Toronto Aerial Pics

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:12 pm

Hedley wrote:
wouldnt you get in some deep $hit for flying so close the the CN Tower or Rogers Center?
Depends who you know. Less than coincidentally, I had two Transport Canada Inspectors tell me yesterday that the law doesn't apply to them, when they don't want it to (shrug).

Jeeze... I wish I lived in your region.

I have to follow the regs just like all the rest you you. Not fair.

-Guy

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:44 pm

I hate Toronto.

I love your pictures though.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:15 pm

I wish I lived in your region

Me too. Really.

Ever considered a move to 4900 Yonge St? From what I have learned about you here, you are indisputably head and shoulders above the misshapen donkeys, dolts and troglodytes that inhabit that very strange abode.

It would be a refreshing, even astonishing change to deal with someone at Transport that actually attempted to perform their job in a professional manner.

TC Guy · Post by **TC Guy** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:23 pm

Hedley wrote:
I wish I lived in your region
Me too. Really.

Ever considered a move to 4900 Yonge St? From what I have learned about you here, you are indisputably head and shoulders above the misshapen donkeys, dolts and troglodytes that inhabit that very strange abode.

It would be a refreshing, even astonishing change to deal with someone at Transport that actually attempted to perform their job in a professional manner.

I must admit, with my limited experience in TC, I have found that 4900 Young Street is... different than what I am used to. It has a different feeling than offices in other regions. Stressed out, I guess.

-Guy

l_reason · Post by **l_reason** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:23 pm

They get like that because a few of them have their heads stuck up their own asses, When one guy pulls his head out of his ass the stink of sh*t fills the place witch causes another to put his head in his ass because he thinks his sh*t doesn’t stink and the cycle is continued. I hear this happens most often in the enforcement offices.

TC Guy
I also welcome your postings and would like to see you working out this way.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:05 am

TC Guy wrote: I must admit, with my limited experience in TC, I have found that 4900 Young Street is... different than what I am used to. It has a different feeling than offices in other regions. Stressed out, I guess.

Penguin is dead, or MIA, or reduced work, I haven't seen her in the last couple of visits, she was very helpful, maybe terminated or re-assigned for helping... 1 of the best I'd ever seen at 4900...

The rest of them are, well, yeah, as others have mentioned.... "Have their heads stuck way up...."

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:37 am

4900 Young Street is... different

No kidding. I have seriously considered a move across the border to Quebec. I have flown airshows and helped organize aerobatic contests in La Belle Province, and although I have the disadvantage of not speaking one bloody word of joual, and I have found that although your paperwork must be absolutely, postively, completely, flawlessly, awesomely perfect, they are a joy to deal with compared to 4900 Yonge St.

A very good friend of mine, a retired Transport Inspector, who unfortunately spent a few years in Tower C, explained to me that in his opinion (this was 15 years ago) one of the major problems with 4900 Yonge St is that Transport doesn't compensate salaries based on the cost of living.

The cost of living (eg house prices) is much higher at 4900 Yonge St than it is in Ottawa, the east coast, etc and it was explained to me that as an inevitable law of economics, a much lower quality of person was attracted to work at that effectively lower salary.

frontside_air · Post by **frontside_air** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:51 pm

l_reason wrote:If I had to send every shot I take through photoshop I would spend 8 hours a day on a computer even with automated batch processing.

hey man, nice pics. a word of adv: "the shot" is just the first step. just because you're dealing with megapixels and not rodinal doesn't mean there's no processing required. would you take your rolls of exposed kodachrome64 shot with your leica M6 to some 14 yr old at walmart who will make a mess of your work ramming it through an e-6 process?.... because that's what you're doing shooting in jpg (ie:in-camera compression and processing). you will provide your clients with a better product if you shoot in an unlossy format (raw/crw/nef) and fine tune your own digital darkroom workflow. that's what will make your work better than the next guy/girl and keep the clients coming (not- trying to keep your gear a secret).

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:07 am

Mitch Cronin wrote:It's not a matter of rights for krys'sakes! Just simple human courtesy.
SP was a dick to post that! People person eh? If he wanted to show "him" that he'd posted the EXIF info with the pics, he could have showed "him" in a PM!

I completely agree with Bugz.

SP.... I hope you apologize, and learn... all is not lost.

I disagree. If he didn't want the info revealed, he shouldn't have left it attached to the picture. That's almost as bad as the cowards bit*hing about the identities of the Global pilots when they were in plain view in the picture. Nothing was being revealed that wasn't already available if you chose to look close enough.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:12 am

cyyz wrote:It is illegal per cars/aim what have you, but atc clears and approves the orbits so they(TC) can suck my balls.

Does atc clear you to violate the provisions in the CARs? Do they assign an orbit dimension that forces you to violate the CARs?

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:20 am

..........

