# How the iconic post-Sandy 'New York' cover photo shot w/ ID-X



## BobSanderson (Nov 5, 2012)

I thought you guys would find this info from the Verge and original link interesting:

From the Verge
"Dutch photographer Iwan Baan captured a stunning shot of New York City for the latest cover of New York Magazine, but how exactly did he do it? Speaking to Poynter, Baan described how he rented a helicopter on Wednesday night after the storm hit to try and take a photo that would convey the duality of the city at that moment in time. Despite the freezing cold and motion of the helicopter, Baan spent an hour taking burst shots with a Canon EOS-1D X and 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens, ultimately achieving the cover picture with an ISO of 25,600, 1/40 shutter speed, and a wide-open aperture. The photographer didn't stop there, though: Dezeen has put together a slideshow of Baan's various pictures taken across a largely blacked out Manhattan in the aftermath of the storm."

Where they got the story:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/194225/architecture-photographer-explains-how-he-got-that-new-york-magazine-cover-shot/


----------



## Ryan_W (Nov 6, 2012)

Thanks for sharing - just goes to show, the gear helps but in the end it's the ingenuity of the photographer that tells the story.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Nov 6, 2012)

the picture itself is not a big deal..


----------



## rlarsen (Nov 6, 2012)

"Not a big deal" ?
Pretty damn great picture if you ask me. 
I've seen it online, now I want to see the cover to check out the high ISO file quality.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 8, 2012)

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!


----------



## dlleno (Nov 8, 2012)

To me the picture is a big deal because there arn't very many other ways to get such a dramatic capture. Cost aside -- from requests to the pilot (lets go over there, no up higher, now over here. try 500 more feet ... ahh thats it...) and strapping himself in dealing with the cold and the 1% keep rate, it all shows what one has to do to get shots like this.


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 8, 2012)

I agree that it is a dramatic capture and tells a story of what happened. It is great information to know in the article also.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 8, 2012)

Ryan_W said:


> Thanks for sharing - just goes to show, the gear helps but in the end it's the ingenuity of the photographer that tells the story.



Yeah, that a a few thousand dollars to rent a helicopter!


----------



## iso79 (Nov 12, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!



Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Nov 12, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!



I very much doubt that IS can dampen the high-frequency vibrations you get from a helicopter in flight. It's designed to deal with the low-frequency motion of human muscles. Aside from some stupid-expensive gyro-stabilized rig, about your only realistic choice is going to be what I call, "poor man's IS:" shoot a burst of images as steadily as you can, and if your boost is long enough, you'll catch a shot as the vibration takes you to the extreme of one swing before it starts the next sway -- that is, just as the pendulum is frozen at the end of its swing.

A 1Dx that can do 12 FPS with a really deep buffer is ideal for such bursts. And its extra mass doesn't hurt, either.

b&


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 12, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!
> ...


it definately helps reduce movement from vibrating platforms in operating industrial plant and i agree the 1D burst rate helps with keepers only 10 fps on my 1D though


----------



## tpatana (Nov 12, 2012)

iso79 said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!
> ...



Where you got that information?

Of course assuming situation where amateurs would also turn it off, tripod use etc., when/why would pros turn off IS? What they would gain by doing that?


----------



## sanj (Nov 12, 2012)

tpatana said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



I want to know too!


----------



## timkbryant (Nov 12, 2012)

iso79 said:


> Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.



Agreed. I am technically a professional (reporter/photog with a weekly newspaper) and I have IS turned off on the lens that has it (24-105) and I did not bother buying the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 because at the speeds I shoot, it's not going to have an effect.


----------



## sanj (Nov 12, 2012)

timkbryant said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.
> ...



So you saying all professionals work at only your kind of shutter speeds?


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 12, 2012)

iso79 said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!
> ...



Sorry, but this is so factually incorrect it is almost funny. I do not think in all my years I have ever seen any pro turn off AF. Only ever time I would, _might_ be with tripod and absolutely perfect conditions. 

Going up in a heli after Hurricane Sandy, without gyro etc. Then as one poster already mentioned you are hoping to get some good shots on the 12/fps. And believe me if you have IS you would use it!


