| Author |
Message |
Doug Robertson
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 272
Location: Southern California
|
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm scratching my head over this one. The rpm of the prop, whether constant speed prop or fixed pitch, versus the reciprocal speed of the camera shutter would seem to be the only factor. If the reciprocal shutter speed exactly matches or is an even divisor of the prop rpm, whether two, three, four or five blade; wouldn't that stop the prop in the photo? Most taken pictures should therefore be expected to show some prop blur. Most of mine do.
With a variable strobe light experiment, if you can match the strobe rate to the rpm of a constant rotation object, the strobe will always 'freeze' the rotating action, making it appear stopped. The only variable is to match the rotatory speed. I have done this in lab situations many times.
I set my digital camera for auto exposure in aircraft photography. The shutter speed range is 16 seconds to 1/2000th of a second. For aircraft takeoff or landing power, I normally get some prop blur but occasionally the prop appears virtually stopped. Idling props after engine start always seem to show as stopped. Whether the prop will be stopped by my camera is probably farthest from my mind. I pan the camera for most takeoffs and landings-this seems to stop the aircraft sufficiently with an automatic shutter, blurring sometimes the background.
As for geared prop aircraft engines, the Cessna 175 Skylark and the Beech Twin Bonanzas with GO engines come to mind. These engines did cost more, are more expensive to maintain and repair, and haven't proved very popular. Turboshaft prop engines are all geared way down to keep prop tip speeds in check , as well as are the Legendary Aircraft P-51 and TF-51s and other Experimental-classed aircraft that use, say, a Corvette automobile engine. Different gear ratios may be offered, dependent on the prop chosen in what are called PSRUs (propeller speed reduction units).
All this suggests to me we should just aim and shoot, hoping to catch a fast aircraft centered in the photo. _________________ PP ASEL |
|
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Doug Robertson
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 272
Location: Southern California
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: Blurring the prop or getting a prop "disk" effect |
|
|
Hi Timothy,
It appears from my rereading your first post question with all of Mike Fizer's AOPA article that you and he are looking for a total "disk" effect subscribed by the turning propeller in a photo rather than just "blurring" the prop, which could have a variety of perhaps random appearances, (the kind I get). Your points and MiKe Martin's along with Mike Fizer's pro advice are well taken and should do the trick, if a true "disk effect" is what you want.
Then again, some of the AOPA PILOT's cover shots in flight do not show the prop at all, OR a "disk" effect. The same April 2006 AOPA PILOT cover illustrates this on both aircraft in flight. No visible prop or prop disk. Perhaps their photo retouch lab has been at work? Contrast this with their October 2006 AOPA PILOT cover of the G36 Bonanza in flight with a total prop disk effect.
I do a lot of quick "grab" shots from the ground and never reset the shutter speed; just letting my camera set the exposure. I mainly frame the shot using the optical finder, rather than the screen, and size with the optical zoom thumb control and snap the picture, panning if necessary. My camera recycles with lithium ion rechargeable battery very quickly, allowing two to three shots of a takeoff roll or flyby, depending on my positioning. It has a "burst mode" of 5 shots also. I have taken no in-flight plane to plane shots as yet. That would require a total new set of skills and equipment, as the Mike Fizer article explains. _________________ PP ASEL |
|
 |
|
|