Subject or photographer - which is the problem?

[G_Ilott]

Here's a topic to make your blood boil with anger....

I've spent the last couple of months looking on the web in vain for interesting (pro) motorsport photos to give me some inspiration. All I find are thousands of extremely similar side-on and three-quarter shots, with a few mangy wide-angles showing nothing in particular and even fewer, rather desultory, blurred shots.

Coming from practising nature photography over the past few years, it's a bit disappointing to see so little creativity in such an exciting branch of this artform. Look at any pro landscape photographer's website then look at any pro motorsport photographer's website and you're left feeling cheated. Where is the differential focus or the black and white shots with red filters, or ND Grads, second curtain sync flash (where possible) and reportage?

So the question before us is : are motorsport photographers merely doing all they can with a difficult subject, or can it be said that if the same shots sell, why change the format?

If anyone has links to very creative motorsport photography, I would really like to see them. Of course, I'm not pretending that I'm some uber-god of silvery shennanigans, and, looking at my nature shots, I'm really still at the amateur stage. But I don't understand why the wealth of individual styles so apparent in other branches should not apply to motorsport.

Is this sport so specialised in its marketing that only clear, sharp pictures will sell and therefore there is little incentive to experiment? Obviously a pretty picture of a flower has many hundreds of potential markets in which to be sold, whereas shots of racing cars (and bikes etc!) only seem to be sold within the sport or subsidiary trades.

I'm not saying the side and 3/4 shots are bad - in fact, they are superbly sharp and dynamic, but one can have too much of a good thing.

I look forward to taking your abuse....

[MolsonBoy]

Go to Indy Photo and look up Peter Burke. If you can't get inspired from his images them time to put the camera away. Peter is no longer shooting motorsports which is too bad because when you have someone who is creative working beside you, you either have to raise your game up to his level or get out.

This is a good topic. Glad you brought it up.

[vwpilot]

Two of my favorite sportscar shooters are John Brooks and Regis Lefebure. John is a little more conventional, but does great work, Regis uses light very originally and is a little more artistic, which sounds more like what you are asking about.

I think one reason you dont see more artistic shooting in motorsports is the fact that things are happening much faster and you dont have the ability to really "set up" your subject. You can set up your shot by being in a spot that you want and use your settings to acheive the lighting you want, but you are really somewhat at the mercy of the subject and what is happening.

However it is possible, but I dont think you will find artistic motorsports photography to be too similar to other forms of artistic photography. It is definately a different style of shooting. I generally try to expiriment a little to come up with something different, however, they dont tend to be the sellers.

Here are a couple.
This has a little rear sync flash.
http://www.motorsportsimaging.com/SC...s/DSC_3229.htm

And a slow shutter pit shot.
http://www.motorsportsimaging.com/SC...s/DSC_3286.htm

[KC]

I have seen some Darren Heath images taken in the paddock at sunrise of the F1 cars, but I am sure that this is a rare occasion. I am sure the teams just don't leave the car parked in the paddock at night as the did years gone past.

I think that sports photography takes a bad hit among many who do more artistic work. I am a member of several photo critique sites and usually action photography is frowned upon or basically ignored among naturalists and landscape photographers. They automatically categorize it as merely high speed shutter snapping not worthy of attention. I admit there are times that it can be just that, but there are times when capturing the image is the art itself.

Try capturing a 220 mph drag boat on water with the sun quartering into your lens and get the detail and spray all composed. The boat is not going by at a constant rate, it is always accelerating and it makes panning that much more difficult. The same can be said of any race car flying past on the straight. Most races are held in the midday and the light is at its worst for artistic images. The shadows are black and the light is harsh. The background is usually terrible and produces converging elements that distract the viewer's eye. Catch fences and other barriers are usually in the way of the best angle. These are things that must be considered when taking action shots. I know its very hard to use the rule of 1/3rds when you've got less than 3 seconds to capture the image.

Action photography is much closer to journalistic photography than other more artistic forms. It directly and bluntly tells the story and leaves very little for the viewer to assume.

