsequently the lighting is flat, and the one with detail in the sky?:shake: Do you think so really?

Brilliant images in the conditions, but on a sunny day they'd have been so much better.
 
Too be blatantly honest, no matter what settings you used, the conditions you were taking the photo's in definitely do not lend to creating decent images. Dull overcast skies just kill off any detail in the aircraft and even changing the exposure in those conditions against that background wouldn't have improve things greatly. Chalk it down to experience and like most of us aviation togs, pray for the sun....... Good light conditions = good images if you set the camera up right. poor light conditions = detail-less images

Look again - the angles and timing are great - but the sky is detail-less and subsequently the lighting is flat, and the one with detail in the sky?:shake: Do you think so really?

Brilliant images in the conditions, but on a sunny day they'd have been so much better.

But I wasn't commenting about the detail in the sky. I've bolded the bit in the quote I was replying to make it a bit easier for you.
 
Personally, I'd shoot "M"anual

By all means, use Tv or Av to get some exposire settings, then transfer those to the Manual settings and adjust as necessary.

This removes the hit n miss of trying to meter on the Aircraft on each shot.

Just keep checking your histogram through the day (every 3 or 4 shots)

Oh, and have fun ! :-)
 
Look again - the angles and timing are great - but the sky is detail-less and subsequently the lighting is flat, and the one with detail in the sky?:shake: Do you think so really?

Brilliant images in the conditions, but on a sunny day they'd have been so much better.

Well as these are my photos I thought I'd jump in. Yes the lighting was flat and at times it was awful, but you need to make do with what you have at the end of the day. For the light conditions I'm fairly happy with how they have come out and also due to the weather and pressure it made for much more dramatic photos as it was creating the fluff on the aircraft.

Just because the light is flat and dull does not mean you can't get good shots. :thumbs:


To the OP, I would advise shooting 0.3+ EV as you want to overexpose in light like that ideally, yes your most likely blow bits of the sky out but that should be recoverable in photoshop/lightroom/whatever you use but you will get detail in the aircraft which in my view is more important. I was shooting with a 300mm F4 AF-S on a D300s at ISO 200 and shooting at around 1/800 with a varying aperture. :-)
 
Last edited:
Well as these are my photos I thought I'd jump in. Yes the lighting was flat and at times it was awful, but you need to make do with what you have at the end of the day. For the light conditions I'm fairly happy with how they have come out and also due to the weather and pressure it made for much more dramatic photos as it was creating the fluff on the aircraft.

Just because the light is flat and dull does not mean you can't get good shots. :thumbs:

Like I said - brilliant photo's under the conditions.:thumbs:
 
But I wasn't commenting about the detail in the sky. I've bolded the bit in the quote I was replying to make it a bit easier for you.

Photography is about light - it's a tool for recording light, if you can't see the difference between the detail of the plane here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloydh08/7358147936/in/photostream

and here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloydh08/7393732530/in/photostream/

(Thanks to Lloyd for the brilliant examples.)

Then I don't know what to say.:thinking:

Dismissing the quality of light as a contributory factor to the quality of an image is something I wouldn't expect to see from a photographer. I expect puzzled looks from guests at weddings when I start to move them around light, set up OCF or break out reflectors, but I'd expect a photographer to understand the importance of the quality of light.:shake:

Did I mention - it's about *light;)

*It's not of course - it's light, composition and story.

If you capture 1 of those you have a picture - 2 and you have a good picture - all 3 and you have a great picture. Have a look at some of the work you like (or don't like) with that in mind and come back and tell me if you disagree.
 
As has been said its probably down to the sky making everything underexposed.

This is the same plane from earlier in the year when the skies weren't filled with white cloud. It was a bit of a lottery though as a lot of shots looked a lot more dull when I was shooting almost into the sun. The difference the sky and lighting can make is huge, I'm not normally quick enough in changing the settings!


Untitled by ACW#, on Flickr
 
I have a pair of photographs which I think illustrate very well the difficulties posed by bright, cloudy skies. These are both unedited. They were taken just 22 hours apart.

To preserve detail in the sky in the gloomy one the foreground has had to be significantly underexposed. The sky is the light source and light sources are usually brighter than the subject. What's worse, the light source is very much part of the picture and so the exposure must accommodate it. It might be a fairly dramatic sky, but what a miserable picture. The flat light means that shadows and highlights are all suppressed, leading to a tragically dreary result.

Now just look at the sunny version. The light source (the sun) is not in the frame and the exposure can be set to suit the incident light upon the subject. Hard light means sparkling highlights and deep shadows, adding contrast and allowing details to be picked out easily. Piece of cake.

20120620_121610_000.jpg



Where would you rather go for your holiday? ;)
 
Last edited:
I have a pair of photographs which I think illustrate very well the difficulties posed by bright, cloudy skies. These are both unedited. They were taken just 22 hours apart.

To preserve detail in the sky in the gloomy one the foreground has had to be significantly underexposed. The sky is the light source and light sources are usually brighter than the subject. What's worse, the light source is very much part of the picture and so the exposure must accommodate it. It might be a fairly dramatic sky, but what a miserable picture. The flat light means that shadows and highlights are all suppressed, leading to a tragically dreary result.

Now just look at the sunny version. The light source (the sun) is not in the frame and the exposure can be set to suit the incident light upon the subject. Hard light means sparkling highlights and deep shadows, adding contrast and allowing details to be picked out easily. Piece of cake.

20120620_121610_000.jpg



Where would you rather go for your holiday? ;)
Thanks Tim - another excellent example of light quality changing a picture dramatically, which is something I keep 'banging on' about. :clap:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top