Erez Marom

DPReview Contributor
Lives in Israel Israel
Has a website at www.erezmarom.com
Joined on Sep 5, 2010

Comments

Total: 274, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

717: Something to keep in mind: Some cameras/lenses react much differently to wind blast than others. My old Sony 717 took fine photos when held out of the airplane in the full wind blast. My Nikon with the 55-200mm lens does NOT - if you don't keep it sheltered the wind vibrates the camera more than the VR can overcome. It is worth finding this out before a big $$$ shoot.
Another thing is reaction to cold. I was doing air-to-air with an HD movie camera held outside at about -20 F and it would freeze up within 10 minutes and need to be warmed up to work again. Something else to know before the $$$ shoot.

Thanks 717, I certainly agree and I'll be discussing this on the next article, devoted to technique.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 13:08 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: Anyone in Marom's league certain has the talent, need, and wallet to consider a high grade drone. He could tote a compact Mavic Pro anywhere. An old dog need not loathe new tricks. A few crashes won't ruin the reputation. GPS offsets any weak directional sense. The convenience and flexibility are addictive.

Hi John, thanks for your reply.
I think aerial photography still has its place, even in the age of drones. First of all, until very recently, common drones' (not the DSLR-carriers') sensors were absolutely horrible. The Mavic's sensor quality is still appalling compared to a DSLR. Secondly, drones can't go where planes or helis can. Their range, speed and maximum flying height are quite limited. Thirdly, there's the subject of reliability which, from personal experience, is still very far from satisfactory.
In any case, this series is about aerial photography in the sense of shooting from an aircraft you're on, not about drones, so that's what I write about. Perhaps a series about drone photography should also be written.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: With an aps-c, you cant take the 16-80mm and it will cover alot.
I would say the ideal telephoto for aerial woul be 80-400 or in canon the 100-400.
Those lenses would give you interesting detail shots.

As I explain in the article, it highly depends on the subject you're shooting and its distance.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: I'm curious why you would restrict yourself to a lens with such a small zoom range? Even in the Canon camp you can get a 24-105 and there are other options that are even more flexible.

Sure, you can use the 24-105. I don't fly enough to justify another mid range zoom just for that, and 24-70 is good for 95% of the images.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 21:01 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Thank you for sharing your images and explaining your techniques Erez. If I might be permitted a couple of comments:-

The vertical composition works far better in my opinion, reflecting the vertical lines of the towers, and conveying a greater feeling of grandeur.

In both compositions, I feel that unfortunately the sense of night-time has largely been lost. They look much more like underexposed daylight shots. I think that in order to have a real night-time feel, a clear sky with stars visible would have worked better. The turquoise tint of the lake also contributes to the "underexposed sunlight" feel of the images.

@primeshooter
It's Erez.
The RAW files are more contrasty, but they are much too bright and don't reflect reality. The end result looks like the scene as I saw it, which is what I usually shoot for, even if some might prefer it otherwise.
Cheers

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2016 at 13:05 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rod McD: Hi Erez. Thanks. A place well and truly on my bucket list. For me I think the vertical composition works the best. It hasn't quite got the foreground interest of the horizontal one, but what it may lack there is more than made up (for me) by the rendition of the towers.

Thank you Rod,
As I've mentioned before, I try to write articles about shots I have enough to say about, and that was the main motivation behind the choice of image.
I too sometimes prefer the vertical.
Cheers

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 15:07 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Thank you for sharing your images and explaining your techniques Erez. If I might be permitted a couple of comments:-

The vertical composition works far better in my opinion, reflecting the vertical lines of the towers, and conveying a greater feeling of grandeur.

In both compositions, I feel that unfortunately the sense of night-time has largely been lost. They look much more like underexposed daylight shots. I think that in order to have a real night-time feel, a clear sky with stars visible would have worked better. The turquoise tint of the lake also contributes to the "underexposed sunlight" feel of the images.