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:28 am

charlie_g wrote:
Mitch Cronin wrote:It's not a matter of rights for krys'sakes! Just simple human courtesy.
SP was a dick to post that! People person eh? If he wanted to show "him" that he'd posted the EXIF info with the pics, he could have showed "him" in a PM!

I completely agree with Bugz.

SP.... I hope you apologize, and learn... all is not lost.
I disagree. If he didn't want the info revealed, he shouldn't have left it attached to the picture. That's almost as bad as the cowards bit*hing about the identities of the Global pilots when they were in plain view in the picture. Nothing was being revealed that wasn't already available if you chose to look close enough.

You left one pertinent piece of the puzzle out of that Charlie... I Reason had made it clear he didn't want the information exposed. Had the pilots in that other bit you mentioned said "please don't post our names" anyone who then did so would be an ass.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:09 am

Mitch Cronin wrote:You left one pertinent piece of the puzzle out of that Charlie... I Reason had made it clear he didn't want the information exposed. Had the pilots in that other bit you mentioned said "please don't post our names" anyone who then did so would be an ass.

Who would be the ass? The one who revealed the names, or the ones who expected that info to remain quiet when a multitude of separate photographs made their way around the net within hours of the incident? Sorry, but it is not reasonable to expect that from a photograph in the public domain.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:30 am

charlie_g wrote:Who would be the ass?

Mitch Cronin wrote:anyone who then did so would be an ass.

It's interesting how so many of you seem to think nothing of being inconsiderate while you're an anonymous character on the internet... I hope the treatment you offer your fellow human beings improves in person? ... but it's often a shame to see how low people can be (or even support), while they're anonymous.

That this topic still goes on seems a sad statement... you're still defending an inconsiderate act. Nobody is here saying posting the details was wrong in any legal sense... I (and others) have only said it was unnecessary and nasty. If you don't see it like that... like I said... I think that's a shame.

...and that's all I can say... go nuts... be nasty if that's what turns your crank.... it doesn't work for me.

Benwa · Post by **Benwa** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:58 pm

frontside_air:

Very good post.

Too many high volume aerial photographers. That's why I left the business... well I'm still in the aerial biz... but mapping instead of obliques.

There is more to aerial photography than just taking a picture from an airplane and then delivering those images to your client.

Speculative work is the worst... they end up selling what they call aerials for next to nothing.

I_reason, good luck in the biz. Framing is everything. Use the horizon... it should be straight.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:02 pm

Mitch Cronin wrote:That this topic still goes on seems a sad statement... you're still defending an inconsiderate act. Nobody is here saying posting the details was wrong in any legal sense... I (and others) have only said it was unnecessary and nasty. If you don't see it like that... like I said... I think that's a shame.

If the camera makes the photographer, then we could all be Karsh. The original poster should recognize that. And he should know better than to play coy on the internet, which is notorious for the results seen here.

l_reason · Post by **l_reason** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:25 pm

What I do earns me a good living. I don’t use raw files for a few reasons. 1. I don’t need to. 2. I would be changing cards every two minuets. 3. I can come close now to out shooting my camera/card memorizing speed now if I was using raw I would have to slow down my working speed.

My goal while working is NOT to take the absolute best picture I can. My goal is to take a really good shot hundreds of times a day. As I said before I get paid for EVERY shot I take. I have been able to stay in the business because I’m efficient at doing the work I can produce a good product for less then the other guys and still make myself a good income. I have no problem with the aerial guys that go out and get $1200 for taking a few really great pictures of a new land development. That’s great if you can make a living like that have fun! I’m NOT a trained photographer nor do I pretend to be. I know enough about photography, photoshop and cameras to do my job well and I‘m still learning after 5 years in the business

Too many high volume aerial photographers. That's why I left the business... well I'm still in the aerial biz... but mapping instead of obliques.

Speculative work is the worst... they end up selling what they call aerials for next to nothing.

Efficiency is everything in the aerial photography I do. I try and save on everything I can except equipment and maintenance on my plane. Just so other guys can’t or wont want to do the same work.

l_reason · Post by **l_reason** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:26 pm

TI-ANB · Post by **TI-ANB** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:56 pm

Interesting thread

I_reason,

Do you fly the plane and take the pictures at the same time? You talk about Efficiency...but I'm hoping you are not both flying the plane and setting the exposure/ISO/composition at the same time

Also, I'm curious if you have tried using an IS lense. I know they cost an arm and a leg, but I would assume they would get rid of the motion blur of the plane and allow you to use a lower ISO.

Leo.

Hand Jockey · Post by **Hand Jockey** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:46 pm

Just read this post through. The Canon 20 is not a pro camera, the person was just trying to be mysterious I have one that I use for everyday work and its OK but nothing special. It has less functions than my old 1000 and cost 4 times the price. If you take them in Raw you get about 80 piccies out of a 1GB card compared to 248 L or about 780S jpegs