I've been taking rocket photos for a bit, and there's different ways of going about it. I tend to shoot fairly dark on the pad, so that when the rocket breaks the horizon you still get useable photos most of the way up.
I know what I like, the question is what does everyone else look for in a launch photo? If I'm fairly backed out, I can get an OK ignition photo, a good rail and horizon break shot, and then follow it up to apogee. My question is which photo do people really like? I'm guessing the horizon break. The pad is cool, but not in flight yet... In flight can be cool, but usually the flame is trailing off by that time and not as impressive. Breaking horizon gives reference and usually shows the kickup around the pad.
This shows a pretty typical sequence "shooting for the middle" None of the shots are particularly spectacular, But I got all of them and they're all useable.
Brings up the other question.... how many people have -ANY- interest in shots over 50 feet? I can usually follow it all the way up, and on my own flights I find it very interesting to see....But that's me. Is it worth the time and frames to burn 50/60 shots on each flight? of course, thats how I catch things like this-
as awesome as they are.... people just don't seem to buy photos of their $1500 rockets exploding.
I can key on the pad for really nice shots.... but then I lose it before the horizon shot...
So, what are your thoughts? Which shots do you like? do you have any interest in apogee/deployment/recovery photos? Let me know!
Oh, and tips for good photos.... the lower the sun the better. The morning and noon shots are going to be rough in most light conditions unless it's totally overcast, and then launches are washed out usually anyways. Later in the afternoon you can get the sun at your back and some really clean shots.
Thanks
I know what I like, the question is what does everyone else look for in a launch photo? If I'm fairly backed out, I can get an OK ignition photo, a good rail and horizon break shot, and then follow it up to apogee. My question is which photo do people really like? I'm guessing the horizon break. The pad is cool, but not in flight yet... In flight can be cool, but usually the flame is trailing off by that time and not as impressive. Breaking horizon gives reference and usually shows the kickup around the pad.
This shows a pretty typical sequence "shooting for the middle" None of the shots are particularly spectacular, But I got all of them and they're all useable.
Brings up the other question.... how many people have -ANY- interest in shots over 50 feet? I can usually follow it all the way up, and on my own flights I find it very interesting to see....But that's me. Is it worth the time and frames to burn 50/60 shots on each flight? of course, thats how I catch things like this-
as awesome as they are.... people just don't seem to buy photos of their $1500 rockets exploding.
I can key on the pad for really nice shots.... but then I lose it before the horizon shot...
So, what are your thoughts? Which shots do you like? do you have any interest in apogee/deployment/recovery photos? Let me know!
Oh, and tips for good photos.... the lower the sun the better. The morning and noon shots are going to be rough in most light conditions unless it's totally overcast, and then launches are washed out usually anyways. Later in the afternoon you can get the sun at your back and some really clean shots.
Thanks
Last edited: