How the iconic post-Sandy 'New York' cover photo shot w/ ID-X

[BobSanderson]

I thought you guys would find this info from the Verge and original link interesting:

From the Verge
"Dutch photographer Iwan Baan captured a stunning shot of New York City for the latest cover of New York Magazine, but how exactly did he do it? Speaking to Poynter, Baan described how he rented a helicopter on Wednesday night after the storm hit to try and take a photo that would convey the duality of the city at that moment in time. Despite the freezing cold and motion of the helicopter, Baan spent an hour taking burst shots with a Canon EOS-1D X and 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens, ultimately achieving the cover picture with an ISO of 25,600, 1/40 shutter speed, and a wide-open aperture. The photographer didn't stop there, though: Dezeen has put together a slideshow of Baan's various pictures taken across a largely blacked out Manhattan in the aftermath of the storm."

Where they got the story:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/194225/architecture-photographer-explains-how-he-got-that-new-york-magazine-cover-shot/

 

[Ryan_W]

Thanks for sharing - just goes to show, the gear helps but in the end it's the ingenuity of the photographer that tells the story.

 

[pakosouthpark]

the picture itself is not a big deal..

 

[rlarsen]

"Not a big deal" ?
Pretty damn great picture if you ask me.
I've seen it online, now I want to see the cover to check out the high ISO file quality.

 

[expatinasia]

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

 

[dlleno]

To me the picture is a big deal because there arn't very many other ways to get such a dramatic capture. Cost aside -- from requests to the pilot (lets go over there, no up higher, now over here. try 500 more feet ... ahh thats it...) and strapping himself in dealing with the cold and the 1% keep rate, it all shows what one has to do to get shots like this.

 

[2n10]

I agree that it is a dramatic capture and tells a story of what happened. It is great information to know in the article also.

 

[distant.star]

Thanks for sharing - just goes to show, the gear helps but in the end it's the ingenuity of the photographer that tells the story.

Yeah, that a a few thousand dollars to rent a helicopter!

 

[iso79]

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

I very much doubt that IS can dampen the high-frequency vibrations you get from a helicopter in flight. It's designed to deal with the low-frequency motion of human muscles. Aside from some stupid-expensive gyro-stabilized rig, about your only realistic choice is going to be what I call, "poor man's IS:" shoot a burst of images as steadily as you can, and if your boost is long enough, you'll catch a shot as the vibration takes you to the extreme of one swing before it starts the next sway -- that is, just as the pendulum is frozen at the end of its swing.

A 1Dx that can do 12 FPS with a really deep buffer is ideal for such bursts. And its extra mass doesn't hurt, either.

b&

 

[wickidwombat]

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

I very much doubt that IS can dampen the high-frequency vibrations you get from a helicopter in flight. It's designed to deal with the low-frequency motion of human muscles. Aside from some stupid-expensive gyro-stabilized rig, about your only realistic choice is going to be what I call, "poor man's IS:" shoot a burst of images as steadily as you can, and if your boost is long enough, you'll catch a shot as the vibration takes you to the extreme of one swing before it starts the next sway -- that is, just as the pendulum is frozen at the end of its swing.

A 1Dx that can do 12 FPS with a really deep buffer is ideal for such bursts. And its extra mass doesn't hurt, either.

b&

it definately helps reduce movement from vibrating platforms in operating industrial plant and i agree the 1D burst rate helps with keepers only 10 fps on my 1D though

 

[tpatana]

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

Where you got that information?

Of course assuming situation where amateurs would also turn it off, tripod use etc., when/why would pros turn off IS? What they would gain by doing that?

 

[sanj]

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

Where you got that information?

Of course assuming situation where amateurs would also turn it off, tripod use etc., when/why would pros turn off IS? What they would gain by doing that?

I want to know too!

 

[timkbryant]

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

Agreed. I am technically a professional (reporter/photog with a weekly newspaper) and I have IS turned off on the lens that has it (24-105) and I did not bother buying the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 because at the speeds I shoot, it's not going to have an effect.

 

[sanj]

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

Agreed. I am technically a professional (reporter/photog with a weekly newspaper) and I have IS turned off on the lens that has it (24-105) and I did not bother buying the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 because at the speeds I shoot, it's not going to have an effect.

So you saying all professionals work at only your kind of shutter speeds?

 

[expatinasia]

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

Sorry, but this is so factually incorrect it is almost funny. I do not think in all my years I have ever seen any pro turn off AF. Only ever time I would, might be with tripod and absolutely perfect conditions.

Going up in a heli after Hurricane Sandy, without gyro etc. Then as one poster already mentioned you are hoping to get some good shots on the 12/fps. And believe me if you have IS you would use it!

 

[sanj]

I took this shot recently in Botswana from a helicopter. 1dx. ISO 400. 70-400 f2.8 II. 1/250. f5.6.
My IS was ON. I got 50% keepers.
My buddy forgot to turn IS on and has keepers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 0%

 

[expatinasia]

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

Agreed. I am technically a professional (reporter/photog with a weekly newspaper) and I have IS turned off on the lens that has it (24-105) and I did not bother buying the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 because at the speeds I shoot, it's not going to have an effect.

Apart from many other things, I spend an awful lot of time with reporters etc (and have done for a couple of decades) and I cannot remember a single time noticing one of them had any of their cameras with IS off. Why would they? Why would you? Makes no sense.

 

[timkbryant]

So you saying all professionals work at only your kind of shutter speeds?

I do believe you misinterpreted. The original statement was most.

Besides, I was recounting my own personal opinion on the matter, in relation to the statement I quoted. Obviously not every reporter is like me.

 

[rlarsen]

Great elephant shot.
Why not shoot at 1/500 f4 instead, or 800 asa for faster shutter speeds ?
Maybe even 1000 at 2.8.

When I shoot from the air I really try to speed up the shutter but I understand the need for DOF if I'm not shooting straight down.

Again, nice shot, very unique.