Case Study: The Challenges of Capturing an Ideal Aerial Shot for The Millen Hotel

The Millen Hotel (Retouched)

Aerial photography is a powerful tool, but it doesn’t always guarantee the perfect shot. I’ve chosen The Millen Hotel as a case study because I have spent a considerable amount of time observing the hotel, even before its transformation. Capturing its iconic seafront view posed a set of unique challenges in capturing an ideal aerial shot highlight the limitations of aerial photography.

1. The Seafront View Dilemma

To include the sea in the shot, the logical approach is to position the drone at the back of the building towards the right side as there are enough clearance to manoeuvre the drone. However, this presents a major issue: there are buildings that obstruct the seaview, making it ineffective in showcasing the hotel’s prime location. Leading us into going higher than the building height to get enough clearance for the sea view.

High angle shot to get enough clearance showing the sea.

2. The Problem of Roof Utilities

Going higher might seem like a solution, but this introduces another drawback—exposing rooftop utilities that detract from the overall aesthetics of the image. Also at this height, we are also showing the part of the sea which is not so nice. (Ongoing land reclamation). Additionally, from this angle, we are also undermining the grandiose feeling of the building.

3. Limited Clearance on the Left

Shooting from the left is not ideal either, as a shorter adjacent building blocks key angles, restricting composition and limiting the ability to frame the hotel properly.

Cleaner sea view but restricted perspective.

4. Proximity vs. Perspective

Even when maneuvering the drone near surrounding buildings to experiment with perspectives, achieving an optimal angle remains difficult due to space constraints and overlapping elements.

5. Front-Facing Alternative

Shooting from the front offers a wider flight clearance, making it a more practical choice. However, this eliminates the seafront view, which is a defining feature of the hotel. The only way to include the sea is by flying further out, but this introduces another set of issue—showing more distracting elements, such as abandoned buildings, which take away from the visual appeal.

Front facing view showing sea but also many more distracting elements.

A comparison of before and after The Millen Hotel exterior transformation.

6. Alternative in Overcoming Challenges in Capturing an Ideal Aerial Shot.

If an aerial shot is absolutely necessary, I managed to find a balanced composition that included both the sea and the hotel. However, it lacked the iconic feel, as the rear façade of the building is not as visually compelling as the front.

The right height and overlap showing iconic sea view and The Millen Hotel.

This case highlights an important lesson—not all buildings are best represented through aerial photography. In this instance, a well-executed ground-level shot could be far more impactful, capturing key architectural details and the surrounding energy of the location.

Shot from the ground of The Millen Hotel during transformation.

Conclusion

Aerial photography offers exciting possibilities, but it is not always the best method to showcase a building’s character. Understanding spatial constraints, composition challenges, and alternative perspectives is crucial in determining the right approach. In cases like this, ground-level photography might deliver a stronger visual narrative.

What’s your take on overcoming such challenges?