Simon
Ward runs through skydiving stills available in the digital age of
'the noughties'
 |
The
advent of video did no favours for skydiving photography
About 15-20
years ago we had a number of brilliant photographers who would solely
concentrate on taking pictures (the results of which could be seen
in three editions of Skies Call by Andy Keech). When video
first arrived, the demands on photographers were to take different
angles and remain on the subject for the complete skydive. The imagery
changed from creating pictures to recording a skydive. We all know
of the benefits in terms of learning and training. The creative side
took a while longer before video became an acceptable format over
film for the media.
This also changed photography in the sport. Camera slots were primarily
for video and stills cameras were often an afterthought. At the same
time cameramen with little photographic knowledge were using automatic
settings on fabulous new cameras and their angles were less exciting
owing to the dictation of the video requirements. Now, I'm a great
believer in change so none of this is negative stuff, and it just
gets better...
Along comes the digital age in an affordable
way at exactly the same time that our sport radically changed. We
found colour, skysurfing, freeflying, media acceptance and more.
All the time we are accompanied by tiny video cameras that do more
than their predecessors. So, where do we start in this sweet shop
full of 7 year-olds? I intend to leave video at this point and concentrate
on the creation of stills images.
|
|
Stills Images:
Consider Output
For stills work, we need to concentrate on input and output. Firstly
- output; what is the image for? Individuals, media, library, or
don't know? If a publishing medium, is it for newsprint, magazine,
website, reprint, or on-screen projection?
Consider
Input
Input is quite easy as it is defined by output. Once we know
where the picture will end up, we can decide on the format.
Even better is that nowadays we can often match differing qualities
and electronically enhance images. |
 |
Choices
in this area are all about film format (size, speed and type)
and storage medium.
The table to the right shows which format (input) is suitable for different
sorts of output. |
Notwithstanding technical challenges
of some of the above, you will note that if we can get light onto
film (or now a chip), we can do something with it. I have scanned
over 1,000 of my images onto disc in a medium quality and this can
be done with many flat-bed scanners for prints or specialist film
scanners for slides and negatives. The web is a whole new medium
for our work and, whilst the technical quality only need be at the
low end, a good photo is still required to impress.
Options for Digital Output
There are four ways to achieve digital output;
1. Captured from video
2. Consumer digital cameras
3. Scan prints, slides or negs
4. Professional digital cameras
1. Captured from video
Anyone with the ability to capture an image off digital videotape
will have a ton of material to choose from. However, to date the
quality is very low, completely unsuitable for our Mag, for example,
but acceptable for a website. You can make a difference by ensuring
that all frames are shot on a minimum shutter speed of around 500th/second
for freefall or other fast action shots.
2. Consumer digital camera
The best option may lie in a consumer digital camera. Downsides
are normally electronic such as finding a good firing mechanism,
setting manual settings and speed of writing files to disc. However,
the speed of development on these new cameras is astonishing. You
should be looking for the best available quality with a couple of
provisos;
- make sure the camera has a
photographic heritage, this will almost certainly mean better
optics and more appropriate functions.
- try to find out if the camera
uses interpolation. This is really a software solution to
create additional pixels from surrounding original pixels,
a 'best-fit' solution and means that the camera is likely
to be inferior to others with a similar amount of 'raw'
pixels.
|
Photo Oscar Oczkowski |
I have done a few jumps with the Olympus
C-2000 - 2.1 megapixels (2.1 million pixels). I used it at the world
record in Thailand until a Norwegian boot took exception to it during
a Herc exit. I have to say it was quite fantastic in spite of its
domestic beginnings. I intend to move onto the new Olympus 3030
- 3 million (+) pixels. Another great feature of this camera is
the ability to shoot short video sequences.
3. Scan prints, slides or negs
Option number three is to scan your existing work. Unless you have
a good scanner you are limited. Magazines, including The Mag, will
prefer original material as they use an expensive drum scanner for
optimum quality. If you own an Olympus or Nikon film scanner this
will probably suffice; they are certainly fine for newsprint and
some magazine jobs, like small shots. Everything reproduced on Brit100
was originated this way, other than 'people' shots, which came off
the Olympus digital.
4. Professional digital camera
The final option is a professional digital camera. They are still
a bit bulky for jumping and certainly very costly being north of
£5,000. But - watch this space as we'll see the serious skydive
photographers investing within the next twelve months, I reckon.
So, what's the answer? Well that depends on the question I suppose,
which is all about what you want to do with the picture. I would
advise you to use a good quality consumer camera. All you need worry
about then is mastering the technical and photographic skills!
|