[PaulSands]

I know exactly where you are coming from...in fact I am probably one of the guilty, I've been having a terrible time the last few weeks...I console myself with the fact that I'm still fairly new to it all and am learning (hopefully ) through my mistakes.
I am trying to find that elusive something myself.
I am however torn between a rush towards full on SLR digital to give me that immediacy ( I like to share ) or investing in a serious 35mm SLR and really learning the craft.

http://paulsands.org

[redshoes]

Originally posted by G_Ilott
Coming from practising nature photography over the past few years, it's a bit disappointing to see so little creativity in such an exciting branch of this artform. Where is the differential focus or the black and white shots with red filters, or ND Grads, second curtain sync flash (where possible) and reportage?

Don't take this the wrong way but you are comparing apples with oranges, nature and motorsports photography are a world apart.

You might be happy to spend half an hour setting up your tripod, waiting for the perfect lighting, trying different filters etc etc all to get the perfect nature/landscape shot. Try that trackside and the race will be over before you've even pressed the shutter. As a pro try telling your editor that you missed the first lap multi-car pile-up but you got a beautiful shot of the sunset

I agree with you that there are certain 'stock' shots that show up time and time again. I'm as guilty as anyone of that myself. I'm sure part of the problem is that there are only so many angles to take photos from. Look at any race circuit and you can virtually guarantee to see a pack of snappers at the same corner every race.

I'm not saying that 'art' has no place here, far from it. It's just very difficult to acheive in teh circumstances.

[PaulSands]

I know I have let myself be swayed a little recently by (non racing fan) photographers who suggest I crop my frames so theres nothing but car.
I personally am trying to capture more of the overall ambience of a racing meeting..its not original perhaps but I'm more interested in how recording the beauty of a car as it crests a hill at full speed AND reflecting how that sits in the environment of the track and it's surroundings.

[tanalised]

Mr Ilott, the topic I started here on Creative photos, is that the sort of thing you mean?

[KC]

PualSands, don't immediately think that every racing image needs to be cropped to show nothing but the car. That is fine if the car is the only focus. However, if you capture a shot of Michael Schumacher flat out into Eau Rouge then the track becomes a huge part of the image. You are right about trying to capture the ambience of the event as well. A shot of Micheal Schumacher winning at Imola is great, but its tons better from farther back with the tifosi waving flags and cheering in my opinion. That sets the mood. A close up can be anywhere and it becomes too anonymous.

In most artistic images, additional space in an image is used to naturally direct the eye. In most portaits where the subject is not looking at the camera, it is important to include some space in the direction the subject is looking because it is a more favorable composition. I think this can apply in motor sports as well. Keep some space ahead of the vehicle because that is where it is going and it improves the composition and increases the sensation of speed.

It is a guarantee that 50% of photography is composition, 25% is patience and the remaining is pure luck to get the moment. Experience can reduce the percentage that luck affects you but I think it will always remain a part of photography.

[Andrew Kitson]

An example of what some Motorsports photographers face:
I know a lot of the guys who cover club racing. Talking to one recently at a Snetterton meeting who was shooting for the premier weekly motorsports mag in the UK, he was trying different places to shoot from for a bit of variety but said whatever he did, he just knew the picture editor at the magazine would choose a shot through Russell. Every race report from Snett has a shot from here! Therefore a lot of 'creative' shots are never seen.

[MolsonBoy]

Here are a few of the more than 4000 images of Peter Burkes on the Indyphoto site.

http://www.indyphoto.com/fullsize1.asp?Record=13553
http://www.indyphoto.com/fullsize1.asp?Record=13549
http://www.indyphoto.com/fullsize1.asp?Record=13507
http://www.indyphoto.com/fullsize1.asp?Record=11874
http://www.indyphoto.com/fullsize1.asp?Record=4116

Now will they be used for editorial purposes? It would depend on the photo editor and his needs.

[bella]

the problem with doing photos for people is that if you have multiple clients you rarely have the time to invest in artistic shots. if your hit rate is great then yes, once you've got the shots which have the correct sponsors as the main focus then you can start playing around.

also everyone has different ideas of artistic. i've taken some shots that i absolutely love, but having shown them to other people and they've gone 'yes, and?', it's definitely a matter of taste.

i do firmly believe that one of the best photographers we have in this country is jakob ebrey. that's really going to inflate his ego now but his eye for detail is great. he may not have the ability to be in the right place for an accident like someone like jeff bloxham has, but he can certainly produce some gorgeous pictures. if you've not seen his work, i suggest you check out the gallery on www.tocatour.co.uk

</end of ebrey advert>

[Andrew Kitson]

I agree Bella. A lot of Jacob's work is sensational.
He is very highly regarded around the paddock as is 'Bloxo' of course!

