Earning a Living from Photographing Aeroplanes

…..I have tens of thousands of Kodachromes…..
Andy

Ahhhh, the punchy vibrant colours, the subtle shades…ooohh…i’m going all gooey at the memory of how lovely Kodachrome 64 was……mmmmmm

Michael 🙂

PS Try telling kids of today about the joys of projecting a properley exposed transparency through a Leica projector onto a proper screen. Digital IS fantastic (i have a 300D) but there was something lovely about Trans film.

Just a few thoughts:

Top dollar (sorry, pound) kit doesn’t necessarily win the day, but it makes achieving the results slightly more straightforward – faster apertures, quicker focusing, fewer chromatic aberations all make the final result slightly easier to achieve.

Newsworthy pictures sell to magazines (as long as you’re quick – results to editors today or tomorrow at the latest) but don’t ALWAYS make the biggest bucks. Airshows aren’t the best places for newsworthy pics because there’s too many people there – more on that later – and the real newsworthy pics that sell for big bucks (national news, etc) in part come from the luck of being in the right place at the right time. Having said that, the consistant big bucks come from commercial photography, and part of that is getting known and getting commissioned – as discussed above – and the other part is stock photography. Don’t dismiss the fairly run-of-the-mill Southwest 737-300 “stock” shot that sold for $750 (maybe should have asked for more as the quote was accepted without question) or the Continental 777 taking off at Manchester that I gather is to be used as a billboard.

One of the biggest challenges to making money today is the plethora of kids who are toting 350Ds (and I say that with absolutely no disrespect to the original poster), probably bought by mom and dad. Some of them achieve half decent results and are prepared to give their work away the for “glory” of seeing their name in print. Many of them don’t have a clue about ISOs, or the relationship between shutter speed, aperture and prop-freeze, or exposure compensation, but as has already been intimiated modern DSLRs often take an element of skill out of this. They don’t always hit the mark, but there’s enough of them around to make an impact.

But they CAN damage the market for the serious photographer – the way out, as already suggested, is to (a) develop a good and consistant reputation with editors and commercial buyers alike, and (b) getting those newsworthy pics, through access and relationships, that the rest do not get. Marketing is important too, but don’t underestimate the “buyers”, particularly from magazines and lower-end commercial operators, who just go fishing on the likes of airliners.net and hope to catch something for free – that market simply didn’t exist before the advent of the internet.

I have tens of thousands of Kodachromes, and a few of them sell well from time to time. But the immediacy of digital means that its a declining market and with a few exceptions the big money doesn’t come from film now whether we like it or not – even most of the high quality publications will take (and even prefer) digital now.

I think that the answer is to keep trying… Keep trying at airshows, but look out for the out-of-the-ordinary. Learn the basics – they are a fundamental back up having a good eye. Kit isn’t everything, but buy better and change infrequently rather than buy cheap and change regularly. Sell yourself, and don’t expect to break into the market big time, quickly. Over time it will come. Whether you can make a living… Who knows?

Andy

So what don’t you agree with, black6?

Many of the photographers on here grew up taking photos of aeroplanes. I myself started using fairly rudimentary rangefinder cameras, progressed through manual SLRs with hand-held meters, via automatic TTL SLRs, then autofocus, to today’s digital kit.

I’d still contend that, however nice static shots may be, you’d be hard pushed to earn a living from selling them alone, whatever their merits.

In addition, as I’ve already said, even discounting digital equipment costs, once you add in travel costs, ‘freebies’ for owners / pilots / engineers, etc, processing and postage costs for all the shots that you submit for publication and are never accepted, you’d do well to even break even, let alone earn a decent living, from aviation photography.

I don’t agree that multi thousand pounds spent on the latest digital equipment is the be all and end all. I also still maintain that the photographer with an eye for the unusual, knows both his equipment (matron!) and his subject and has a sound knowledge of photographic principles will win the day.

Whether he can make any money out of it is a different matter altogether!

Regards

Black6

Maybe so, Rob and Albert.

But you’d still find it hard to earn a living from the odd 20 quid here and there from a shot in the news pages of the popular comics.

Factor in the transport costs to be ‘in the right place at the right time’ (including all the wasted journeys when flights don’t happen due to weather, servicability, pilot availability, or just ‘duff gen’ in the first place) and you’re surely on to a loser.

Mike,

You’re absolutely right and if you read my earlier posts,I say exactly that! I’m just saying how to make ‘some money’ not earn a living! Anyone trying to earn a living from aviation photography should think again!