----------



## sanj (Nov 12, 2012)

I took this shot recently in Botswana from a helicopter. 1dx. ISO 400. 70-400 f2.8 II. 1/250. f5.6.
My IS was ON. I got 50% keepers.
My buddy forgot to turn IS on and has keepers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 0%


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 12, 2012)

timkbryant said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.
> ...



Apart from many other things, I spend an awful lot of time with reporters etc (and have done for a couple of decades) and I cannot remember a single time noticing one of them had any of their cameras with IS off. Why would they? Why would you? Makes no sense.


----------



## timkbryant (Nov 12, 2012)

sanj said:


> So you saying all professionals work at only your kind of shutter speeds?



I do believe you misinterpreted. The original statement was most.

Besides, I was recounting my own personal opinion on the matter, in relation to the statement I quoted. Obviously not every reporter is like me.


----------



## rlarsen (Nov 12, 2012)

Great elephant shot.
Why not shoot at 1/500 f4 instead, or 800 asa for faster shutter speeds ?
Maybe even 1000 at 2.8.

When I shoot from the air I really try to speed up the shutter but I understand the need for DOF if I'm not shooting straight down.

Again, nice shot, very unique.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 12, 2012)

I never use IS during sports photography. Since I use a monopod and have a pretty steady setup, and never shoot below 1/1250s, I don't really need it. I also have no OOF shots, or at least very rarely. There's no reason for me to constantly run the IS motor when it makes not a lick of difference in the quality of my photos.

However, when handholding at slower shutter speeds, I definitely use it.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 12, 2012)

rlarsen said:


> Great elephant shot.
> Why not shoot at 1/500 f4 instead, or 800 asa for faster shutter speeds ?
> Maybe even 1000 at 2.8.
> 
> ...



It is a very nice shot.
I think the answer to your questions will be that he was shooting with a 2x convertor, unless Canon makes a 70-400mm f/2.8 that I do not know about.


----------



## Timothy_Bruce (Nov 12, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> timkbryant said:
> 
> 
> > iso79 said:
> ...



There could be some weird feedback loop with high frequency vibrations in some cases. 
That could be a reason to turn IS of. 
But I don´t get why he has not used a faster prime lens ?


----------



## Skulker (Nov 12, 2012)

With all this talk of IS. Are people saying that the original shot is not good enough. Or are those who say the wrong kit was used just saying it could be better?


----------



## PackLight (Nov 13, 2012)

Skulker said:


> With all this talk of IS. Are people saying that the original shot is not good enough. Or are those who say the wrong kit was used just saying it could be better?



I think his equipment selection was fine. 
I wish I had a helicopter in my kit.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 13, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I never use IS during sports photography. Since I use a monopod and have a pretty steady setup, and never shoot below 1/1250s, I don't really need it. I also have no OOF shots, or at least very rarely. There's no reason for me to constantly run the IS motor when it makes not a lick of difference in the quality of my photos.
> 
> However, when handholding at slower shutter speeds, I definitely use it.



Well, I must say that is quite unusual. In all my years, and having done many major sporting events in different countries, I do not think I have ever seen anyone shoot with it off.

And to say it does not make a lick of difference. It might not, but can, if you get knocked by your neighbour, accidentally prodded by a monopod in your back, or who knows what else. 

If it does not make a lick of difference, then you might as well have it on so you do not forget to turn it on when you do need it. ;-)


----------



## tron (Nov 13, 2012)

distant.star said:


> Ryan_W said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for sharing - just goes to show, the gear helps but in the end it's the ingenuity of the photographer that tells the story.
> ...


 ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 13, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I never use IS during sports photography. Since I use a monopod and have a pretty steady setup, and never shoot below 1/1250s, I don't really need it. I also have no OOF shots, or at least very rarely. There's no reason for me to constantly run the IS motor when it makes not a lick of difference in the quality of my photos.
> ...



Yes but I'm unusual .


----------



## TeenTog (Nov 21, 2012)

> Yes but I'm unusual .



I'll say. The only time I EVER turn IS off is when I'm shooting a long exposure at night (w/ the camera on a tripod of course). Plus, even if you have the steadiest monopod and an f/0.6 lens, IS will still help you.


----------

