Printable View
another first try for me, horse racing of the harness variety. as always, critique, comments, suggestions, hints are appreciated
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/957/img2308j.jpg
XSi with 100-400L in early evening, shot at 130mm, f/5, 1/125 sec, iso640
jim
Hi!
I would prefer to see the horse and rider blurred wile background sharp - it could give some speed feeling.
Or, if you could move your camera to follow the horse, then background could be blurred in a way giving speed feeling too. I don't know if flashguns are allowed during horse racing. If they are, then I would think of firing (perhaps, with better beamer).
Also the white is too white on that shot. Have your tried to play with metering mode?
Alex.
pls, have a look at this http://www.flickr.com/photos/pairodocs/3445666045/
(not mine)
Great shot Jim!
I'm amazed you managed this at only 1/125 sec... wow!!
I would have to agree the whites are a little over-exposed. But it's something easily fixed.
Overall it's amazing how you did this. Just a side-question, did you use any IS on this shot?
<div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
Sorry Alex, can't say I'm with you on that one. Maybe it would give a nice photo, but it's the kind of photo that you would have gotten with a P&S. Even in sports mode [:P] Also you could make 1 great shot and after that it's boring.
</div>
<div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
Exactly what has been done here. Remember it's not like tracking super fast cars on a perfectly flat road in a long bend.
</div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
That one does seem to be photoshopped or a real giant flash was used [^o)] The wheels are freezed so that would mean they used a flash (2nd curtain) to freeze the shot, or most probably they photoshopped it nicely.
BTW you can create a link to that image by selecting it and clicking the chain-link symbol above.
Jan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Was thinking the same thing - a bit of motion blur filter going on there I think.
Good stuff Jim.
It was photohacked.... How am I so sure?.... because I did the photohacking.
Haha hilarious!! [Y] Well Dave you must have something really good there since it gets referred to [A] Nice job [Y]
Ps: great collection of shots on your account Dave [H] Love the self-portrait!
thanks jan and ben.......i agree that the whites do seem a bit overblown, i can and prob will try to fix it in cs4, good thing i was shooting raw that day, and i am actually very happy that the shot came out the way it did, i did a burst while tracking the horse and jockey,well, needless to say, i got 1 out of my6 shot burst thati liked, and i did have theIS switched on. i really am enjoying this 100-400L that i got. (i also seemed to get a lot of attention from everyone else around me, wonder if it was the BIG white lens)i have some other shots where i was tracking a group as they crossed the finish line, where the whole group of them is blurred from motion blur (theirs, not mine, lol) and i dont like that effect, i prefer the blurred background and a little bit of motion blur on the horses feet and the sulky wheels.
jim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
When I saw that, I was like, wait a second... he is talking about MY picture! Then I smiled quietly to myself.[8-|]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Thanks![:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
You wouldn't believe how long it took me to grow out that moustache. I actually wore all of that get up to my Med school lecture that day. It was a lecture on "human sexuality" so I knew I had to do something fun. One fella in the class seriously asked his neighboor, who is that french guy?[:S]
Ah... One year left. This whole 21 years of school thing is getting old. I want a job, so I can buy lenses. [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Sheiky, hello!
Sorry, I am not with you too (as you are not with me [:)]) on that. I think we are commenting on the picture itself, not on the gear used. If DSLR makes an impressive shot, I would not care if such a shot can be obtained with P&S or lomo as well.
Some signs make me doubt your are right about "it is exactly has been done here". If Jim was following the horse just panning the camera, then the more distant objects (fence posts and trees on background) to be more blurred than the grass next to track. Because, if camera is panning, the bigger the distance from the object to the panning camera, the higher the speed of that object relatively to the panning lens.
Of course, if Jim was running as fast as the horse he was hooting, than the grass next to track could be more blurred than more distant fence posts and trees. [;)]
As far as Photoshop concerned, I am new to the forum and didn't learn all the customs here yet. As for me, pseudo-HDR or Photohack/Photoshop is the same "crime". [:)]
Alex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx0069
I did some motorcross shots last saturday @ 1/200 and 1/250 and I think I have an even lower keeper-rate. That's why I still don't know how you managed 1/125. Is it such a flat track? With motor-cross even the grounds that seem flat make the bike and rider shake like crazy. I could never imagine using 1/125 for one of those shots. I assumed you used IS mode 2 for panning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx0069
Yup, no doubt about that! Only used it one day and I figured that out myself during that day [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
[:D]
So that mustache was real? Haha your mad! Great stuff man![Y]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
21 years of only medical school??? I hope you also counted highschool etc [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
Hey mate! no problem at all, everybody has their own style and likings, but perhaps I can explain my point of view a bit better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
Nope the point what I tried to make here is the next:
when you see people taking pictures with P&S cameras during action-loaded events like sports etc they always get blurred subjects do to subject-motion. Even the sports modes on those things is really not up for real sport-use. Perhaps it will take a picture at a 1/250 of a second, still even an athlete will be blurred, while backgrounds often stay sharp due to IS on those things.
