Jump to content

Hi to all our members ... We  would just like to draw your attention to the latest post on the following link... Thank you for your attention .If you have already responded to my note  on Chatbox  about this please ignore this sticky note ... Thanks  folks ....

http://www.tipf.co.uk/forums/topic/46369-important~-the-forum-its-future-and-finances/

Clicker and Ryewolf   ADMIN TEAM 

Regretfully we have to once again ask members for  some financial support in order to  keep TIPF  running till December 2023. The more pledges we have to become  FRIEND OF THE FORUM  the less the individual cost will be so  if you want this Forum to continue  please follow the link below  and decide  if you are able to  support us . Thank you all for your support in the past ... it has been appreciated  a great deal ...

https://www.tipf.co.uk/forums/topic/57184-202223-forum-finances-update-important-notice/

 Clicker and Ryewolf  ...  Admin Team 

Hi TIPFers 

I AM HERE AGAIN WITH THE  BEGGING BOWL TO ENSURE THE FORUM CAN KEEP GOING ... Please follow  below if you want to  support the continuation  of this Forum and  this  small but friendly community. 

As always your support is  both vital and appreciated ...

 Clicker and Ryewolf ...

https://www.tipf.co.uk/forums/topic/57184-202223-forum-finances-update-4th-july-2023/

 

Landing


Leon

Recommended Posts

I spent a few hours at Manchester Airport viewing park earlier in the week as I had never been before. deleted everything when I got back, too far away and the heat haze ruined almost every shot.

 

these two were rescued and heavily cropped but you can see why.... would a faster shutter speed get rid of heat haze?  shot with a canon 70D, 70-200 F4 with a 1,4x extender on giving m 420mm.

500/th sec F8 ISO 100

IMG_0456.jpg

IMG_0628.jpg

Link to comment

From what I've read Leon, it seems the lower and further away from your subject the more likely you'll get more heat haze, the land and tarmac heat up quickly and make the ground temp far more than the air temp, so early mornings or late evenings might be better.

I've just looked at an Airline Photography forum and they suggested a polarising filter and photographing when the plane is taking off.

I've never tried this myself, so maybe someone with a bit more knowledge will come along....

Link to comment

Speaking through a physicist's hat (rather than a photographer's) here.

Heat haze is caused by small-scale variations in refractive index in the air driven by the hot surface (the runway) leading to turbulent convection -- i.e there's a mixture of hot rising air and cooler falling air replacing it and the cooler air is denser and has a higher refractive index.

I don't think exposure time will make much difference as the timescale of the variations is likely to be of the order of 1/10 s rather than 1/1000. I don't understand the physics behind using a polarizing filter or shooting planes taking off. I think the best option would be early morning before the tarmac has heated up.

Link to comment

I think the idea behind photographing the plane as it's taken off is that it will be less affected by heat haze. I know in F1 they always mention the air temp and the track (surface) temp and I'm pretty sure I remember reading that metrological stations have their thermometers a certain height above ground (1.5m seems to come to mind). So the higher the plane is from the ground the less likely you are to get heat haze.

I'm not a physicist, but I do remember reading the surface temp can be a very lot higher than the air temp because the ground warms faster than the air.

Link to comment

I sometimes go to watch the US Air force jet fighters at Lakenheath Leon, ground heat haze is always a problem even quite early, but the take off shots can actually look better as the haze and the heat from the engines give a good effect, likewise on a damp day, you get all sorts of vapour clouds around air intakes and wingtips that really look good.

42463555154_60d0f85fd9_c.jpg

32327225321_7b0aecb7c4_c.jpg

Link to comment

Hi Leon

 I think your extender is slowing the shutter down and I certainly wouldn't add a CP filter with your set up as you can loose 2 stops using a CP filter. What is the lowest/widest f. number you able to get with the extender and are using aperture or full manual?

As for the haze - the later versions of Photoshop have a de-haze slider which can help.

You could of course go for something where you need a slow shutter to catch the blur...

796232276_Leader210-04.jpg.b077aeb5788e5c31c62f42698c91dda2.jpg

 

Link to comment
On 09/08/2018 at 07:43, colinb said:

Hi Leon

 I think your extender is slowing the shutter down and I certainly wouldn't add a CP filter with your set up as you can loose 2 stops using a CP filter. What is the lowest/widest f. number you able to get with the extender and are using aperture or full manual?

As for the haze - the later versions of Photoshop have a de-haze slider which can help.

You could of course go for something where you need a slow shutter to catch the blur...

796232276_Leader210-04.jpg.b077aeb5788e5c31c62f42698c91dda2.jpg

 

Hi Colin, with the 1.4 my lowest F number is 5.6

there are not many prop propelled airliners these days <sodemoji.1f61b></sodemoji.1f61b>

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...