• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

OT Shooting Eagles on the Heath

M

michael davies

Charter Member 2012
Finally managed to find a good spot that my camera is close enough to take pictures of Eagles landing at Lakenheath, trade today was brisk, Saw twenty take offs and nine arrivals, best of the bunch attached. This seems to be a normal pattern, everyone turns up around 12:00 and seven take off about 12:30ish, they then return a few hours later around 14:00, seems to be the best time to be certain of grabbing an Eagle on approach.

Tried some different camera settings, seems to have an effect, looks like the exposure might be a camera issue, seems it sets the exposure from the first image when in continual shoot mode, ie when the plane is smallest and the sky largest, stores it and uses that until the shutter is released, thus they're under exposed when up real close.

Best

Michael
 
If anything, the first image is overexposed, so the original metering was wrong. I suppose the best way to remedy the problem is to have it on single shooting, and focus individually for each shot, which would also provide an accurate exposure reading for every shot taken.

I took these from the same position (pretty much), in similar lighting, and the single shot method seemed to work for me fine.
View attachment 59297View attachment 59298View attachment 59299

Another way to solve the problem, even if it's not the most ideal solution, is if you're using a DSLR, shoot in RAW mode, and alter the exposure afterwards. Those shots, especially the underexposed one, don't seem to be out of the realms of simply altering the exposure level to bring it up to standard.

Edit: upon looking twice, I see your shots contain different airframes, therefore not from the same sequence of shots. Would it be possible to provide EXIF data, including the shooting mode (AV, TV, program, etc)? Would perhaps be able to see exactly what's wrong, then.
 
Tweek said:
If anything, the first image is overexposed, so the original metering was wrong. I suppose the best way to remedy the problem is to have it on single shooting, and focus individually for each shot, which would also provide an accurate exposure reading for every shot taken.

I took these from the same position (pretty much), in similar lighting, and the single shot method seemed to work for me fine.
View attachment 59297View attachment 59298View attachment 59299

Another way to solve the problem, even if it's not the most ideal solution, is if you're using a DSLR, shoot in RAW mode, and alter the exposure afterwards. Those shots, especially the underexposed one, don't seem to be out of the realms of simply altering the exposure level to bring it up to standard.

Edit: upon looking twice, I see your shots contain different airframes, therefore not from the same sequence of shots. Would it be possible to provide EXIF data, including the shooting mode (AV, TV, program, etc)? Would perhaps be able to see exactly what's wrong, then.
Click to expand...

I adjusted the contrast on the first one a little too much I think, my camera has a tendency to wash out images a little and they always require a little extra contrast and some sharpening in PSP afterwards.

All of these are crops and resized for SoH, I'll post the exact images on my site with some links shortly.

I'll be honest, my camera is pretty crummy when it comes to shots like this, it really is pushing it to the edge of its limits, most spotters laugh when I get it out ( camera that is ! ) but in the right light and with a little luck the old girl can turn a few blinders in now and again, not bad for a pocket point and shoot http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona620/ I also have the newer A640 10Mp but it seems to have lost something over this little rugged predecessor.

Most were shot with +1 exposure rating as I like to see some detail underneath and all of these were shot with aperture priority of F4 to hopefully give a better depth of field and negate some focus hunting.

The ambient light seems to have a dramatic effect, even though there are clouds, if your under one then your images are generally poor, if your in sunlight then there generally good.

When it gets it right it gets it right :). I need more arrivals and chance to try shutter priority next time and then full auto, I've found that setting down from the largest pixel format really does increase sharpness, all my previous at Mildenhall were at 3072x2074, most of these were 2592x1944.

I choose the larger size so I can crop as the preview screen goes blank when the picture is taken for a brief moment !! and thus pan tracking is impossible so you have to use the optical sight which has a parallax error so you mentally need to offset all the time....I really do miss all of my old 35mm SLR stuff, would have made mince meat of these shots, keep looking at a new Eos with a 200mm lens, which should cover all shots I want, though not easy to stick in your pocket and smuggle about work up cranes LOL.

I checked through the image data and whilst aperture remains constant it is adjusting the shutter speed on the fly so it is trying to compensate for each image, I do just think its the background sky and patchy cloud that makes or breaks them, sadly I do like 40/60 cloud cover as a back ground, gives it a bit more feel to me.

Heres the links to unedited ones

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images_Planes/IMG_1731.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images_Planes/IMG_1739.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images_Planes/IMG_1815.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images_Planes/IMG_1826.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images_Planes/IMG_1835.jpg

As you can see from 1815, they suddenly went dark, 1826 was only a few minutes behind ?, virtually the same lighting conditions yet an acceptable image to begin some work on. Other than the focal length ( zoom ) and pixel size the aperture and shutter are identical, yet one underexposed, the other is ok...ish :).

Beauty of digital is you can just delete the ones you don't want :).

Best

Michael
 
Those originals certainly don't look bad for the kind of camera you're using, and on a second viewing, there doesn't seem to be as much of an exposure issue as I first thought. It could well be the changing light that's giving the illusion of over/underexposure. However, the exposure issues in a couple of them could just be down to the camera, rather than the user, especially if you took them all on the same settings.

Though I would suggest, if you really do want to get a bit more into digital aviation photography, that you get a similar camera with a bit more zoom, such as the Fujifilm S5600, which served me well until I got a DSLR. Being honest, a DSLR completely blows such a camera out of the water, but if you're on a budget, then something like the S5600 would be right up your street.
 
Tweek said:
Those originals certainly don't look bad for the kind of camera you're using, and on a second viewing, there doesn't seem to be as much of an exposure issue as I first thought. It could well be the changing light that's giving the illusion of over/underexposure. However, the exposure issues in a couple of them could just be down to the camera, rather than the user, especially if you took them all on the same settings.

Though I would suggest, if you really do want to get a bit more into digital aviation photography, that you get a similar camera with a bit more zoom, such as the Fujifilm S5600, which served me well until I got a DSLR. Being honest, a DSLR completely blows such a camera out of the water, but if you're on a budget, then something like the S5600 would be right up your street.
Click to expand...

The zoom isnt bad, you just have to get closer ....so you can see the whites of their eyes LOL, yup, a DSLR is in the offing, its not the cost, its the bulk of them, you just cant stick them in your pocket like you can the A620, even thats a big piece of kit when compared to some pocket cameras. I used to hate having to carry all my gear around in a case, looked like I was on a bank job or something !.

It does what I want it to do 90% of the time, I've been taking photos long enough to know that the A620 in these conditions is going to be marginal at best, but it certainly makes me think twice about looking down at hand helds as semi serious technology.

I'll try next time and see if I can alter anything else to get a better hit rate :).

Best

Michael
 
Well that's good to know that you're happy with what you've got! And you're quite right about the bulk. I currently use a Canon 400D + 400mm F/5.6L, whilst carrying a 17-85mm IS and 75-300mm around in my bag. With the lens hood extended, the 400D/400mm combo is about 35-40cm long, so it's hardly a 'convenience' camera!

I'm off out tomorrow, perhaps to LN, Mildenhall, Marham, so I'll post the results up on here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top