[Andrew Kitson]

For great shots from a legendary snapper, get the book 'Track Pass' by Geoff Goddard ( with Doug Nye). The work in there is fabulous of racing in the 50s/60s/70s.
Note within how he tried to be a bit (in his words) 'arty-farty' , holding the camera to shoot with one hand while holding a twig with the other to give the impression of shooting through the trees.

[Crash Test]

I must say I've become addicted to rallying in the last few weeks, after looking after the media side of the Rally of Queensland. Because the course is 250km long, there are basically limitless opportunities. Different terrain always helps, ditto drivers having a bit go with a lot of attitude and dust, mud, water etc. Some of the local pros do some very neat things, like set a tripod up in the middle of a creek crossing on remote control, and they stand down the road and get the front and side shots at the same time. You couldn't really do that sort of thing at a circuit meeting!

[kdr]

firstly theres a saying in the business that stock sells and art is for your portfolio. in saying that the good photographer should have the time and the talent for both.

certain photographers are given certain briefs. some go into a weekend with the mindset of getting something cool, eclectic or a little off the wall. others are employed(newspaper snappers)primarily to come up with one or two pictures...stock shot of the winning car, podium..pack up and go home. some other photographers have a mixture of these roles...to get good "magazine" pictures, and also for monday mornings tabloids.

snappers on the f1 circus have seen there access restricted over the years...the debris fencing to rightly protect fans and track workers, can mean a postition you took a great shot one year...isn't there the next. looking back 10 or 15 years, shots of drivers were far easier to come by. now a typical drivers day can be motorhome - garage - track - garage - motorhome - pr event...not much chance of interesting driver portraits there.

national or club photographers have the same problem as snappers in any other lower level sport...frankly it just doesn't look as good. an f3 car at snetterton isn't as photogenic as a ferrari at monaco or a bentley at dusk at le mans.

its still a buzz though to look for, or look at..the next great picture. 6 le mans as a junior photographer, and over 120 grand prixs edited..and i'm still not bored!

[PaulSands]

Of course, if it's not your career, it's ultimately what gives you pleasure that matters.
Having said that I have been gutted by some of my recent failures
Time to maybe learn a little more

[kdr]

all anyone ever told me was learn to walk before you run. and all i ever learned myself was imitation is the sincerist form of flattery(my thanks to mr.rondeau!)

practice, learn to exploit your situation, look what people have done in the past, and then do your own interpretation.

lm-15/6/03, 2pm.

[PaulSands]

that learn to walk before you run comment is exactly why I haven't invested in an SLR digital yet...I need to understand the basics
I do however think I may need a new 35mm SLR to get the most out of that medium...somebody suggest the ideal Pentax to me (cos I have the lenses) as I am not particularly impressed with my MZ60

[KC]

I don't think you need a top flite SLR to get good action shots. All you really need is a camera that can cycle frames quickly, with manual functions so you can override the basic settings, and the longest and fastest lens you can afford. A relatively inexpensive body with an f2.0 100-300mm lens takes the same picures as a pro body with the same lens. The real difference is the durability and toughness needed. Some cheaper bodies will not stand up to the rigors of action shooting. My Canon EOS Rebel needs cleanign now for dust and sand from the races. Pro cameras tend to be made with metal bodies and can take years and years of abuse. Most consumer grade bodies tend to be plastic and made for ease of carry instead longevity.

When you eventually shop for a digital, make sure it has SLR functions so you can continue to take the images you ar eused to getting.

[tanalised]

Originally posted by PaulSands
that learn to walk before you run comment is exactly why I haven't invested in an SLR digital yet...I need to understand the basics
I do however think I may need a new 35mm SLR to get the most out of that medium...somebody suggest the ideal Pentax to me (cos I have the lenses) as I am not particularly impressed with my MZ60

Paul I use a Pentax Z1 (which I don't think is available new anymore)It seems to have a solid construction, metal bayonet mouth, and big handgrip. My only gripe is they never produced a booster pak or vertical grip with aa batteries for it.
I'm not sure what the newer MZS is like, but it seems to be Pentax's flagship now.

Otherwise if you don't need autofocus find a LX in good nick; it'll probably last longer than we will!