On Aug 28, 3:54*am, VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article >, says....
>
>
>
> >On 8/27/2011 12:30 PM, nemo outis wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Chris W wrote:
>
> >>> I was wondering if someone here that ever flies near or over Pecos, TX
> >>> (at something less than 30,000 feet) would be willing to fly over some
> >>> land that I am part owner of and snap a photo or two for me. *I would
> >>> be willing to pay as much as $50.
>
> Having frequently worked in professional photography, including
> large-format, aerial photography, I have often been surprised by the
> skewed notion held by the general public as to what it costs to take a
> picture. The amount people offer, or the figure they have in their head
> frequently does not even cover the direct materials cost.
> Using the Linhof Aero-Technika, for oblique aerial views, a roll of film
> costs $350. Processing it costs as much, and high-res scans again as much..
> Going digital saves these costs, but a digital camera with anywhere near
> the resolution of an aerial camera costs upwards of $70k. A helicopter
> (the usual platform for oblique) is $500/hour.
> The OP specifies he is not looking for a professional result, but such an
> assignment requires planning, particularly for such a large parcel. He
> states "something less than 30,000ft", but to include such a parcel in one
> photograph it may well be necessary to get up to 15,000ft, which excludes
> most small planes, requires oxygen, as well as careful meteorological
> planning to avoid hazy weather.
> Of course, it is possible, if someone frequently flies near there in a
> C-172, to make a slight diversion and snap a few shots with an I-Phone,
> but I wonder if the result would correspond to the "nice, sharp,
> high-resolution" image the OP has in mind. The OP appears to be concerned
> there may be something - other than dirt - on the land. In this case, the
> photographic quality of the image may indeed be of less importance than
> the evidence of who and what is there, but I would think twice (and demand
> a lot more $$) before getting involved in an espionage mission and getting
> roiled in someone else’s property dispute - particularly in Texas!
> I fully agree with the OP that nothing beats a low-altitude, oblique
> photograph for seeing details of land, and Google Earth is just, well
> miles away! My recommendation would be to find an aerial survey company -
> the closer the better - and expect to pay upwards of $500 for the mission..

Thanks for your reply. Your example of someone who often flies near
by in a 172 is exactly the idea I had in mind. I would hope they
could use something a little better than an I-phone though. But they
certainly don't need a $70,000 purpose made aerial camera. Most any
"point and shoot' camera $200 or more is going to give better results
than an I-phone. At the altitude you would fly in a 172 you may need
to snap more than one photo, there is nothing wrong with that.

Granted I could pay the $500+ to have pro do this. For about the same
price I could get on a plane, fly down there and see for myself. The
thing is I really don't want to spend $500 to see a bunch of dirt. I
am 99.999999% sure that is all I will see. The photo is just to
appease a paranoid family member. At this point it may not matter any
way. If I can't convince this one family member her concerns are not
valid by the end of the month (this Wednesday), it will go to court,
and what would have been a small pay day (about $400 per family
member) will end up being a legal fee liability for all of us.

In the end I don't even care if it is a shot from the air. If I can
find someone in the area willing to drive over there and take some
photos from the road that would be fine too. Still trying to get
someone to do that too.

Chris W.

BTW how large of film did these $70,000 cameras use? A modern DIGITAL
SLR has better resolution than even a 4 x 5 medium format film
camera.

In article
>,
says...

>Thanks for your reply. Your example of someone who often flies near
>by in a 172 is exactly the idea I had in mind. I would hope they
>could use something a little better than an I-phone though. But they
>certainly don't need a $70,000 purpose made aerial camera. Most any
>"point and shoot' camera $200 or more is going to give better results
>than an I-phone. At the altitude you would fly in a 172 you may need
>to snap more than one photo, there is nothing wrong with that.
>
>Granted I could pay the $500+ to have pro do this. For about the same
>price I could get on a plane, fly down there and see for myself. The
>thing is I really don't want to spend $500 to see a bunch of dirt. I
>am 99.999999% sure that is all I will see. The photo is just to
>appease a paranoid family member. At this point it may not matter any
>way. If I can't convince this one family member her concerns are not
>valid by the end of the month (this Wednesday), it will go to court,
>and what would have been a small pay day (about $400 per family
>member) will end up being a legal fee liability for all of us.
>
>In the end I don't even care if it is a shot from the air. If I can
>find someone in the area willing to drive over there and take some
>photos from the road that would be fine too. Still trying to get
>someone to do that too.
>
>Chris W.

Fair enough. As long as you are not the paranoid one I’ll let it go :-)
There’s another little catch though. The fact that you are offering
compensation, however small, probably makes the assignment illegal for a
private pilot, who could theoretically face certificate action. There are
differing views on airwork and snapping pictures, but the fact that you
published a compensation offer on a public forum probably means that anyone
without a Commercial certificate would (or should, in my opinion) shy away
from it. I frequently snap some pictures with a handheld digital while flying
alone, and so does just about anyone I know, but I would never do so on
assignment, even for free. If a friend wants some pictures of his house I
would probably propose that we go up together and I fly and he shoot, or vice
versa, but not for compensation. So unless you know someone flying out of
Pecos Muni, with whom you could set up a deal like that, you’re probably
going to have a hard time interesting any private pilots.

In article
>
>BTW how large of film did these $70,000 cameras use? A modern DIGITAL
>SLR has better resolution than even a 4 x 5 medium format film
>camera.

The $70,000 camera I was referring to is the highest resolution digital
available today, which boasts "maybe" 1/3 the resolution of a large-format
aerial camera, like the 4x5 Aero-Technika. But you’ll have to take that up
with the folks over in the large-format groups, who all have their formulas
for comparing film and digital resolution.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:57:37 -0700 (PDT), Chris W wrote:

> Granted I could pay the $500+ to have pro do this.

Then STFU and do it.