Motorsport Photography part 3 (no images please!)

[paul-collins]

I thought I'd reopen discussion of photography while calving off the loading time required for webpages with images.

I've been using an f4 70-200 Sun (K-mount) for my pics at Mosport, and am pretty happy with the improvements I made in my technique at this year's ALMS over what I did last year. I decided that I wasn't getting as close as I wanted for some long track shots, and that I wasn't going to spend money on a decent 300 or higher telephoto.

I got myself a 2x converter off ebay for $10 US, and have just put it on my camera to have a look. The clarity is not degraded as best I can tell, but it's a very shaky lens. Well, maybe it's a shaky photographer...

Anyway, stability, I can tell, is going to be an issue at >200x. Any suggestions? Outside a 'pod, that is - I have a tripod I could use, but that doesn't help for panning, I find.

[brickkicker]

Try using a mono-pod (its just one leg instead of three) very easy to use and take out camera shake and let you use longer shutter speeds. When you get one make sure its 'good' make sure when it locks in place it wont close up under a bit of weight, check the mounting were it fits the camera, you can also get a quick release to allow you to get it of quick if you need.

[paul-collins]

I'll look into it.

One thing I'm not thrilled with is that my camera's power winder has its 'pod mount under the right hand grip, so any pod solution will be unbalanced. Do they make any sort of mounting adjuster so that I can transfer the mounting location to the camera's centre of gravity?

(Particularly because the lens really front-loads the camera)

[Red]

What kind of camera-shake do you get? Usually the mirror shakes the camera when it lifts.. I mean it always shakes it and the effects are visible if you use lenses with big focal distance and slow shutter speeds. Try to use a faster shutter; I use speeds faster than (or close with) 1/focal-distance. Or, as brick said, use a mono-pod.

Or, you may have a look at Canon's "Image stabilizer" lenses but they're a bit pricey...

[SolemHill]

As a long time long lens user, I couldn't live without my monopod. I invested £45 on a manfrotto Monopod. It's built like a police baton, weigh's next to nothing and counterbalances over the shoulder with my 700si on the end. But for panning shots I always shoot by hand anyway so I always remove the pod well in advance of that. Other than that those ever so expensive cannon IS lenses mentioned are fantastic - wish I could afford a new kit and go that route. But as stated above the biggest aid to sharp pictures with a long lens is shutter speed - never select a shutter speed below your focal length if shooting by hand but then you get pictures of cars parked on the track, like all things it's a trade off. The only other technique I have used with reasonable success was target shooting sighting from a previous life. Start with the lens pointing at the subject, raise your sight whilst inhaling, exhale as you lower the lens and literaly stop breathing as you get to your target, then press the shutter like you would squeeze the trigger on a target riffle, slowly and smoothly. But like all things - practise till the cows come home and it will come naturally. One last thought check your stance, feet shoulder width apart, right hand gripping the body, left hand supporting the lens as close in to the body as you can, elbows tucked well in. If the lens is physicaly long you can tuck your left elbow into you ribs, lean back a little and shoot with the camera pointing out in line with your shoulders ( yep - how you hold a target riffle ).

Prehaps I'm getting my shooting mixed up here.....?

[SolemHill]

Perhaps something you all could explain to me. When panning I usually set the camera to S Mode, shutter priority, at about 1/90th. I find this gives a good blur to proceedings and the cars really stand out. The problem is with colour saturation of the background. My fav spot at oulton for panning is oldhall, where, with about 200 - 300 mm at work you can rasonably fill a frame. Usually the bottome third is grass into tarmac with the centre third is usually just about all car ( depending what they are) and the top third bushes \ sky. The grass in the foreground is all too often not a deep green ( 30% grey ish ) but has a very prominant yellow cast ( much lighter ). I usually use Fuji Superia film 100's for panning, a film which under all other circumstances gives excellent colour renidition and is usually quite warm to boot.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

Yours,

confused of cheshire:confused:.

[paul-collins]

Where is the sun when you're shooting?

My camping spot at Mosport (infield between 7 and 8, right on Andretti Straight) is on the east side, and so the afternoon shots (from about 2:30 on) have a lot of wash-out from the sun being effectively behind the subject.

Here's an link to an example:

http://members.rogers.com/westove-ra...Gentilozzi.jpg

[SolemHill]

Hmmmm? strong possibility ( if you'll pardon the pun ). The sun is usually to the south \ South/west at this point and time of day, with car coming from the north and heading south ( near enough ). I would usually try and polarise any picture of a car in bright light to take the glare of the bodywork, but haven't bought a bigger polariser to go with the bigger lens front element!

Which begs the question If I where to set up with the glare off the cars would that remove the bleaching from the grass? Intersting thought......:confused:

All I can say is - if that's an example of bad wash out, I really need to post one of these pics for you to look at. I can't do it at the moment as I am about 50 miles from my PC and scanner. But I shall soon. I have a shot of an alfa-a-like which is the brightest red, great saturation of the colours, good sharp pan with the car and you can see the drivers face.....and the most wishy washy yellow grassed background......eeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

But in short - the sun isn't behind the subject as I am shooting to the east with sun coming over my right shoulder....approximately of course.....

help

[paul-collins]

Part of my problem visualizing your issue is that my main venue, Mosport, is almost always parched for the ALMS race - so the grass is browny yellow already. Green does show up for the spring, but then it's gone. So all my shots have "wishy washy yellow grassed backgrounds" (as you so aptly put it).

Looking forward to seeing an example of your issue. It could have something to do with the polarizer, but I'm not sure. What is the native grass? Does it have a grain a la Bermuda?

As an aside, just bought a Ricoh KR-10 to use my K-mount lenses (second camera) on ebay. Apparently the mirror sticks, but the camera is otherwise fine. Once I get it, I'll try to clean it or get it cleaned, and see if it was worth the 9 bucks I spent!

I've always wanted to have two cameras on the go at Mosport - changing lenses, even with bayonet mounts, takes too much time when you've only got a short practise or qualifying session...

[kdr]

woah woah...bermuda grass?!

lose the grass as much as possible, drop the car into the bottom third, middle third bushes or whatever, top third sky.

sensia...eueuu...neg? buy some velvia - its what you see in the magazines.

try and get the car in full light, sun over your shoulder. if its the reverse then you might as well either a.give up and watch, or b.backlight and silhouette the car.

i think they sell round clamps that you can fit over lenses without monopod screws.

a $10 converter will do exactly what you would think a $10 converter would do.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by kdr
a $10 converter will do exactly what you would think a $10 converter would do.

I'm not expecting great things. I'm just expecting things.

We've been down this road before, though, kdr. I've got extremely limited cash for photography at the moment, and this converter will extend the usefulness of my 70-200 for about 10 photos a weekend (out of 6 or more rolls of film). For that, 10 bucks is worthwhile.

I just don't have the cash for a 300 or 500mm lens.

If I'm ever in the position of really wanting a better setup, I know I'll have to pay for it. Actually, it'll probably be the lenses I'll shell out for. But that won't happen until at least 2004 (likely to coincide with my first visit to the 24h du Mans). See you there!

[Red]

The polarizer will do many and great things, for example the second car in your pic won't have that ugly shinny-no-shaddows-at-all hood, but it won't help you get a greener grass I believe. Perhaps you should follow Kdr's advice: try to compose the frame with least possible grass. Kinda difficult in motorsport photo, true, especially if you're an adept of panning technique....

[paul-collins]

I'm just curious about the physics of SolemnHill's problem. How could the grass end up gray and yellowish under panning?

SolemnHill, is the grass the same colour if you're shooting a static shot at the same location, or is it the green you expect?

[Red]

Yeah, that puzzled me too... anyway, can we see a pic that has this effect?

Panning should not cast chaotic colors... (unless of course you're panning the camera with speeds that bring the Doppler effect into equation ).... Since you said that the lower third has grass and the upper mostly bushes I suppose that it's a shadows related problem. (I mean the leaves from the bushes cast shadows while the grass doesn't) :confused: Other thing that I can think of is that perhaps the autoexposure sensors get too much light (from the sky for example) and the pics are slightly underexposed. I usually correct the exposure at about 1 EV (at least, as the negative films cope exposure "errors" very well). Anyway, it's good to use shutter priority program (when you pre-focus the point that you actually want to photograph) then read the values and use full-manual mode...

[SolemHill]

$9 for a camera - even if does need a new return on the mirror that has to be the bargin of the week - unless of course somebody knows different??? Got say I'm mighty impressed with that.......

[SolemHill]

Ah - sorry chaps

The grey value of green grass is about 30% grey - approximately the average any meter will will expose too...

IE meter the grass for a black and white shot and the grey of the grass in the print will be the mid grey for the shot.....as it should be ( apparently ).

Or if you meter the whole scene correctly the grass should come out mid grey in the picture as all meters should aim for an overall average of 30% grey - and green is a mid grey colour in black and white......confused enough? Or am I not trying hard enough

Too many references, not enough explanation in the post....

So to clarify - the grass comes out with a substantial yellow cast and in static shots the grass is green...hence the confusion ( without the added complexity of my explanation ).

I wouldn't be confused at all if the whole scene was overexposed and washed out from the camera's meter being caught out by a lack of reflectance but - the car is fine in the middle........parhaps a scalple purchase is in good order..?

This will be so much simpler when I get to sit in front of my PC and just post a picture ........ Oh to get home one day!!!

LMAO @ Doppler effect

PS - I always use manual focus - auto is for big girls blouses......

[kdr]

hey paul-collins...100% right, spend the cash on the lenses first. i use an f4 and an f3...its the lenses and your imagination that get the results. when you do change up look for a secondhand d1, and something like a 300mm f.4 - you'll be able to shoot as many digital files as you can eat, and the d1 will magnify your 300 up to a 420mm(i think!).

this infamous grey and yellow panned grass isn't threadbare with daffodils growing is it?

i quite like chaotic colours in panned backgrounds says kdr massively trying to resist an attached image or two!

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by SolemHill
$9 for a camera - even if does need a new return on the mirror that has to be the bargin of the week - unless of course somebody knows different??? Got say I'm mighty impressed with that.......

Yeh, couldn't understand how I got it. I mean, it's essentially the same camera as my Chinon CE-4, fully manual plus aperture priority autoexpose, exposure lock, mirror doesn't lock up, K-mount, 10 second timer, from 1980. Full metal body (which, for hiking around Mosport, is a good thing).

Apparently the meter works - just needs batteries. I'll be doing a test roll or two to see if the shutter speed is ok, and test the metering against my CE-4. (Both cameras similar to a Pentax K2 DMD plus exposure compensation)

[SolemHill]

Good luck with the test roll, It's a very satisfying feeling seeing that first lot of prints come out of a new purchase - I spoted a lubitel TLR in a second hand shop and advised my brother to buy it for the princley sum of £20....

Ran a roll of Pan F 50 through it and dev'd the roll right away when we got home......12 perfect 6x6 negs hanging out to dry.....very satisfying indeed......

After the money spent on my Bronica - satisfied but not happy........

and before anybody jumps to conclusions - no I wouldn't even begin to think where you would start with panning shots on a bronny....with a WLF...and reversed images in the finder...........:confused:

[Red]

Originally posted by SolemHill
auto[focus] is for big girls blouses......

So are all the other "priority" programmes.... But they're good for the lazzy guys... like me... Anyway, you still have to prefocus the spot..... manually or auto.