That's why Bryan states a lot in his reviews: IS will not stop subject-motion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
Correct
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
Nope your wrong here. The bigger the distance from the subject to the camera, the sharper the angle gets and so the lens has to swing less degrees to achieve the same shutterspeed. The subject will have the same speed so it will cover the same distance, no matter where your at. If you would have the same framing but you would stand closer and so at a shorter focal range(but at the same shutterspeed). You would have to track the subject over the same distance, but you'll have to move a lot more to achieve the same shot.
Hmm...hope you'll get what I mean [:P] Because the number of degrees he covered in this shot was pretty small, there isn't really much difference in background motion. At least not too noticeable by the naked eye, but I'm sure the more distant background objects like the fence-posts and trees are more blurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
Hmm yeah I want to see that happen [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
Haha well he tricked you very good I guess [;)] Some people love it, some don't... Personally I'm more of a purist myself. But maybe it's because my Photoshop skills pretty much suck hehe [:#] Anyway welcome here [Y]
Again perhaps your idea of shooting a sharp background with blurred subject looks great, but how many of those shots would you want to have? If you can't really identify the subject, there's really no point of making multiple in my opinion. I could see how a second curtain flash could make it a great shot though...
I personally like panning shots for a variety of sports. Mostly due to the lack of emotion and action in a shot when you just freeze the shot. For example...normal motorcross: I shot motor-cross last saturday and I tried a lot of panned/tracked shots. Mainly because the majority of the riders do not really take impressive jumps or are to seriously to make aerobatic jumps. Those aerobatic jumps are really great to "freeze"with a high shutterspeed, but normal shots seem to come out a bit dull. There's often no energy in the shot. The guys and girls wear helmets so you can't see any emotion and if they just jump forward...it's a bit boring to watch 50 of these.
But...those straight forward slowly jumping guys and girls make perfect subjects for panned/tracked shots! If you can make a photo that it will look like they go very fast it just adds a bit energy to the photo. That's why I often try to make these shots. I also use it a lot for cycle-racing during the race(also the helmets/glasses/monotone movement/staring down-story). However at the last finishing sprint the emotion gets much more interesting and I like to freeze the frame at such moments.
Same story with motor-sports like formula 1, Indy-car, motoGP etc. All sports which are pretty boring if you'd freeze every photo. It's just looking like a normal car/motor then. If you want to add a bit of the fast feeling they have you just have to be creative and pan/track those things.
But there are also sports that carry enough emotion to freeze-frames...swimming, running, climbing, baseball etc.
Hope you'll understand my point of view more now.
Perhaps you can explain yours to me [:D]
Again welcome to the forums and enjoy your time here!
Jan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
I was counting primary and high school and under grad. Med school = 4 years. If it were 21 years.... I don't know who would do it.[+o(]
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex_sb
Hmmm I smell a can of worms [:P] I have a different approach to this theory, I believe that photoshop (or any other image editing) is just another tool in the arsenal of today's photographer and if a it needs to be used to get desired shotthen by all means use it!
This doesn't take away from the fact that the PRIMARY factor ina good photo is the initial capture itself and the thought put into it. Don't get me wrong, photoshop style tools can make a good photo look great, but it must have the elements during capture that make up a great photo.
Sometimes I think those that consider themself an absolute purist need to wake up and smell the roses.By the way, I'm in no way having a go at you here Jan, I realise you don't do a lot in post where you can help it and I think you're shots are fantastic. [Y]
I declare1 can of worms... OPENED [:D][:D][:D]
Cheers, Ben.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
Well it would explain the mustache [;)]
i just got totally lost, dazed, and confused reading the back and forth here.........all because of my horse photo............lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
Thanks Ben, nah I also use lightroom (small adjustments like contrast/exposure/saturation etc) and photoshop(mostly for deleting spots of sensor dirt and stuff like that). I wouldn't copy paste a sun into a cloudy day though [:P] Natural-plus is what I like to call my style [H]
So nope, no absolute purist here...have got to admit to that.I also like to try HDR from time to time and that's a thing where I most often see things I don't like. Adjustments that are too much for my likings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
Yours as well [Y]I still have to try that high-key portrait-thing which you had made of your lovely guinea pig [;)]
Jan
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx0069
Sorry for that [A]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Get used to it - we're the kings (and queens) of random thought tangents on this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Ahaha no me either. I like to use photoshop to make adjustments, not creations.