There is one word in all this that will make money NEWS! It’s doesn’t matter how fantastic your shots are of a Spitfire or similar at an air show,or how many times you go to Duxford or Old Warden, you will not make any money where there are hundreds of others there at the same time taking similar photos. The only way to make money in aviation photography is to take something newsworthy, a first flight, new paint scheme, an air-to-air sortie – something that NO ONE ELSE has taken! It is the newsworthy photos that make money, so you have to be dedicated, keep your ear to the ground and be in the right place at the right time to take the shot! THEN, get it to the magazine before someone else does! 😎

Just to make some slightly different points..

I think that photography is not really different to any other art form – its the WOW factor that counts first and foremost – the technical quality is secondary to that. L series lenses etc are fantastic – get em if you can for sure – but i do believe that photos are made or lost before you even raise the camera to your eyes.

Look at the subject if its static to consider how to show it to its best – before you pick up the camera, think about how that subject makes you feel and what feeling you want the image to convey

do you get right in close with a wide angle lens to make it look menacing or dramatic ? do you stand back a bit to take in its size and splendour ? do you crop in tight to one part to emphasise it ( like cabins / pilots) ? do you want to use shallow depth-of-fied to loose a hanger in the background ? do you want to use great depth-of-field to show the rest of the squadron lined up behind it?

Cliffair – as you have a digital, try this exercise – find one static subject and take as many DIFFERENT pictures as you can of it- use different zoom setting on the lenses and try several different f-stops from the same viewpoint.

Go on – really fill up a memory card and try it – it is a very usefull exercise and you may surprise yourself in the amount you discover.

Regards

Michael

Wise words, black 6.

Now, would you be interested in buying a large bag of powdered magnesium?

I have to say that I don’t agree!

When I was growing up, a good friend was completing a photographic course to City and Guilds level and that is where my interest in photography came from. So many of the current Digital Brigade have no idea about the basic photographic techniques and they rely totally on the camera to do the work – in most cases, they do a very good job! (the camera, I mean)

This is my point – I am a firm believer that you can take excellent pictures with even the most basic of equipment, if you have a sound knowledge of photographic principles. True, you will not manage to get shots of the pilot picking his nose, on a knife edge fly-by, however some of the most pleasing Aviation images I have ever seen have been static shots.

Just the opinion of an old photographer!

I doubt that aviation magazines represent a particularly bouyant market for photography. I have not seen the circulation figures for the main enthusiast titles, but I would place a reasonable bet that they are less than they were, say, five years ago. Even the publisher of ‘The Times’ has stated that there is no great future in print, and as an industry, it is dying.

When I have had photos printed by mags, it has usually been £25-50 each, which does not exactly send you rushing out to put a deposit on a yacht. I think the market, and, hence selling opportunites, has diminished, and no longer represents a viable livlihood. If ‘making a living’ means lodging in your mums house, and eating Value Pot Noodles, it might be possible.

I like made bad photographs of planes, ( make good ones must be incredible, but …), and Also enjoy making Photographs of Classics cars, I have drove kms and more Km, to do both things, I have arrived tired at home, but happy, after a fourteen hours day, sun burned, swetty, hungry, with nearly 1000 Km driving to achieve some “snaps”…and every time, when I was begining to fall asleep I’ ve always thinked that if that were my job, I propably will quit it…
I want to enjoy it, and having in mind get money rfrm it will make it less funny

Of course MOTF is right and it’s not just a case of owning the right kit, as action shots take practise, but what’s I’m saying is that it’s a lot easier with digital SLRs these days than with 25 ASA Kodachrome in inferior equipment around 30-odd years ago, not knowing whether your shots would be sharp or not. With digital, if an aircraft makes several flypasts at an air show you can check each one after you’ve taken it! I also like Robbo’s lighthearted reponse, as indeed aviation photography is a lot of fun and most enjoyable but the reason for the thread was to ask how you can make money from the hobby and hope that these questions have now been answered.

Richard has made some very practical comments on this thread, and Albert, I’m sorry but as Nick has pointed out, it’s not just a case of owning the right kit.

Selling images to magazines does not make a living, it just brings in a bit of cash. You can take pictures at airshows and sell them, but you need to have established a good reputation with the right contacts.

A recent experiance has shown me that despite air to air images being very nice and sellable, peaple are far more interested in something unusual, and that’s what sells. A nice plan view of a aircraft taken at a show is great, but not unusual. I have a lot of these images in my portfolio that I am very proud of, but they will remain as just nice images that I like, but they have little commercial value.

Oppertunity, planning and a creative mind are crucial to success.

Of course Albert its all in the Camera and 20 odd years of practise have noting to do with it. :rolleyes:

I agree entirely about exclusivity, its the only way to go.

