what makes a good motorsport photo

[woodyracing]

?

[bella]

i suppose : movement, a good background and detail.

[Jay]

I'd say composition is most important and a big thing that separates the a good photo from a great photo. A lot of people seem to only try to capture the car without thinking of the background, the car's position in the frame, the angle of the photo, anything in the foreground other than the car, etc etc that make a picture interesting

[Aysedasi]

I must admit that over the years, I've tried to move away a little from the obvious, full-frame car shots (probably because with my poor eyesight I'm not very good at them!). I particularly like using portrait instead of the usual landscape format. I'll try and find an example......

[Aysedasi]

Not a great shot at all but as an example, quickly located.....

http://www.aysedasi.btinternet.co.uk...page2/0218.jpg

Very slow film as dawn was arriving at Le Mans 2002. The blurring in the top background is actually the big wheel.....

[KC]

To me, the photograph is successful if it conveys what the photographer was trying to capture to someone who was not there. If it is an action shot, then the image must convey the speed and drama of the moment. This can very hard to do because the normal angles at a track do not always produce this drama. We have all seen the side on shot of an F1 car and it has become cliched to some degree. However, a front on shot of the car under braking where the viewer can see that the car is down on the front suspension and the driver is looking through the corner adds so much more to the drama of the image. These are much harder to capture without very long and super fast lenses.

Aysedasi's fantastic image above is a different example that exhibits the speed and sensation of LeMans. The blurring gives a very artistic impression of the speed and the lights amplify this by their long streaks. Great shot and one worthy of poster sized prints. Well done.

[Aysedasi]

Why thank you.

[redshoes]

Wow, this really is the 64 million dollar question. Guess it depends on what you are looking for.

Take the pic archive pic on p59 of this week's Autosport for example. It probably breaks every rule in the book - driver's face obscured, blured, only just in focus - but it's still a great photo.

[KC]

The way I see it, photography rules are for people taking portraits and other studio work for the most part. Most action work forces the photographer to compromise some or all of the rules. There are some things you just cannot do, such as expose the film incorrectly, but its not nearly as easy to compose and track when you're dealing with Mother Nature and people walking in front of you and poor light.

And like redshoes said, so much of it depends on the viewer.

[touringlegend]

You've got to capture the atmosphere I'd say, of course like Aysedasi's above.. 9/10 of my amateurish shots are simply of the car and the track, but then sometimes, as has been mentioned already, I remember that getting the car full frame is not the be all and end all.

Granted, the shots of the car are good for reference to the vehicle, but a shot that cathes the tree's in the distance and the clouds can be 10X better.

[Snapper Baz]

It differs from person to person-sometimes you see pictures in print which were the sort of thing you used to take when winding the film on by mistake or imediately bin when you get the photos back from the lab! I have taken some superb shots for Autosport only to find they have chosen the one out of focus picture on the whole film or the most boring, shot of the day!! Two of my fave' pictures was a poster of Hans Stuck flying his BeeEm over the brow of a hill at the old Nurb' circuit or Giles Villeneuve sideways down the hill at Monaco...I could go on for ever!!

[Alan]

I like to see more emphasis on the driver. I saw an exhibition some years ago (Coys I think at Silverstone) which included work by a motorsports photographer using relatively wide angle lenses from I guess the 50s and later.
You could see the dirt and concentration on the drivers faces and I have not seen the same sense of movement or atmosphere in any other pictures.
Some of these photographs appeared to have been taken at extremely close distances and I doubt whether it would be possible to take these types of shots today with modern safety measures. I can only think of the hairpin at Mallory Park.
To my shame I have forgotten his name. If anyone recognises the description I would appreciate any info.

[blackx]

As stated earlier in this thread an good photo is the one that tells the story it was meant to............
Simple as that..........
Nothing fancy or arty..............
Just plain old story telling

[vwpilot]

I like emphasis on the driver when possible. Remember though that most drivers today have full face helmets, often with dark visors, so it makes it a little more difficult. However in some places and with long lenses its still possible.

[Spudgun]

I'm no photographer, but when I take a picture, I like to convey the appreciation of speed. I just try to get a shot of the car with the scenery blurred to show the emphasis of what these crazy people are doing with these hunks of metal/carbon fibre. I say crazy, but if I had the chance I'd be doing it too.

[redshoes]

Maybe relevent here.. there's an article on taking motorsports photos in this month's Practical Photography magazine. Haven't read it yet so can't comment on how good the advice is but from first glance none of the photos featured are what I'd call 'great' Also they are running a comp for the best motorsport photo taken at Rockingham this year.

[Craig]

I'd say simple - something different!

Pretty much every damn photo you see is head on or a panning shot. What I like to see is something different to that - examples might be a shot of the back of the car as it runs onto the grass and kicks up the dust, shot of a driver under heavy braking who locks the tyres and gets it a bit sideways, cars at the start of the race with plumes of smoke coming off the tyres, etc. Paddock shots can be good too.

[Andrew Kitson]

From the replies above it would seem that like artwork / paintings it depends upon individual taste.
I like to see photos that show some background to the scene to give an idea of the location. The 50s/60s photographer Geoff Goddard was a master at this in capturing the atmosphere of an event. Too many shots in modern day 'Autosport' magazine can be a bit boring - the car and nothing else apart from a bit of gravel trap / armco.

[vwpilot]

Originally posted by Craig Antill
What I like to see is something different to that - examples might be a shot of the back of the car as it runs onto the grass and kicks up the dust...

I have one of those.

http://www.motorsportsimaging.com/Fa...s/DSC_5661.jpg

Originally posted by Craig Antill
...shot of a driver under heavy braking who locks the tyres and gets it a bit sideways...

http://www.motorsportsimaging.com/SC...s/DSC_9398.jpg

http://www.motorsportsimaging.com/SC...s/DSC_9516.jpg

These are cool shots, I wouldn't consider them GREAT, although I do consider the first one, one of my favorites and might be a "great" shot.

[Craig]

That's the sort of thing!

These are two of my favourites:

http://tsuphoto.com/motorsport/publi.../CRW_4683.html

http://tsuphoto.com/motorsport/publi.../CRW_4687.html

The reason? Well 'telling a story' has been mentioned above - what do these photos say? They say to get anywhere in those two old cars you have to absolutely rag the tits off them and drive like thugs! Fair enough, the photo of the Accord would be better with the front bumper hanging off, but you get the idea!

This sort of thing is great too:

http://tsuphoto.com/motorsport/publi...RW_4259-1.html

Because, again, it is something different. It focuses on the team running the car. And anyone who has ever stood in pitlane with cars racing in for tyre or driver changes will know just how exciting that can be and you can see that in the photo. It tells a story.

[G_Ilott]

I'd like to see more grainy reportage / candid shots in the paddock, and where are the fine art b&w shots of mechanics' hands covered in oil?

Front-on, full-frame motorsport pics have never excited me, nor did those three-quarter shots like *I* used to take.

I saw a series of 5 sequential pictures in a magazine a long time ago that taken from the infield and capturing a section of spectators moving theirs heads to watch cars race by. It was hilarious and exceedingly well done. The cars roofs were just-visible blurs at the bottom, giving you enough information to make sense of the entire sequence.

[G_Ilott]

Apologies for the poor standard of proof-reading in my last post.