Landscape photography with a drone: the advantages - part 1

The restrictions on drones are ridiculous when airplanes and helicopters regularly fly the same airspace!

In most cases, you are only allowed to fly a drone in line of sight. You could probably learn to fly in a couple of days, with good coaching. Most people can't spend that much time in one block, so it takes about a month. The big issue is obstacle avoidance.

With GPS, optical and inertial guidance, the drone basically flies itself. You tell it where to go and where to point, and it happens. There are a few checks to perform before takeoff, including GPS and location calibration. Landing is completely automated, unless you want to stop places on the way back. Tell it to come home, and it will find it's way home with your hands completely off the controls, and land within 2 feet of the takeoff point (closer if you use a portable landing pad).

Better yet, just look at photos others have taken, on the internet.

If I were 400 feet tall and could walk on water, I wouldn't need a drone.

badi: "It is more rewarding for the photographer to go there, sure..."

Hardly. First, it costs money, time, and lots of perspiration to reach volcanoes, icebergs, or Patagonia. Second, the Mrs. might rebuke the expenses and hardships, extort a costly reciprocal favor, or seek alimony. Third, the day you arrive will be too rainy or foggy to see anything.

ok, i'll rephrase to "it might be more rewarding..." as for some that is part of the reason for actually doing it. But as a pure professional point of view you are totally right :)

You're right, next time I'll fly my drone all the way from my chair back home in Israel, over the Atlantic, down to South America, visit Patagonia, the Atacama, make a short stop in the Galapagos Islands before picking up a cup of coffee and flying it home.

" is there any reason for land-based landscape photographers to even leave their houses anymore?"

If you ask this question then the answer for the person asking is -no.

Isn't that just like photography in general?

Sounds like you have a lot of hangups. If you want to see 'art' created by photographers using a drone just google it, there is plenty out there, but it's not going to come find you.

"While we all rely on our tools, drone requires the ability to fly. That's it."

And what does a ground-based camera require other than hitting the shutter button?

Drone photographers need to have great compositional skills just like traditional landscape photographers.

A thousand years of English law assumes an activity is legal unless specifically banned or regulated. We've seen the other kind of law in action, and it isn't pretty.

I think they're pretty gorgeous!

It appears that the humor in my compliment may have been missed. The photos are outstanding, and I very much enjoyed them (the photo of Cono Arita inspired my comment). They were the perfect complement to the article (or, maybe it was that the article was the perfect complement to the photos!).

Same here - you cannot legally fly drones *unless* you ask for and receive a permit. Yes, it's a hassle but it works and it's a proper way to do things.

A Mavic Pro drone is inaudible beyond about 50 feet, and practically invisible. So-called "silent" propellers emit half the noise (or less) of the OEM props.

The examples in this article were taken in remote regions, from a high altitude, where it is unlikely anybody was around to notice. Besides, are clattering shutters and mirrors any less intrusive?

Sometimes there are helicopters that covers an event in Stockholm. VERY NOISY STUFF. Extremely annoying. There have even been helicopters hovering with ads. Even more annoying.

Drones are a whisper in comparison. The few times I have seen a drone over Stockholm, I have only heard a low humming. Nothing to bother about.

And, at some distance, flying over high mountains in the wilderness, I can imagine no one will ever hear them.

Of course, if you have a national park in the US, and there are 20 drones flying around at a rather small area, it is absolutely annoying. But that is usually forbidden.

UllerellU I agree completely. So many times the peace of an area I have been photographing has been shattered by the incessant buzz of a drone. I had one recently who thought decided to hover about ten feet from the front of my camera. No sign of the operator of course. There is a special place in hell for these people.

Snapper - how very adult of you...

2013 - would that be the year of your birth?

Most places have louder insects or wind than a drone high in the air.

constant helicopter flights thru the grand canyon are much louder and far more obnoxious, than any drone could ever be.

I could even agree with you but only if you will admit that you and many others are hypocritical.
Drones are to loud and could be dangerous...what about hundred of milions of cars, planes, trains, trams, gun shots...what about cellphones?
What about our whole civilisation?
Aren't we all loud, and aren't we all destroy this beautiful planet?
Are you buing exotic fish living in northern america or europe?
Are you the happy owner of many mass produced goods in the other corner of the world in relation to your address?
Are you seriously talking what is bad for nature or you camplaint about your own inconvenience that your sense of aesthetics is being impacted with drone technology?
We went to far and there is no coming back...the only way is road to annihilation of this godless global beast called civilisation and you will have to accept it all...unless you live off grid, and do not contribute to this sick society by participating in its wrong ways you have no right to complain it...

Marek - yes the truth is that all of us are hypocrits to a greater or lesser degree, including myself.

