Very nice... but given that you weren't anywhere near high enough for the curvature of the Earth to be apparent, you might want to correct the horizon...

If you wanted general shots of the countryside where it didn't matter where you went, I should imagine the balloon makes quite a decent platform if you can get close enough to the edge.

But if you wanted something specific I should think it would be extremely impractical, unless you were very lucky with the wind, and the site was only a few miles at most from where you took off - balloon flights are done in light winds only, and you don't have a great deal of choice of where you go.

They also seem to be mostly early morning and late afternoon, so unless that was the sort of lighting you wanted, it would be hopeless - long shadows can spoil aerial shots very easily.

You jest, but it is different. As I say, a few seconds to frame and shoot between thorough scans of the surrounding sky is really no different from a look at the map.

The proximity of traffic and other obstacles on the road is such that a moment's inattention can cause a catastrophe.

I don't recommend formation flying and photography.

Actually, this is a very good point. Air sickness is one of those things that's difficult to predict - some people suffer from it, some don't.

But if you do (I used to, and still do if I'm doing anything exciting like aerobatics), it's the most miserable of experiences.

And it will be made worse by the sort of head movements taking place when you're moving around trying to take photos. Minimise that as far as possible. Do most of the looking around not through the viewfinder.

Once you start feeling ill, it keeps getting worse until either you hurl or you land. Being present in a small confined cockpit while someone is chundering is extremely unpleasant - it isn't possible to escape the smell.

So make sure there's a sick bag in case the worst happens, and tell the pilot if you start feeling ill.

Hopefully this is unnecessarily alarmist, and you'll be fine, Dan, but it's worth a thought.

Don't refrain from eating in the hours before the flight in the hope that you'll be less prone to sickness. Low blood sugar makes you more prone to the inner ear disturbance that causes it, not less. You don't need a big meal, but something to keep the blood sugar up for the duration of the flight would be good.

I think it depends what you're trying to achieve, and how good the results need to be.

I was at about 1500 feet IIRC when I captured Homer and the Cerne Abbas giant; and more than that for the synchrotron at Harwell and Didcot power station.

For publication quality, you really have to get rid of the perspex and get a bit closer, I'd agree.

I don't see why the question even arises - of course they are. But just as with the rest of photography, some shots are better than others. Photographs taken from the air are relatively unusual here at the moment, but if they become less so, we'll all become a bit more demanding, and rightly so. Obviously, I (and, I trust, Dirk) will insist that to be a 'real' aerial photographer, you have to be shooting one-handed while flying yourself. But I'll understand if others take a slightly more liberal view...

Sadly, I seem to have deleted the pictures of the roof furniture over the road that I take when I want to assess purple fringing in high contrast situations, else I could have made a really bad gag about aerial photography.

Don't even imagine that if I find them (or if I take some more), I won't take the opportunity, however.

No longer true.

It's 1000 feet now.

All of what I say in this post refers to fixed wing, not rotary.

This is true, and as it happens, I usually use the 28-200 too.

However, it's the least of your worries. If it's bumpy enough, the risk is that you'll smack yourself in the face with the camera, while you're trying to take a picture, and that can hurt.

A bit like trying to stand rigid on a train without holding on, trying to fight the bumps is not the best way. Just wait until the turbulence subsides for a few seconds and shoot while it's smooth. The same applies to changing lenses, but this is something I don't often attempt while I'm flying (only because I don't want to drop anything).

Erm, I don't believe a word of this. If it's a two seater (eg Cessna 150 or 152) then it's physically impossible to switch seats, and in a four-seater you'd have to be in the back, with no one else also in the back, and that's just nuts - if you're the only passenger, you want to be up front anyway, since in most four-seaters, the visibility out of the back side windows is rubbish).

Of much more relevance is that, especially if the air is not absolutely smooth, you should not be permitted to be unstrapped in your seat. In rough air, it is not uncommon to get the occasional bump that's vigorous enough for an unstrapped person to smack their head into the roof hard enough to cause serious injury. It's rare that the air is rough enough for this, but it's a risk not worth taking.

If you're in the back, and you want to change sides, you need to unstrap, move across and re-strap, before you even think about taking any more pictures. The tiny compensations the pilot would then have to make when you changed sides are of no consequence.
This is sensible, but in no way because it will upset the pilot's handling. However, he may judge that the air is rough enough for it to be imprudent to unbuckle, even for a short time, and this is something he's likely to be a much better judge of than you are, unless you're very familiar with this sort of thing.

All of mine are taken in a low wing aircraft. Even in this one, for instance, which is at a much wider angle than the earlier examples, there's only the tiniest bit of wing visible in the lower left corner.

High wing (usually Cessna) can be just as problematical, because the gear leg gets in the way. In a low-wing aircraft, get the pilot to point the aircraft a bit away from your target before you get there, and then turn towards it while you shoot. This will lower the wing and give you much more space.

Another thought, obvious probably:

Don't forget the polariser.

Well the issue in the air is that if you're looking through the viewfinder, you're not looking around for other aircraft. I don't get the impression it's an issue for Dirk, since the Argentine traffic density is probably extremely low compared with the much more congested sky in the south of England. But as I say, I have a good look round as I approach the point where I plan to take the shot, shoot quickly, and then get back to looking out.

It's no different from what you'd do when you need to take a look at the map.

Physically flying with one hand (or even no hands for brief periods) is not difficult at all (Edit: in fixed wing aircraft. I can't comment on rotary wing in this respect).