The "Space to Fly Into" Thing

[Joe Copalman]

I recently received a comment on the photo below instructing me to try leaving some space to "fly into."



I've received this advice before, and have read about it in books on aviation photography, but to be honest, I've always thought images with 1/5 of the frame forward of the subject's nose looked awkward and unbalanced.  In some cases, I think that that framing actually makes it look as if the aircraft has "fallen behind" or is otherwise giving the opposite impression that a "space to fly into" crop is supposed to convey.  Conversely, I absolutely hate the "A.net crop," with barely a sliver of sky between the tip of the nose or trailing edge of the tail and the edge of the image, and have actually enlarged the canvas on images that look like that SOOC and cloned in more sky before or aft of the subject.  My personal preference is for either a balanced crop that leaves some space aft of the aircraft and perhaps a smidge more in front of it (with the shot above being a fairly decent example of my preferred crop), or a rule-of-thirds crop that, if not following the letter of the law on RoT framing, definitely follows the spirit:



I know where I'm at on this, and it's a preference that has developed over many years of photographing aircraft, reading and learning more about photography, and looking critically at the work of others, so I don't see me changing too much in this regard, but I am curious what everyone's thoughts are on this.  Do you adhere to the "space to fly into" thing?  Do you have a specific method of determining how much space to leave in front of or behind a subject?  What tools or guides are you using in Lightroom or Photoshop to determine your crops?

[azspyder]

I was always taught that with action photography you always leave room for the action to unfold. You see this a lot in sports photography. When I first started photographing moving aircraft, I used this approach. It looked unnatural. I have seen it work well with some "over the top" action stuff like helo shots with a lot of dust kicking up. It works when the action is very obvious in the image. With typical aircraft shots, this does not seem to work well.

One thing that does annoy me is when you do find a shot it works with, some knucklehead tells you that the aircraft always has to be centered. To me, photography is an art, not a science. To me it's the difference between a photographer and someone who just takes pictures. The best aviation photos I have seen were not typical crops, compositions, or angles. Tight crops can add drama and bring out the detail in an aircraft...there is a place for them. We have also seen great examples of the opposite, where space adds to image (like Jeff's recent Harrier shot). It's art, not perfection..but anything we want it to be.

Just my two cents...

[Jay Beckman]

I tend to adhere pretty religiously to the "look space" or "motion space" theory...

A little in front and above for climbing.  A little in front and below for descending.

I even prefer a little in front for statics.

[Joe Copalman]

"A little" being the operative term though, correct?

[Jay Beckman]

Yup-ish

[Jeff D. Welker]

Brother Joseph:

I don't subscribe to the notion that there are hard and fast rules for framing/cropping an image. In my opinion, it is simply a matter of personal taste. I agree with your thoughts that if the action/motion is obvious, then creating some "look" or "motion" space adds to the aesthetics of the image. I think that this is best done subtlety and with discretion. Too much space and things look unbalanced to me. That being said, I feel that unique crops (i.e. pano style) can accommodate exaggerations in placement of the primary subject.

Sometimes motion isn't obvious or evident. For example, if you are shooting with a wide open f/stop (i.e. f/4) the resulting bokeh could create the illusion of motion when none really exits. In those cases, I like to place the primary subject front and center. I also like to use "front and center" framing when the subject is surrounded by jello air or heat mirage being created by the engine(s).

For me, a pano-style crop better accommodates tighter framing than the more traditional crops that closely match the "square-ish" sensor dimensions. For some reason, when there is noticeably more open space above/below the primary subject in a "square-ish" crops it optically exaggerates the "tightness" of the left/right crop. With a pano crop, I am much more courageous going tight on all sides.

Your Humblified Servant;

Jeffe

[Scott Youmans]

And then again...

[Scott Youmans]

Concepts are good, rules not so much.  A good eye, priceless.  F/A-18s from the side are a bitch with those stabilators hanging out there....

[Joe Copalman]

Concepts are good, rules not so much.  A good eye, priceless.  F/A-18s from the side are a bitch with those stabilators hanging out there....

Agreed.  Cessna Citation Xs are the same - control surfaces extending out into areas that throw an image off-balance if you crop to include them. 

I still think the Osprey is one of the most difficult aircraft to frame effectively. 

[Scott Youmans]

For what it's worth I probably would have left a hair less room in the back and a bit more in the front of the red airplane just because the negative space is a little more prominent around the tail than the nose.  I don't think it would have jumped out at me though if I wasn't looking for it.  That 1/5 of the frame rule is bizarre.  I prefer .2148674987 give or take.  Who comes up with these things?

The 53 shot works quite well.

[Tower Guy]

If your not shooting with being published in mind, who cares, really. If you shoot any subject and when your done with cropping and processing and you view it and can say I really like this, your done and it is PERFECT!  It doesn't mean that you can't return at a later date and make it more perfect.