That’s precisely the point I am making. With the advent of digital SLRs, almost anyone can make such shots and there is nothing to envy. I know many of these guys personally and they all have a Canon 10D camera with 100-400mm tele lenses(I think) and with practise and careful framing and panning, you can get the same shots! It is getting this quality with exclusive subjects, ideally air-to-air, that makes the money and not joining the crowds at Duxford and Old Warden at every show thinking that your good shots will earn you money – they seldom will! A hard task but very rewarding if such rare opportunities arise.

Hi Albert,

many thanks for the advice… it all helps.

By the way I’m not after becoming professional at this game. I’m a self confessed “happy snapper” who just wants to take proper photos rather than snaps.

I look with envy at the pics taken by the likes of Richard, manonthefence etc and thats what I aspire to so any hint’s tips you pro photographers can pass on are greatly appreciated.

Thanks again

Cliff

Hi Cliff,

I have read through your posts and must say that I fully agree with all the kind and helpful advice Richard has given. I have been semi-professional at this since the ’60s, but have never made enough money to make it my living! Basically, if you are good at it, it’ll cover your expenses + a bit, but it’ll never pay your mortgage or your bills! One thing not mentioned is that you have to know your subject and shoot something newsworthy and pretty exclusive to stand a chance of getting it published. These days, digital equipment is so good that almost anyone can take top quality photos of aircraft that we all see. It is the ‘newsworthy’ subjects that make the magazine pages, so you need top quality and something exclusive like a special paint scheme, new livery, or something making its first flight. Then you have to get it to the magazine before the competition beats you to it! The days when I would see something newsworthy, take enough slides of it to finish off the roll of film, rush to post it to the Kodak processing lab., then mail the slides off to a magazine as soon as they came back are over! Digital photography is instant and if there is someone standing beside you shooting the same aircraft, you can bet that the person that gets his pic published is the first one to download the images and e.mail them to the editor! It’s a very competitive world and many digital photographers are capable of good photography.
With the advent of the Internet and e.mail, news travels fast, so you can bet that if you know of something newsworthy, a lot of others know it too and will be racing to shoot the same plane as you. I know a few photographers that try to make a living out of it, but as Richard says, unless you have constant air-to-air facilities and exclusive shots, it it just not worth it!

You’re very welcome Cliff. I am glad that I could give some advice that you found useful. If those were your first attempts at panning for the ground-to-air, I’d say you are doing very well… you should see my first attempts!

One thing I think you will find, at least as far as shots of aircraft in the air go, is that shutter priority is usually the best option. For high performance propeller aircraft, you shouldn’t use a shutter speed higher than 1/350th (1/250th is preferable though), otherwise you will freeze the propeller, and it will look like you’ve photographed a model. With the lower performance aircraft, like the T-6, you should use slightly higher shutter speeds, as the props seem to turn faster and completely disappear otherwise. With jets, the maximum shutter speed isn’t really relevent (ie. use a higher speed setting), unless you are trying to get a nicely blurred background (for a good take-off shot perhaps), and in those cases 1/250th is usually fine. Another rule of thumb, which you perhaps already know, is that your shutter speed should be roughly 1/(effective focal length) to get a sharp image without camera shake. This becomes less relevent when you are panning of course, and also if you are using an IS lens (ie. you can use lower shutter speeds). Don’t forget that the effective focal length will be 1.6xactual focal length of your lens if you are using the 350D, due to the smaller size of the image sensor. Anyway, shutter priority is almost always the best setting to use with aviation shots. Don’t be intimidated by it… it really isn’t any more complicated than what you’ve been using already, and the earlier you start to use it, the more comfortable you’ll be with it. Use your biggest aperture with the close-up cockpit shots if you have the time to think of it. You will be amazed at how the image pops off the page!

By the way, press passes are not usually that hard to come by if you ask around a bit. It’s not as difficult as you might think. Air shows are not Formula 1 events, or world cup games.

All the best, R.

PS. Don’t limit your photography to air shows… your progress will be much faster if you start working every day on whatever environment you surround yourself with. Also, look through magazines to see which images stand out most, and ask yourself why? Once you start figuring out the “why” you’ll start improving your ability to get the better shots.

Richard,

Many thanks for your frank reply and critique. Well what can I say but thanks, it certainly helps especially when your trying to learn. To be honest the pix in the duxford post are only my second attempt at moving targets and yes they not as sharp as I would have liked.

As I’m still learning to drive the 350D I have only ventured with AP mode and use F10.
maybe it’s time to try either fully manual or shutter priority.

As for the “happy snapper” well i’m comfortable with that discription well for now anyway but I’m desperate to make that transition from snaps to photographs and I aspire to be able to take photos like yourself and Daimien B ect on here.

