- This topic is empty.
Time Attack Round One Photos
-
Ill agree with Paddy ,its much harder to make a visual impact when taking photos of time attack, as there is rarely clouds of tyresmoke, or a car with the tail out, right on the balance between drifting and spinning out. I tend to go for panoramic shots, group shots (several cars inshot), things like glowing brake discs or stuff like this:
And it was nothing to do with pure luck either, after getting my ‘safety’ shots for the magazine (Modified Motors by the way) I decided to mess around and the Evo above was always popping a flame when he was going up through the gears coming out of turn 2 at Mondello so after burst shooting with 60 odd wasted shots I had 3 with flames that I was happy with, and for those who dont know, in most cases exhaust flames are ‘blink and you will miss them’ also with the majority of cars its not when they pop a flame, but if. If the flame wasnt there I wouldnt have kept the shot
But then again some people are just pig ignorant,Id quite happily ask whats the attraction in taking photos of flowers,bands,weddings and macros of bottles for example. Unless you can do better and prove it, you have no right to criticise, ask questions of course, but ‘forum experts’ do my head in
jb7 the guy who started that thread that Paddy mentions is imo the BEST drift photographer in the uk/ireland. Just a shame he has disappeared from the scene, hopefully he will be back as his work was a great inspiration. His website is still online http://www.pbase.com/mart_williams/motorsport. He used a D200 and 70-200 F2.8 or a Bigma for his shots
Ed, just a shame that guy’s pictures were blocked-
I’m sure they would have made better viewing-Like you, I’m not a big fan of pig-ignorance-
however, some problems are purely photographic,
whether your subject is a flower or a jam-jar.These include depth of field, and blur,
and the difference between camera movement and camera movements-I gave up following cars around the country long ago-
as have several people mentioned in this thread so far-
although I was never very good at it myself-Since there have been a few pictures posted in Paddy’s thread already,
here’s a couple of mine from almost 30 years ago-
They’re much too static for today’s tastes- but I reckon I’ve no inclination to try and do better now-
Better than my own, or better than anyone else’s-I have hundreds more, mostly rubbish, mostly poor light, none scanned-
Regarding having no right to criticize- Who says?
Like everyone else who posts here, if I have something to contribute I will-
comments, critiques, pictures-
whatever-And if a piece of information is questionable, I’ll question it-
j
btw Paddy-
I still can’t follow your numbers-Fight! Fight! Fight! :)
Only joking, this has made for some interesting reading, this thread.
But then again some people are just pig ignorant,Id quite happily ask whats the attraction in taking photos of flowers,bands,weddings and macros of bottles for example. Unless you can do better and prove it, you have no right to criticise, ask questions of course, but ‘forum experts’ do my head in
Christ Ed… last time you were here you stated ‘Photoshop is for crap photographers’… now this. You sure have a way of carrying yourself.
There’s been a fairly consisent viewpoint stated about the shot from a mixture of trained professionals and average joe’s.
Dark chocolate… I know nothing about how cocoa beans are grown, harvested, processed and turned into dark chocolate… but I know that I don’t like how dark chocolate tastes. If I knew how the beans were grown, harvested, processed etc. I may appreciate the effort gone into producing a bar; but would this make the chocolate taste any nicer? I doubt it.
jb7 wrote:
I’d love to see what he’d make of this one-
though don’t show him,
it might fry his brain completely-I’ve never heard of a turning focal plane either, but there again I’m a relative
newcomer. So thanks for the warning jb. ;)Nor do I understand the mathematics behind camera movements,
focal lengths, and/or motion blur, though in these days of easily accessible
information I’m sure I could google it and get a grasp of the basic principles
in less than an hour, as could any of us here…quite happily ask whats the attraction in taking photos of flowers,bands,weddings
and macros of bottles for example…Do you mean or macros of bottles? Because if you mean ‘and’, then the attraction is
that you’ve suddenly got four different areas of interest and there’s less danger of you being labelled
a one trick pony with a dodgy tripod, plus there’s a greater likelihood of your becoming more skilled
as a photographer.If you want my opinion (which you probably don’t care for) specialisation is vastly
overrated and hardly inspiring. Mark Capilitan has moved on from Formula 1, motorsport
photography at the highest level, after admitting that 80-90% of his work was boring.As for the Lartigue above, now that’s how to capture a sense of movement. It’s like a visual
equivalent of the Doppler Effect. Classic. I can only imagine the ride on wheels shaped
like that…Rob.
