chris78cpr wrote:
It's funny to read about how people are suggesting how they could have done it better than an award winning photographer...

As far as I'm concerned this photo will definitely be going down as one of the photo journalistic/documentary photos of the year. Some of you guys need to forget technical details sometimes and focus on 'the bigger picture'.

I agree with you overall, but the original post did not drive people into the content, rather into 1DX, ISO and a shutter speed, hence the discussion.

Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Just think: he could have taken it at ISO 6400 and 1/10 if the 24-70 had IS

Phenomenal photo with a lot of impact. Quick thinking and well executed.

I don't think IS takes into account helicopter movement.

RobertLynn wrote:
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Just think: he could have taken it at ISO 6400 and 1/10 if the 24-70 had IS

Phenomenal photo with a lot of impact. Quick thinking and well executed.

I don't think IS takes into account helicopter movement.

I was an idiot and thought that helicopters could hover at that altitude.

Here’s a larger version of the photo, from the link ronno gave here.

It’s a great photo, obviously. In fact, looking at the others in ronno’s link, I’m struck by how much better the cover photo is compared to the others. The others were presumably selected for their quality compared to the other two thousand he allegedly shot, but they’re not a patch on the shot chosen for the cover.

In the cover photo the angle is perfect, the cloud menacing, the blackness immense, the foreground water dominant. The photo just bristles with the power of nature and the puniness of humanity – even New York City – in the face of its wrath.

Fast Company Design has an intriguing glimpse of Iwan Baan here, from 2010. I’ve seen a few of his photos without knowing who he was. Looks like a big cheese in built-environment photography. He’s clearly very comfortable working from the air. Has a rough and ready style. New business model. Et cetera.

It must be garbage since I see a lot of banding noise in the hi-res photo.

I'm just kidding. It's an amazing photo. The blog is a good read too. Thanks for sharing.

I think the guy took like 2000 shots in an hour and this is actually a stitch.

Anyone notice how Battery Park is completely under water? Lower left section, right before where the lights are on is the park. You can kinda see where the land is if u look closely. As for the Camera... I am sure its nice but I don't think that was the major factor in getting this shot. Think the heli-chopter provides the most help. Regardless... what a capture and thanks for sharing the story.

Charlie

n0b0 wrote: I really don't think IS is gonna be much help in this situation. The helicopter may have been hovering, but that doesn't mean it wasn't moving. IS may help compensate for his own hands shaking, but not with the helicopter movement. Higher shutter speed is the only answer.

jctriguy wrote: You are assuming that the helicopter was perfectly still in the air. If it was moving you will get motion blur, no stabilizer setup can compensate for a moving subject or a moving shooting location.

At the camera-to-subject distance involved here, the relative motion over time isn't so high as to negate the advantage of Image Stabilization. This was shot from a helicopter, not an SR-71.

Yohan Pamudji wrote: I was an idiot and thought that helicopters could hover at that altitude.

Depends on the helicopter: a piston-engined Robinson R-22 (with normally aspirated engine) can only hover out of ground effect (OGE) at about 1800 feet pressure altitude on a hot day at max gross. A twin-turbine Eurocopter EC135 P2, on the other hand, can hover OGE at over 6,000 feet under the same conditions.

If helicopters are less-heavily loaded, if the temperature is lower, etc. they can hover higher.

A R22 will barely hover in ground effect at max gross on a hot day.

helimat wrote: A R22 will barely hover in ground effect at max gross on a hot day.

Yeah, thank goodness for the R-44.

historic image !

Why do people think of noise as the anti christ? Sure, there is a little noise in this image, but nothing that detracts from the image.

pompo wrote:
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Just think: he could have taken it at ISO 6400 and 1/10 if the 24-70 had IS

Phenomenal photo with a lot of impact. Quick thinking and well executed.

or with a 24mm Mark II at 1.8 Iso 12800

Or stitching some 50mm f/1.2L shots...

BrianO wrote:
Yohan Pamudji wrote: I was an idiot and thought that helicopters could hover at that altitude.

Depends on the helicopter: a piston-engined Robinson R-22 (with normally aspirated engine) can only hover out of ground effect (OGE) at about 1800 feet pressure altitude on a hot day at max gross. A twin-turbine Eurocopter EC135 P2, on the other hand, can hover OGE at over 6,000 feet under the same conditions.

If helicopters are less-heavily loaded, if the temperature is lower, etc. they can hover higher.

So you're saying that I'm not necessarily an idiot? Hope springs eternal

Yohan Pamudji wrote: So you're saying that I'm not necessarily an idiot? Hope springs eternal

Mr645 wrote:
Why do people think of noise as the anti christ? Sure, there is a little noise in this image, but nothing that detracts from the image.

yeah I agree. and so do the editors of ny mag apparently. I'm sure they could have run this file through topaz or something, but chose not to.

personally it doesn't bother me in the least. I've been shooting the 5d3 at 12,800 and most of the time I'd rather have the noise than the blurring effects of NR, and I just leave everything but the color noise slider off. the noise is getting so fine and grainy that its actually pleasing in a lot of cases, IMO

Yohan Pamudji wrote:
RobertLynn wrote:
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Just think: he could have taken it at ISO 6400 and 1/10 if the 24-70 had IS

Phenomenal photo with a lot of impact. Quick thinking and well executed.

I don't think IS takes into account helicopter movement.

I was an idiot and thought that helicopters could hover at that altitude.

Flight, hover, handheld, etc. - the ability of IS to compensate for camera/lens motion depends on the frequency and duration of the camera/lens motion, including what the photographer does with the camera/lens. Of course, IS won't compensate for large displacements (i.e. linear or angular translations), but that's why the camera is being held by a human...

pompo wrote:
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Just think: he could have taken it at ISO 6400 and 1/10 if the 24-70 had IS

Phenomenal photo with a lot of impact. Quick thinking and well executed.

or with a 24mm Mark II at 1.8 Iso 12800


He's using the 24-70 f/4 lens wide open (or maybe the 24-70 II at f/4?), a full 2.3 stops slower than your proposed lens, which would have only needed ISO 6400-ish At least, this is what the information on page 1 states. I read the article but didn't see a mentioned aperture (other than "wide open") and "new 24-70" could mean more than one lens


Well-done photo, though, regardless of the noise (which actually could have been removed with some effort, had the inclination arisen).

As for helicopter vibration - I know certain Nikon lenses have a special VR mode called "active", which refers to the platform from which you're shooting is actively moving, aka a vehicle. I'm not sure how well it works, though.

I've also seen a few test shots of Pentaxians shooting from riding lawnmowers with and without IBIS activated - it seemed to work pretty damn well, actually.

Canon’s Image Stabilizer system is useful with movements of around 0.5 Hz to 20 Hz, so it should help with the vibration of a helicopter.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the noise in this photo, though. If anything, it adds to the grit and drama.