I also have to say I really disagree that the shots don't look like night shots. They look extremely similar to what I saw with my own eyes that night. Remember that my eyes were used to the dark and that the moon was blazing - it actually hurt my eyes when I looked straight at it.
I think what deceives the eye here is also the unusual contrast for a night shot - this was due to the special conditions described in the article, and it was very real.
Remember also that moonlight is actually much warmer than the eyes usually see at night, due to the fact that the cells responsible for night vision are much less sensitive to color. I try to reflect that in my night shots, and perhaps it makes them look less like night shots, but it's truer in a sense.
Anyway, thanks again for the feedback, I welcome any respectful criticism. Cheers.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 15:04 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Thank you for sharing your images and explaining your techniques Erez. If I might be permitted a couple of comments:-

The vertical composition works far better in my opinion, reflecting the vertical lines of the towers, and conveying a greater feeling of grandeur.

In both compositions, I feel that unfortunately the sense of night-time has largely been lost. They look much more like underexposed daylight shots. I think that in order to have a real night-time feel, a clear sky with stars visible would have worked better. The turquoise tint of the lake also contributes to the "underexposed sunlight" feel of the images.

Thanks for your reply entoman.
I end up saying it again and again, but I do understand the confusion: these articles aren't an exhibition of my best shots. I'll write about a shot only if I have enough to write about it, and lots of my best, award- winning shots don't qualify, in the sense that the process of getting them isn't a compelling enough story. I'll only write if there's something to say, even if the shot isn't my very best. In this article, the story of getting there and spending the night supplies the interest which justifies the article, in my opinion of course. I myself sometimes prefer the vertical too. But I had much less to say about it and thus the choice of the shots to write about was very easy.
Continued below.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2016 at 15:00 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: The Shadow Towers (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rajeshb: I liked most of Erez's shots before, but the towers remaining in shadows is not working for me here. But good effort anyway.

I liked the second shot much more. may be a little less luminosity to give it a feel of night time would be better.

Fair enough, to each his own. Thanks for the feedback.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2016 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

Johnny420: The main advantage for me shooting in helo's is not the improved field of view having the doors off lends, it's getting the bloody Plexiglas out of the way. It kills contrast and has reflections that mar the shot.

@jdc562, in all light planes I've shot from either there wasn't an option to shoot open door or the pilot wouldn't agree to do it. I've heard similar things from friends.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 23:16 UTC
In reply to:

scottfc: It would have been fair to specify how much more a helicopter is than a plane.
I my area, southern Oregon, a helicopter costs $900/hour, but a Cessna 172 is "only" $120 to rent. I'm a private pilot and thus can't make a profit, but if you buy me lunch (don't tell the FAA) I might take you up just for fun and we would split the rental cost, so it would only cost you $60. I doubt that'll happen with a copter. But even if you don't have a pilot friend, maybe the Cessna pilot will charge $150/hour.
The point is, helicopter rental may be ideal, but it's too expensive for most people unless they're a commercial photographer. So I suppose the helicopter is for the Leica crowd, and the Cessna is for Canon/Nikon?

You write as if all aircraft are possible in every location. This is definitely not the situation. Prices are also VERY different to what you've specified in some of the locations I've visited, and only quite different in others.
Regarding the monetary cost - to each his own. For me it's been very worth it. To others it would've been ridiculously expensive. That's not really the point here.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2016 at 15:18 UTC
In reply to:

ales82: There is one kind of aerial photography which is actually free and easy to do!!! Simply finding a high elevation point with a steep slope towards the area you want to capture and then using maybe a short telephoto...

That's nice too but isn't aerial photography.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 14:41 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: I would like to point out however that Holuhraun (the volcano) Erez photographed was done illegally, the police & authorities put a no fly zone ban within 10-20km radius from the eruption.

Thus Erez has violated not only Icelandic law but endangered other people. This has already been brought to attention to the authorities who are now investigating.

There is already one helicopter pilot who is facing charges along with several people who travelled in trucks & this can get you 2 years of jailtime if not up to five years. Please respect the LAWS that are in place in the country you visit.

You are a great landscape photographer but that does NOT make you above the law.

