Goodwood Revival
Discussion
Goodwood Revival Festival
A few pics I took on Sunday afternoon at Goodwood. They're all straight off the camera at the moment. Once I've had a play in PS, I might add a few more to the gallery if cropping, etc. makes me any happier with the rest (only 450 or so others
). I've also uploaded some photos taken of the track at the Donington Kit Car Show if that floats your boat.
Comments are warmly welcomed.
These are my favourites:
To add a question to this thread - how do you determine if a lack of sharpness on a photo is down to poor focus, camea shake or a cheap lens proving itself to be a bit soft at full reach?
Equiment: Canon EOS300D w/ cheap Sigma 70-300mm lens
A few pics I took on Sunday afternoon at Goodwood. They're all straight off the camera at the moment. Once I've had a play in PS, I might add a few more to the gallery if cropping, etc. makes me any happier with the rest (only 450 or so others
). I've also uploaded some photos taken of the track at the Donington Kit Car Show if that floats your boat. Comments are warmly welcomed.
These are my favourites:
To add a question to this thread - how do you determine if a lack of sharpness on a photo is down to poor focus, camea shake or a cheap lens proving itself to be a bit soft at full reach?
Equiment: Canon EOS300D w/ cheap Sigma 70-300mm lens
Thanks for the kind words guys.
I was actually experimenting with various different shutter speeds, everything from 1/80 to 1/400. But I think my choice of favourites shows what was best as they're all at 1/200 except the Daytona that's at 1/400. These pics were taken at Fordwater on the Goodwood track which is (according to the Goodwood site) "One of the fastest corners on any British circuit".
So I guess the speed of the cars helped in that I could still get some movement in the photo while still keeping a relatively fast shutter speed to keep the subject sharp (ish).
I was actually experimenting with various different shutter speeds, everything from 1/80 to 1/400. But I think my choice of favourites shows what was best as they're all at 1/200 except the Daytona that's at 1/400. These pics were taken at Fordwater on the Goodwood track which is (according to the Goodwood site) "One of the fastest corners on any British circuit".
So I guess the speed of the cars helped in that I could still get some movement in the photo while still keeping a relatively fast shutter speed to keep the subject sharp (ish).
Hi,
I was at the Revival on the Saturday, I have posted some of my images on www.motorsportvip.com there is a link at the bottom of the page.
I like most of the pics on there, some of the panned shots whould have benefitted from my being a little lower instead of shooting looking down at the cars, but where I was it wasn't possible.
Images have been cropped and tweaked in PS.
Enjoy.
I was at the Revival on the Saturday, I have posted some of my images on www.motorsportvip.com there is a link at the bottom of the page.
I like most of the pics on there, some of the panned shots whould have benefitted from my being a little lower instead of shooting looking down at the cars, but where I was it wasn't possible.
Images have been cropped and tweaked in PS.
Enjoy.
LexSport said:
To add a question to this thread - how do you determine if a lack of sharpness on a photo is down to poor focus, camea shake or a cheap lens proving itself to be a bit soft at full reach?
Nice pics, especially considering they're straight from the camera. But whilst cropping can add impact, it bothers me that the back of every car is missing! The BoB flight is a nice one.
Sharpness...mmm. Well if it was poor focus (ie the AF didn't lock on) you may find another part of the picture that's sharper, either in front of or behind the subject.
Camera shake manifests itself as a short directional smear, rather than simply 'out of focus'.
If it's neither of those, then perhaps 'cheap lens' is the answer. But deficiencies of that sort normally show up most at the corners and edges, not in the middle.
ThatPhilBrettGuy said:
Also remember that Canon employ very little in camera sharpening. If you've moved from the consumer digicam level to D-SLR it can be quite a shock. Without the full res available it's hard to say, but there looks to be plenty of detail.
Nice panning!
Hi Phil
Moving to DSLR seems to be the photographic equivalent of getting a TVR - infinite power but hard to handle
You'll find out one day
simpo two said:
Hi Phil
Moving to DSLR seems to be the photographic equivalent of getting a TVR - infinite power but hard to handle
You'll find out one day
Evenin' John
Yup, TVR(ski) one day. Do the pipe, slippers and flat cap come with them, or are they purchased separately?
Back to the pics, what zoom was used in the main?
Cheers
Phil
What was the focal length on those shots?
I often find that my canon 75-300is lens becomes a little soft above 200mm
Changing the parameter on the 300d has an effect on it too, iirc parameter 2 is the same as parameter 1 on the 10d as the 300d does employ a little more jiggery pokery than the 10d on standard settings.
I often find that my canon 75-300is lens becomes a little soft above 200mm
Changing the parameter on the 300d has an effect on it too, iirc parameter 2 is the same as parameter 1 on the 10d as the 300d does employ a little more jiggery pokery than the 10d on standard settings.
Thanks again guys. 
I took shots pretty much covering the available focal length from my 70-300mm lens. The shots above were all maxed at 300mm except the BoB shot and the two GT40s that were around the 200mm mark.
It is quite bizarre that my favourite photos all appear to be ones that are tighter in and chopping off part of the subject. My thought process on the day was that after an hour and a half of getting the whole car in shot, I felt that the photos were all looking like they were the same shot, just a different car, if you see what I mean. So, I started trying to frame things differently which certainly seemed to liven things up a bit. So I guess it could either be that I bored myself with all the full frame panning shots I took, or that me getting better at panning through the day coincided with me also trying different composition.
There are some cars with back ends on in the gallery, honest.
The other thing I tried at Donington on the Saturday, partly to liven the shots up and partly to compensate for my apparent inability that day to get the subject properly horizontal, was some angled shots with the subject at around 45*. Just didn't think it would suit the subject matter at Goodwood.
As for "sharpening", I think it's something I'm going to have to go off and read about. At my seriously inadequate level of knowledge I tend to start playing with things like this and not know where to stop so quite probably go too far most of the time!
Any more criticism is warmly welcomed. This is only my third proper go at motorsport photography, so I know I've still got a hell of a lot to learn.
Sorry for the post being quite this long!
I took shots pretty much covering the available focal length from my 70-300mm lens. The shots above were all maxed at 300mm except the BoB shot and the two GT40s that were around the 200mm mark.
It is quite bizarre that my favourite photos all appear to be ones that are tighter in and chopping off part of the subject. My thought process on the day was that after an hour and a half of getting the whole car in shot, I felt that the photos were all looking like they were the same shot, just a different car, if you see what I mean. So, I started trying to frame things differently which certainly seemed to liven things up a bit. So I guess it could either be that I bored myself with all the full frame panning shots I took, or that me getting better at panning through the day coincided with me also trying different composition.
There are some cars with back ends on in the gallery, honest.
The other thing I tried at Donington on the Saturday, partly to liven the shots up and partly to compensate for my apparent inability that day to get the subject properly horizontal, was some angled shots with the subject at around 45*. Just didn't think it would suit the subject matter at Goodwood.
As for "sharpening", I think it's something I'm going to have to go off and read about. At my seriously inadequate level of knowledge I tend to start playing with things like this and not know where to stop so quite probably go too far most of the time!
Any more criticism is warmly welcomed. This is only my third proper go at motorsport photography, so I know I've still got a hell of a lot to learn.
Sorry for the post being quite this long!
LexSport said:
It is quite bizarre that my favourite photos all appear to be ones that are tighter in and chopping off part of the subject. My thought process on the day was that after an hour and a half of getting the whole car in shot, I felt that the photos were all looking like they were the same shot, just a different car, if you see what I mean. So, I started trying to frame things differently which certainly seemed to liven things up a bit.
Which just proves you can't please everybody all the time! (especially us lot
) You're starting with plenty of pixels, so my rule of thumb would be to take the whole car, and crop it later in PS if you want to. You can always remove bits but you can't add them on. But you took plenty of both types, so you're well covered I think. You've got the shutter speed bang on too (aren't those LCD screens great?!).
simpo two said:
To add a question to this thread - how do you determine if a lack of sharpness on a photo is down to poor focus, camea shake or a cheap lens proving itself to be a bit soft at full reach?
Nice pics, especially considering they're straight from the camera. But whilst cropping can add impact, it bothers me that the back of every car is missing! The BoB flight is a nice one.
Sharpness...mmm. Well if it was poor focus (ie the AF didn't lock on) you may find another part of the picture that's sharper, either in front of or behind the subject.
Camera shake manifests itself as a short directional smear, rather than simply 'out of focus'.
If it's neither of those, then perhaps 'cheap lens' is the answer. But deficiencies of that sort normally show up most at the corners and edges, not in the middle.
Everything LexSport says is true. A good rule of thumb is to never use a shutter speed slower than the maximum focal length of your lens, ie 75-200mm lens coupled with 1/250th sec. shutter speed should generally avoid camera shake. With a smaller, lighter weight lens such as a prime 28mm you may very well, if you have a relatively steady hand, get away with 1/15th sec.
The trick with panning is to successfully track your subject. You seemed to have managed that very well.
Emmap said:
A good rule of thumb is to never use a shutter speed slower than the maximum focal length of your lens, ie 75-200mm lens coupled with 1/250th sec. shutter speed should generally avoid camera shake.
In 35mm-land yes, but the EOS300D has a 1.6x factor, so you need a higher shutter speed than you think.
simpo two said:
A good rule of thumb is to never use a shutter speed slower than the maximum focal length of your lens, ie 75-200mm lens coupled with 1/250th sec. shutter speed should generally avoid camera shake.
In 35mm-land yes, but the EOS300D has a 1.6x factor, so you need a higher shutter speed than you think.
I appreciate that factor, ie magnification factor. That is an entirely separate issue. My rule of thumb was related to the weight of the lens, not its true focal length. So, if you are using a 200mm lens it may give you a focal length equivalent of 320mm, but the physical weight remains the same (obviously) so the use of a minimum shutter speed of 1/200th sec. is still recommended.
stin hambo said:
Lex, if you had the two GT40s side by side in 1920x1200 then I'd love ya forever!
Here you go (374Kb)
As for the point on shutter speed vs focal length, I did know that rule of thumb, but appear to have completely forgotten it when it actually came to taking photographs, so preoccupied was I on getting a slow enough shutter speed to get the movement captured. D'oh!
I must admit, I thought the reason of it was more along Simpo's thoughts than Emma's. The reason being that any slight vibration of the lens will be magnified by greater focal length (think two triangles with same angle between two sides, but those sides being longer on one triangle IYSWIM). In that case, the 1.6x crop would affect things. I shall have a play with both ideas and see what happens.
Thanks again everyone for being so kind about the photographs.
>> Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 13th September 10:23
Emmap said:
I appreciate that factor, ie magnification factor. That is an entirely separate issue. My rule of thumb was related to the weight of the lens, not its true focal length. So, if you are using a 200mm lens it may give you a focal length equivalent of 320mm, but the physical weight remains the same (obviously) so the use of a minimum shutter speed of 1/200th sec. is still recommended.
More magnification = more wobble. Try hand-holding a telesope to the moon, even a heavy one, and you'll see what I mean.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff