Shooting Into The Sun

[PaulSands]

Can anybody offer advice as to the best filter to use when shooting pretty much directly into the sun...or if not filters what I should be doing.
I had what was a potential nice shot of the TOCA grid pouring through the Craner Curves at the final Donington race last year spoilt by being too dark..it was absoutely brilliant sunshine but I was stood on the outside of the Old Hairpin shooting up towards the Curves with the sun at around 11o'clock to me and fairly low in the sky..I cant remember the film being used


I had similar problems at Mallory on March 9 shooting at the Esses though I think the problem there was more related to an extremely reflective patch of track (using Kodak Max ISO200)

So in a nut shell what's the best way to cut out reflection and sun while maintaining a sharp image of your target

[PaulSands]

An example of the problem I had at Mallory is below
How can I cut out all that glare?

[paul-collins]

With the first photo, a graded filter (they have a name, but I don't know what it is) to take out the sky would be helpful - it appears that you're exposing for the full frame, and the sky is adding too much light.

The second one is more tricky. A polarizer might help (but it might not). The main thing in this instance is actually to pick a slightly different shooting spot - further in or out of the corner - so that you're not aiming directly in line with the sun. (You appear to already be a bit off the direct line, further out of the corner - could you move maybe 100m further up the track?)

When I'm at Mosport, our favourite viewing site has this problem in the afternoon, too - but as I'm there to watch first, shoot second, I end up with a lot of these glare-filled shots, unless I get in close on an individual car.

[Snapper Baz]

PS, the 1st picture...was that colour print film? I presume it was...if it was the lab that printed it is slightly at fault. The problem with sending films off to get printed is that many labs still use old printing machines which doesn't compensate for pictures into the sun and pictures that have a lot of white in them, whether that be a car or a snowy scene...the machine takes an average reading of the negative and will print at what it see's as an average balance accross the range of colours and density thats why you may get a very dark print under those conditions. If it was to be hand printed it should be ok or at a lab with newer equipment... the 2nd picture looked fine to me...theres nothing you can do other than move somewhere else!

[gi_gav]

Originally posted by paul-collins
I end up with a lot of these glare-filled shots, unless I get in close on an individual car.

This can make all the difference. Problem is that it requires closer distances or bigger lenses...

Many, many shots in the mags that are taken from the outside of St Devote at the Monaco GP have this sort of effect (sun reflected on track).

Perhaps best to expose for the track and get the cars partly silhouetted against it.

Seems to work ok, as some parts of the car are underexposed and some are just detailed enough.

[PaulSands]

Yet the Touring Cars shot was a print....that image actually looks worse than the print itself but I was trying to illustrate my question.
From after that meeting I have been paying the extra to have a cd with each film developed but its getting very prohibitive cost wise...maybe its time to move onto slide film and buy myself a slide scanner

[djb]

but you'll never have the latitude that neg film allows, and with difficult lighting conditions like that, you have to be spot on to an extent. And you can always scans negs as well.

[tanalised]

load up a slide film and when shooting into harsh low sunlight fire away at 1/125th of a second at f22 or underexpose by 3 stops. even better if theres been rain out on the track. makes a wonderful golden glow

[MolsonBoy]

From after that meeting I have been paying the extra to have a cd with each film developed but its getting very prohibitive cost wise...

Paul I don't know what it costs you to develop the film, gets prints made and have the images scanned to a CD. I am sure they are similar to prices in Canada. My suggestion if you keep shooting neg film is to skip the getting prints made and just have the negs scanned at the time of processing. This should save you some money.

You can get prints made of the images you like. Plus if you are using imaging software you can adjust color, contrast, etc.

[PaulSands]

it was costing about $25 Candian per 24 exp roll so you can imagine if I'm getting through 4 a meeting it was getting a bit pricey
I have sent three rolls away for a total of about $50 but they've been gone around two weeks now.
My digital SLR fund is growing nicely (courtesy of Amazon marketplaces) so for next year this should be a thing of the past

[paul-collins]

That's robbery! At Costco you can get a 24 on CD for 5 or 6 bucks after development. 1024 high by whatever wide resolution.

And that's for 1 hour turnaround.

[Alx]

Originally posted by PaulSands
Yet the Touring Cars shot was a print....that image actually looks worse than the print itself but I was trying to illustrate my question.
From after that meeting I have been paying the extra to have a cd with each film developed but its getting very prohibitive cost wise...maybe its time to move onto slide film and buy myself a slide scanner

Paul,

Your best bet here is to do what I did recently. I had started getting the CDs done with the prints, but decided this was getting too expensive, especially if there were a couple of bad shots!!

I recall I took 9 films at Donington over 2 days for the F3/BTCC weekend last September, had them all developed with CDs at the same time. It came to so much, not only did the guy in the shop (Jessops) looked at me like crazy, he gave me a 10% discount!!! I don't know if this is normal, but I wasn't complaining!!

So at the beginning of this year, I bought a scanner. Canon something or other, which does both negative scanning (both normal and slides with the software) and printer scanning. It's very good and cost around £120. On the Donington performance I should have made the money back by the end of the season, and I can be selective too. All you need is a cd writer drive (which if you don't have you can get for as little as £30 I believe) and sooner or later you make your costs back and it's all so much cheaper.

Alternatively, you could go digital! Either way, it involves forking out money, but be honest... is this really the cheapest sport in the world??!

Alx

[PaulSands]

I just bought a slide and neg scanner so I will be going for just print from now on...just need to refine my settings sufficiently...my first attempt at slide scans can be seen here http://www.paulsands.org/don030413.htm most of depth and warmth has been lost but I know that practice will make perfect
first neg scan I've tried is the TVR shot here
http://www.paulsands.org/don030406.htm
y'all should mosey on over to Amazon , find my marketplace ,buy some cds and fund my digital SLR purchase

[MolsonBoy]

Hey Pauls, I purchase a third party scanning software for my Epson flat bed scanner from Lasersoft http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/en.html
It is terrific software. It has built in color cast adjustment for many of todays film. It can also help with dust and scratches. The software is available for over 150 different types of scanners. Usually you don't get this type of software unless you purcahse a high end scanner.

I was at their site today and they also have software for digial cameras.

Check them out.

[kdr]

paul.

your exposures seem ok. all i'd suggest is investing in a roll of fuji velvia, waiting for the sun to come out, then shoot a roll and see the difference between that and boots slide film.

trust me. i edit my way thru 100+ rolls of the stuff after every f1 grand prix....there is no film on the market that even comes close.

[PaulSands]

ok ok you've convinced me fuji velvia it is next time out