You are wrong on many levels, and I have to say insinuating that I'd do something illegal and then write an article about it is quite insulting. I'll answer you anyway, in the hope that my answer will deter you from falsely accusing people in the future.
No lying was involved. Not only news people were allowed in. Some of my Icelandic photographer friends were allowed in without any problem on their merits alone, and I was let in due to a letter of intent from NG, with whom I was involved in a book several months before.
The blockaded zone's border was wayyy too far to feel or even smell anything. I'm talking tens of km if not more.
Upon reaching 1.5 km from the eruption itself I could smell it a bit, but generally it wasn't much, and very far from nauseating. I hope this settles your doubts.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 09:46 UTC
In reply to:

HGFGKM: A much less expensive and (to my opinion) equally satisfying approach to aerial photography is to always ask for a window seat and away from the wings when you travel by plane. It does not always work, what with clouds, haze, the sun against the view....etc. But, when it works, there are many spectacular landscapes to take pictures, especially when traveling over the Rockies and over the Arizona Nevada area. Surprisingly, the small sensor cameras are as good as the more expensive ones. I always try not to miss any such opportunity.

Nothing wrong with this type of photography, it's just not the type discussed in this series.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 08:27 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: I would like to point out however that Holuhraun (the volcano) Erez photographed was done illegally, the police & authorities put a no fly zone ban within 10-20km radius from the eruption.

Thus Erez has violated not only Icelandic law but endangered other people. This has already been brought to attention to the authorities who are now investigating.

There is already one helicopter pilot who is facing charges along with several people who travelled in trucks & this can get you 2 years of jailtime if not up to five years. Please respect the LAWS that are in place in the country you visit.

You are a great landscape photographer but that does NOT make you above the law.

I appreciate your concern, but you're simply wrong. The pilot facing charges was one who landed illegally. There were helis and planes flying over the eruption for months on end with police presence all around - do you really think they wouldn't be stopped if this were illegal?
In addition I had an official entry permit to the eruption site.
I wish people would think before they accuse.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 08:26 UTC
On article Rice Hill: Shooting in Riisitunturi National Park (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

sdh: Beautiful photos, excellent work!
I'm curious about something. I assume you look for scenes where the snow doesn't have signs of human traffic. When you snowshoe or skin through places like this, do you strategize your route so that your own track doesn't clutter potential scenes, or do you just go "wherever" and only look forward left & right for the best compositions?
Thanks for presenting! I also appreciated the accompanying comments.

Thank you sdh,
it really depends. Sometimes you have a lot of footprints to begin with so it doesn't matter much where you go. But if the snow is pristine I do my best not to ruin it for others. Usually there aren't that many people around in high winter though, so often you need to make your own routes to get to a composition.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2016 at 20:15 UTC
On article Rice Hill: Shooting in Riisitunturi National Park (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

Requin: How did you protect your gear from the coldness. Most "freeze proof" equipment goes up to -10 degrees Celcius. Don't you risk your gear going there in cold weather? I live in Finland and have broken a sensor already.

I haven't had any such problems, to be honest. I've shot in -20 and the cameras performed well.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2016 at 11:40 UTC
On article Rice Hill: Shooting in Riisitunturi National Park (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rishi Sanyal: Lovely work as alway, Erez. Thanks for this! Lovely sunbursts by the way. One of the new Canon 24-70s?

If I'm not mistaken it's the f/4. The f/2.8 has a different sun star.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2016 at 10:07 UTC
On article Rice Hill: Shooting in Riisitunturi National Park (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rishi Sanyal: Lovely work as alway, Erez. Thanks for this! Lovely sunbursts by the way. One of the new Canon 24-70s?

Nope, sorry :)
Tamron 24-70mm and Canon 16-35mm.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
On article Hell on Earth: Shooting in the Danakil Depression (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lan: Erez; you've just added yet another place to my "to do" list. Not sure whether I should thank you for that ;) Great shots though!

As a matter of interest, why didn't you lead off with the volcano or hot springs shots? Or the camels? I know it must be difficult to choose...

I favour my volcano shots, so I'd probably have gone with those; as they're something that relatively few photographers have in their image stockpile.

Thanks Lan!
I guess I wanted to save the best for last, but perhaps you're right and I should've started with those :)

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 13:30 UTC
Total: 274, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »