another first try.......harness racing

[lynx0069]

another first try for me, horse racing of the harness variety. as always, critique, comments, suggestions, hints are appreciated





XSi with 100-400L in early evening, shot at 130mm, f/5, 1/125 sec, iso640


jim

[alex_sb]

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.

[alex_sb]

pls, have a look at this http://www.flickr.com/photos/pairodocs/3445666045/


(not mine)

[Sheiky]

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>

I would prefer to see the horse and rider blurred wile background sharp - it could give some speed feeling.

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&amp;S. Even in sports mode [:P] Also you could make 1 great shot and after that it's boring.
</div>






<div>

Or, if you could move your camera to follow the horse, then background could be blurred in a way giving speed feeling too

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>

pls, have a look at this http://www.flickr.com/photos/pairodocs/3445666045/


(not mine)

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

[btaylor]

That one does seem to be photoshopped or a real giant flash was used [img]/emoticons/emotion-40.gif[/img] 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.

Was thinking the same thing - a bit of motion blur filter going on there I think.


Good stuff Jim.

[Dave Johnston]

It was photohacked.... How am I so sure?.... because I did the photohacking.

[alex_sb]

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>

I would prefer to see the horse and rider blurred wile background sharp - it could give some speed feeling.

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&amp;S. Even in sports mode [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img] Also you could make 1 great shot and after that it's boring.
</div>






<div>

Or, if you could move your camera to follow the horse, then background could be blurred in a way giving speed feeling too

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>

pls, have a look at this http://www.flickr.com/photos/pairodocs/3445666045/


(not mine)

That one does seem to be photoshopped or a real giant flash was used [img]/emoticons/emotion-40.gif[/img] 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

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&amp;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.

[Sheiky]

When I saw that, I was like, wait a second... he is talking about MY picture! Then I smiled quietly to myself.[img]/emoticons/emotion-15.gif[/img]

[]


So that mustache was real? Haha your mad! Great stuff man![Y]

Ah... One year left. This whole 21 years of school thing is getting old.

21 years of only medical school??? I hope you also counted highschool etc [:P]

Sheiky, hello!


sorry, I am not with you too (as you are not with me[img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]) on that

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.

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&amp;S or lomo as well.

Nope the point what I tried to make here is the next:


when you see people taking pictures with P&amp;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.

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

Correct

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.

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.

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. [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]

Hmm yeah I want to see that happen []

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".[img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

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 []


Again welcome to the forums and enjoy your time here!


Jan

[btaylor]

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". [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]

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 [][][]


Cheers, Ben.