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

[Sheiky]

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 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?

i also seemed to get a lot of attention from everyone else around me, wonder if it was the BIG white lens

Yup, no doubt about that! Only used it one day and I figured that out myself during that day [:P]

[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&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&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

[Dave Johnston]

21 years of only medical school??? I hope you also counted highschool etc [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

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(]

[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.

[Sheiky]

If it were 21 years.... I don't know who would do it.[img]/emoticons/emotion-41.gif[/img]

Well it would explain the mustache []

[lynx0069]

i just got totally lost, dazed, and confused reading the back and forth here.........all because of my horse photo............lol

[Sheiky]

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. [img]/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]

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.

I think you're shots are fantastic. [img]/emoticons/emotion-21.gif[/img]

Yours as well [Y]I still have to try that high-key portrait-thing which you had made of your lovely guinea pig []


Jan

[Sheiky]

i just got totally lost, dazed, and confused reading the back and forth here.........all because of my horse photo............lol

Sorry for that [A]

[btaylor]

i just got totally lost, dazed, and confused reading the back and forth here.........all because of my horse photo............lol
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Sorry for that [img]/emoticons/emotion-13.gif[/img]

Get used to it - we're the kings (and queens) of random thought tangents on this forum.

[btaylor]

I wouldn't copy paste a sun into a cloudy day though [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

Ahaha no me either. I like to use photoshop to make adjustments, not creations.