I guess there is no gain without pain so it’s more practice for me and with your indulgence maybe ask for hints tips and the odd critique. Who know maybe one day I might get a press pass to get those desirable angles 😉

Thanks again…

Cliff

Hi Cliff… many apologies if “happy snapper” came across a bit too glib. I didn’t mean it to sound quite like that….. “happy snapper” would have characterised me many years ago myself.

I looked at your photos. I’m not quite sure how to comment, as I don’t want to come across as too picky. I still have a long way to go myself too. I will perhaps comment on one thing, so as not to shy too much away from your question, and at least give you an honest answer. The cockpit shots need to be cropped a great deal more. When I look at them, my eye sort of wanders all over the place, as there is no real focal point. When you take a photograph, or at least when you go through what you’ve taken to select the better ones to show people, always look for a defined focal point in the image, something that pulls the eye, and gives it balance. If there are too many areas distracting the eye, it really detracts from the image. The spitfire’s wing in both of the cockpit shots is really too prominent, and pulls your eye away from the pilot. The pilot should be the focus of attention. Also they have been way over sharpened… you can see distinct artifacts around all of the edges. This may of course be a by-product of shrinking them down for the internet, but it is something to be watched for. I really hope I don’t sound too pedantic here… I’m really trying not to be, and to be helpful. One other thing you can do to really make a difference, especially with the cockpit shots is to use a much bigger aperature, which will blur the background, and foreground, and really punch out the area you want in focus… it adds a great deal to a shot, and is one of the photographer’s best tools for telling the viewer exactly what you want them to look at, and notice.

With respect to the airborne shots, well, they are ok, but the background is really bland, and you get no sense of motion, or scale. This is very, very hard to achieve from the ground, so please don’t take that too badly. One of the spitfire shots is really badly out of focus too. It looks fine in the thumbnail, but not in the larger image. I will say though that I really liked the shot of the TSR2. It is very well balanced. You’ve picked a great angle to shoot from, and the right amount of wide-angle lens (ie. just enough to get the aircraft framed properly, but not so much that it distorts it visibly). The background is great too… I love the curve of the hangar roof, and the hangar doors contrast well with the aircraft, highlighting it. The one bad thing is the clutter behind the aircraft (the mini-van etc.), but there was absolutely nothing you could have done about that. Well… I hope that helped a little.

Yes, L lenses do make a huge difference, but perhaps not so much for snaps that the extra expense is worth it. What they offer is better sharpness, much better resolving power, and get rid of a lot of nasty artifacts that appear in lower quality lenses. The artifacts will often appear as violet fringes around high contrast edges. L-lens pictures are usually brighter, with better contrast and great shadow detail. You won’t notice the difference between an L-lens and a lower quality one so much on a 4×6″ print… but at 8×10 and higher you will really start to notice it! They are also much faster… much, much faster lenses to focus. I can only tell you that when I made the transition, I was totally shocked at the improvement. Some of the pro-sumer lenses are really not too bad though either, and I still use one of them from time to time, the 28-135IS, as it’s got a good range, decent sharpness, and is less obtrusive than some of the other lenses. There are some third party lenses that are very good too. I was very happy with my Sigma 70-200mm F2.8. I now use the equivalent Canon model with IS. IS is a huge improvement, and worth every penny. I noticed this most especially with my shots of people. It can literally freeze every hair on a subject’s head. IS also makes a very significant difference in air-to-air when you are trying to use slower shutter speeds to get a nice propeller arc (see my avatar). You will never regret having a good IS lens.

Now, having made comments on your photography, it is only fair to show you some of mine. I have only been working as a full-time pro for a few years, and most of my photography is not aviation related (which is how I can pay the bills), although aviation is my passion. You can see some of my work here… www.rmallnutt.com … the aviation related items are at the end.

I know I still have a lot to learn, but digital does make that easier, because you can experiment without wasting money, and you get instant feed back. Practise makes perfect as they say… well, maybe not perfect, but much, much better at least. What really helps too is having someone you can trust to critique your work… not someone who sweet talks you either, as you will never get the truth from someone like that (and therefore never learn).

I hope that this has helped.

All the best,
Richard

Hi Richard,

As a “happy snapper” I look with alittle envy at the pix in the magazines and wish I could take photos that come near to them. I realise that I’ll never be a pro but really want to raise my standard.

I was wondering if there was any advice that you or any of the other “pro” aviation photographers could give me in how to improve my work. By the way I totally agree with your last reply in as much as getting access to press locations at show and air to air is half the battle and imho the reward for hard work.

examples of my work http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57506

I tried at EPZ but get nowhere with advice in improving technique ect so am looking here.

The kit I use is

CANON EOS 350D + CANON 70 – 300mm USM IS + Sigma 18 – 55mm

Would changing to L lens really make that much difference??

regards,

Cliff