We should *all* be trying a lot harder to reduce our impact on the planet and the other life forms that have an equal right to live on it.

And yes, I try hard to be responsible myself, by e.g. only using public transport, minimising my consumerism and energy consumption, and trying to lead by example instead of preaching hypocritically,

Dabbling-Digital-Dilettantes, with their clattering shutters and mirrors, are an annoyance at many tourist attraction.

Wow, I did not intend to generate controversy with my comment, I have just arrived from my walk through the forest, I have followed a path for a few kilometers, the only thing I have heard is the rumor of a stream, cranes and crows, there were also many bees, rains of the last days and mild temperatures have generated an interesting autumnal flowering, it has been beautiful, in some ways it is therapeutic to go out with the camera in complete silence, with the sounds of nature, "mimic" in some way with the environment, return to the origins and try to capture the beauty of the place. In my opinion a drone has no place here, either 5 or 10 or 50m from the ground, it's just my opinion and it doesn't have to be correct.

UllerellU - on dpr *anything* will generate controversy!

UllerellU - I live in a city. In a rather quiet place of the city. But - there are cars and there are planes. The cars giving a constant background noise everywhere, stronger or quieter, but it can be heard everywhere. And the planes. Unfortunately there is a domestic airport quite near, and its landing/starting route is right over us. Come to think of it there are also trains. There is a steel bridge rather far away, but some trains we hear rather well. And, of course, there are people. And they make noise.

So here, the buzzing of a drone would not be a bother at all.

If I was in a super quiet place to clean my soul I might understand if the buzzing drone goes on for hours. But, it can't, can it? And if there are drones there almost all the time. But, one drone now and then for a limited time? Sounds more like a matter of attitude. You do not want it to be there, so it annoys you. Right? Wrong?

We are not talking about the city, we are talking about landscapes, in the city there are man-made artificial noises, we already know it, in the forest there are natural noises generated by nature, a buzz closer to a traffic jam, a train station, or a highway does not generate any problem as long as it is not too close to my head. A buzz that disturbs peace in a natural place, where I just want to hear the stream, the air in the leaves, the birds and the insects, it bothers me. And no, I don't want it to be there, since not the place for it. And of course if it bothers me, imagine the stunned animals that do not even know what it is, they only detect the threat and suffer stress. You never heard the expression noise pollution? I thought landscape photographers had more respect for nature.

Sure there should be limits but most small drones are quite innocuous and natural sounding. It blends in fairly well. Now motorcycles that are purposefully noisy, that's obnoxious, that's noise pollution.
A drone is just a little bit of structured wind. You're acting quite sensitive I think. Probably more than you actually arebut maybe you're just playing the part of the crotchety old man.

To be honest, my Anafi drone is almost inaudible when 30m and higher. Much less noisy then hordes of tourists invading national park (no nature harm?), they even can drink beer and have parties there (no nature harm?), but yeah, 300gr drone in 50 meters above is damn dangerous to nature, go figure.

I have never talked about natural parks, I have talked about nature, I do not visit tourist places if I can avoid it, nature is very enough. I get the impression that you are not understanding the concept. Do you think I justify mass tourism? No, I hate it, two years ago I visited a beautiful place during an event called "magic autumn", I had visited that place many times but what I saw that day horrified me, a march of more than 1,000 people, megaphones, intense traffic .. They sold it as "ecological tourism", my criticism in their social networks was fierce. Anyway, his argument is very poor, as the rest does it badly and destroys the environment that does not matter if we destroy it with our drones a little more, right? I repeat that it is my way of thinking, drones have no place in nature, it is not an absolute truth, it is an opinion, yours is different and we will never agree.

I didn't see much wildlife over an active volcano, the desert, or the iceberg, but I get your point. I tend to fly my Mavic Pro over areas where there is little impact to wildlife wherever possible, but you can never be certain. You need to plan ahead. Unfortunately there will always be a number of drone users that create the bad press for the rest of us that try to be responsible. I wish it were not so, but you can't fix stupid.

I am not sure wildlife care about drones, even less is disturbed.

Roland - I also doubt if wildlife is disturbed by drones - certainly a single drone high in the sky would be unlikely to frighten a bird or scare a mammal below on the ground. If several people were operating drones in a limited area, it might be different.

It's mainly humans that are disturbed by drones. I've had them buzzing 5 metres above me (in wildlife areas) a few times and found it irritating as it detracts from the tranquility of the places. If flown at a more sensible height i.e. 30 metres or higher, I'm fine with that - it's certainly preferable to the constant buzz of model aircraft that takes place (with permission) on some National Nature Reserves in the UK.

Snapper - Yep, I guessed right about your year of birth.