.

How I get those bird's-eye views

My pole camera is a collection of tinkered parts that allows me to send a camera up to 32 feet above ground.
That's as high as street lights.

.

In it's portable position, it is a 4-1/2 feet long set of telescoping tubes.
It fits in the rear seat of a car or in the trunk. Many years ago I made more rugged poles, but they were heavier, longer, and less portable.
35mm film was relatively expensive compared to today's digital pix, so I didn't use poles much twenty years ago.

I also still have a home-made tripod-ladder that is 6 feet tall in it's transport size, and it allows me to climb up to a camera level of about 11 feet. It's nice to see through the viewfinder when taking pictures, especially with the expense of 35 mm film, but climbing wasn't always safe. Especially when you get old and can't afford to fall off again.

I used to climb trees to get a high vantage point, but there are very few that are climbable with the first branches close enough to reach from the ground. And then when you get up in them, too many small branches are in the way. And trees don't often grow just where you want them.

With the pole, I've shot clear over the top of trees too puny to climb.

I don't have fancy cameras with remote control shutter releases. Pushing the button is done mechanically with a shutter trip lever pulled by fishing line.

When everything is ready, I pull the string to 'set the hook' (click the shutter). Several kids have seen me carrying this pole and asked what kind of fish am I after.

No electronic remote TV camera viewfinders, either. Use the bubble level, predict the direction and down angle, and shoot a few extras in case I miss. Some days I couldn't even hit the broadside of a roundhouse. It helps to shoot 'sitting ducks', so there is time to retrieve the camera and see if I framed the scene correctly. Then if it's important, I can try again.

Usually I send a lightweight digital camera up. Digital is cheap to shoot extra scenes in different directions. Also has the equivalent of 'auto-wind', which my 30 year old 35mm doesn't. That is a one shot, then lower the camera, to manually rewind.

.

Looking up at the green bubble level.
This is the most important part of aiming. Pictures that tilt left or right just don't look 'plumb'.

It's easy to see the bubble in this picture. But it's real small when it's up at 32 feet above ground.
And you might have to look into the sun if you try the hard scenes.

I had to build this bubble level myself to get the large 3-inch size to do this job. And unlike bubble levels from the hardware store, I have to read mine from the bottom.

At Walmart I bought a $3 face powder cosmetic plastic container (made in England).
Its top had just enough shallow curve to accurately center the bubble of my food-grade green glycerin.
The original container had a black bottom. I replaced it with a round circle of clear plexiglass and glued it in. Hasn't leaked any green fluid yet.

I have used other methods to aim cameras on poles, but this seems best. It avoids aiming problems from pole flex and wind.

The black and white angled lines give me some clue at to the right and left edges of the picture at various lens settings.

I have a swivel built into the device so I can pre-set the amount of look-down angle. I have pre-calibrated marks so I can choose whether or not to keep some horizon in the picture, especially when using telephoto settings and aim is more critical.

The pole can flex in the wind.
Somedays I must look like a circus balancing act trying to keep the bubble level.

And add a few clouds whizzing by on a windy day, and you can get vertigo easily while watching the bubble settle.

Like poor surveying.
I feel the push of the wind on the pole, read the bubble, make corrections, and then try to steady it for just the right second when the subject passes. Then a wind gust hits, and I start 'chasing the bubble' all over.

And allow for a little digital shutter delay. Obviously, still scenes are easiest.
I spend more time looking up than at the train.
For some scenes, I choose whether it's better from the ground or the pole. If it's a rare scene and fast moving, I won't chance taking a pole shot and missing what I wanted.

Safety is important always. I stay at least 4 feet from 'low voltage' (14,000 volts) power lines. At least 15 feet from the 'high voltage' lines.
I usually stay much further away. It helps if you are electrically minded to know your lines, and have enough sense to not push your luck.

Not all pictures improve from up above. Sometimes there is something hidden from my view from ground level that detracts from the picture.
The look-down angle often makes track, switches, and ties look better/bigger.

Often I can 'cheat the sun' and shoot into the shadows with less contrast.
And overcast cloudy-day pictures usually turn out well. Gray dreary skies don't film well from the ground, but from the pole I can avoid putting drab sky in the picture anyway.

Real trains might look more like models. And there is a lot of interesting stuff to see from up there.

So don't worry if my city doesn't have as many bridge overpasses as I lead you to believe.
I'm just taking ordinary scenes to a new level.

Someone in the late 1970's advertised a tripod that could reach 50 feet. (I think it was made in Canada, but my memory is poor)
But I don't know if he still has them for sale.

And I've got an idea about kites and cameras......

which brought a reply from England: