Thoughts
Author
Discussion

slinky

Original Poster:

15,704 posts

280 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all


Took this at the weekend, although it's blurred and not the best framing, I think it captures the violence and speed of the car rather well...

slinky
587racing.com

Biker.ie

170 posts

271 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all
I think it captures sensor dust and a piss poor technique remarkably well.

GetCarter

31,313 posts

310 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all
Biker.ie said:
I think it captures sensor dust and a piss poor technique remarkably well.



Don't mince about man, tell it like it is!

slinky

Original Poster:

15,704 posts

280 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all
Biker.ie said:
I think it captures sensor dust and a piss poor technique remarkably well.


Thank you for your constructive criticism... My sensor is fine, the borrow lens however was rather dirty..

crmcatee

5,808 posts

258 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all
have to agree - it does look like sensor.

Rednut05

9,173 posts

244 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all
Biker.ie said:
I think it captures sensor dust and a piss poor technique remarkably well.


Cracking me up.

Matt1986

3,299 posts

246 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all
i understand what your saying, but when i take a picture of a moving car and the car isn't in focus but is blurry like yours i bin it, because its not what i call a good photo, if the car was in focus it would be a great shot, but i don't like it. if you do though, then thats all that matters!

slinky

Original Poster:

15,704 posts

280 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all
fair enough, it was an experiment with a lens I'd not used before taking a photo of a car doing an 8 second quarter mile in questionable lighting..

It just so happens that I was sifting through the weekends results and liked that one, sensor/lens dust ignored..

scoobylicious

122 posts

261 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all
slinky said:

and not the best framing, I think it captures the violence and speed of the car rather well...



I think the picture is appealing because the framing does work. It adheres to the the good 'ol rule of thirds and there is a great sense of speed which is helped by the fact the car is on the right, which I think gives an impression that the car is about to shoot out of frame. I agree it would be better if the car wasn't blurred, but on the other hand if you're the driver doing an 8sec quarter mile, I bet everything goes blurry! (IMHO, devil's advocate kind of way.)

beyond rational

3,544 posts

246 months

Wednesday 9th May 2007
quotequote all
When I think of the subject, I like it (well not the dust) but the car is kind of how it would appear in my minds eye, not some crystal clear pan but empathising the blink and you'd miss it quality of the event

scooby_snax

1,279 posts

285 months

Thursday 10th May 2007
quotequote all
Whilst technically there are a number of 'faults' does it matter? At the end of the day it is how an individual reacts emotionally to an image. Some people will react positively others the opposite.
It is a similar emotional experience as listening to music, some you like some you don't even by the same artiste.
The question posed was not do you think this is a technically excellant image?



Edited by scooby_snax on Thursday 10th May 07:53

Biker.ie

170 posts

271 months

Friday 11th May 2007
quotequote all
As a print or poster it could look well if given the oil-painting abstracty filter or cut-out effect in photoshop, but you should probably aim for a higher shutter speed next time, as well as a sharper subject it would give a more deeply defined streaking effect in the wheels and background to emphasise motion. Nothing worse than a static bang 'frozen in time' motionless shot (although large aperture / head-on shots work well for other reasons like subject isolation) but 0 to 100 in 2secs or whatever is always going to be difficult particularly as the car keeps accelerating (and you must do likewise) while panning so 1/200 - 1-160 should nail it it pretty good.

If it were me I'd cheat and snap the car while moving a lot slower (maybe in the warm up blast?) with a slowish 1/60sec pan so you've got tonnes of smoke and drama to add etc. Basically, aim for higher shutter speeds and work you way down from there until the car becomes blurry and find a happy medium maybe one stop above. Use continuous autofocus or manually pre-focus where the car will pass and bang as many fps as you can while panning, more than likely one towards the centre (while you're 'catching up' with the car) will be spot on, out of a possible 6 or 7 shots per run.

Even miniscule sensor dust is greatly emphasised at smaller apertures (like f16 / f22 etc.) so you could pick up a Rocket air blaster or similar from 7dayshop.com, happy snapping!.

slinky

Original Poster:

15,704 posts

280 months

Friday 11th May 2007
quotequote all
I was aiming for a slower shutter speed to give movement, I have plenty of faster shutter speed shots that look somewhat clinical.

Not having a press pass (but running with a startline pass) means that it's difficult to get close to the action for photography, added to the fact that cars of this nature don't tend to reach half track during their burnout... I wanted to capture the car under the stresses of a full bore pass...

I appreciate the sensor cleaning sentiment, and it's something I'll be doing, but at the end of the day, I'm not a technically marvellous photographer, I just felt it captured something about the event...

I'll post another shot from the event later today..

franv8

2,212 posts

269 months

Friday 11th May 2007
quotequote all
First opinion - I didn't like it and just thought it showed panning with too slow a shutter speed.

Leaving it a few moments and coming back I actually am warming to it. I guess in some ways all the excellent panning shots you see on here, do get a bit 'samey' after a while...

Just my 2p worth...

monkeyhanger

9,267 posts

273 months

Friday 11th May 2007
quotequote all
If you like it who cares what anyone else thinks ?

However, if i was aiming for that particular shot i'd select the bottom right focus point to track the car and use a shutter speed around 1/60th....but that's me

slinky

Original Poster:

15,704 posts

280 months

Friday 11th May 2007
quotequote all
monkeyhanger said:
If you like it who cares what anyone else thinks ?

However, if i was aiming for that particular shot i'd select the bottom right focus point to track the car and use a shutter speed around 1/60th....but that's me


I was shooting at 1/30th and am still amazed I got the car in shot (new to this panning lark you see..)

freddies_dad

12,689 posts

288 months

Saturday 12th May 2007
quotequote all
FWIW: I think losing the top third improves the shot.

chris.mapey

4,778 posts

298 months

Saturday 12th May 2007
quotequote all
I have had a play to make it a bit more "abstract" - hope you don't mind.



I still am unsure about it though.

Get your sensor cleaned though, started processing & there are loads of specs of dust...

Chris

slinky

Original Poster:

15,704 posts

280 months

Saturday 12th May 2007
quotequote all
chris.mapey said:

I still am unsure about it though.

Get your sensor cleaned though, started processing & there are loads of specs of dust...

Chris


Really, my sensor is fine, the lens was filthy!

chris.mapey

4,778 posts

298 months

Saturday 12th May 2007
quotequote all
slinky said:
chris.mapey said:

I still am unsure about it though.

Get your sensor cleaned though, started processing & there are loads of specs of dust...

Chris


Really, my sensor is fine, the lens was filthy!


hehe

OK - I'll believe you. Just looked like the specs I got when my sensors wasn't clean that's all...

Chris