Mark has even said that the effect occurs when slow shutters are used, its been there all along and nobody has put a name on it ?
Me is out to prove a point now, I know, for a change, I’m not going crazy. :)
nfl-fan wrote:
Christ Ed… last time you were here you stated ‘Photoshop is for crap photographers’… now this. You sure have a way of carrying yourself.
I never said that – I said that if you needed to use photoshop to produce an effect that can be done just using the camera, then thats a bad move. Photoshop is a tool – I use it when I need to, as I use a flash and a tripod etc when I need to
So here are a few TA photos with all the car in focus, to show that it can be done and at speed too
A bit bland maybe, but each car is doing close to 100mph in the above shots
Well.. to be exact what you said was:
Only a crap photographer relies on photoshop to acheive decent results
Granted… two posts later you explained that you were talking about a particular effect.
The point being that put you neck on the chopping block with the way in which you address things sometimes. Your previous post on this thread about ‘ignorance’ and ‘forum experts’ being another example.
Anyway… back to the cars. Nice shots.
Ed,
None one of them is under the 1/160th of a second, one is 1/250th of a second, none of them area really ‘slow shutter’ pans if you get me ? They are helpful to show the effect is only starting to creep in the first three posted, although it’s fairly feint. It’s also worth bearing in mind that 1/160th at Donny is more than enough to show movement as the speeds are higher but on the national circuit at Mondello, 1/160th is too fast a speed ..
Ed, the photos you showed just there are simple pans (maybe a gentle bend), the original photo in discussion is a car coming round a substantial bend, totally different effect comes out when using the slower shutter speed. You could pan all day at 1/10 of a sec with the car parallel to the camera & get it pin sharp, but coming round a bend is totally different. BTW that looks like Donington Park, coming down the Craner curves, if so, it is a simple standard pan shot there….I’ve had the unfortunate task of having to do that snooze shot enough times :x (not dissing your shots, just Donington has better places to shoot IMO).
markcapilitan wrote:
I’ve had the unfortunate task of having to do that snooze shot enough times :x (not dissing your shots, just Donington has better places to shoot IMO).
None taken Mark, its just the place is so huge, its a long walk to the more scenic sections :x .Thing with those shots,it was hard to frame them initially as the cars appeared very quicky over the brow of the hill. But I shall do my best to get more ‘turning focal plane’ shots, will be aiming to go around McLeans and Coppice this time (Turns 7/8),so will wear comfy shoes.
Also theres a round of Time Attack UK at Crash Central (Oulton Park) so any tips for shooting there would be appreciated
Oulton :D is the best circuit in the UK for taking pics. Walk around, loads of opportunity there…classic lodge shot, sweet pan as they come into lodge corner, hills, crests, undulations…Oulton’s got it all. Loads of stuff, but you do need to walk around.
How come all the ding dongs are when I’m away from the computer? :-)
I *think* the effect that paddy refered to at the start of this thread relates (as Mark has said) to the difference in panning a car going in a line such that it’s like the outside of a circle where the camera is in the middle. The front and back of the car do not move any closer or further from the camera during the exposure, and, where a car is going round a sharp bend during the exposire.
Where the car is on a sharp bend during the exposure, the front and back of the car move different amounts sideways to the camera than the other end. And as the panning shot might be 1/60 (as an example), the car is moving quick, and therefore moves quite a bit during the shot, including quite a bit sideways at one end or the other.
What it really comes down to is wheather it’s better to be sharp on the headlights, or sharp on the driver. For me, if the driver is inside and it’s dark and you cannot see them, then sharp on the headlights. else sharp on the driver. However it’s not really a question with a “correct” answer. Tea or coffee? Petrol or Diesel? Would’nt it be boring if all shots looked the same.
Go for it Paddy: Your doing really nice work, and you should by all means experiment. From time to time you may have to shoot the boring stuff, or to a boring formula that magazine / clients might want, but keep experimenting. I know I like looking at what you keep coming up with.
Merv.
It actually depends on what part of the car you’re concentrating and panning on – when you shoot at slow shutter speeds for the car coming round the sharp bend, you pan with it – I always pan with the main windscreen, hence I get the sharp windscreen, blurry front/rear. If you concentrate on the front headlights, then that’ll be sharp/static, rest of the car should be blurry.
For any of ye that are still interested, Ed found the original diagram that this argument is based around …
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
