|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
17 Oct 2010, 21:01 (Ref:2776305) | #26 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 282
|
||
|
17 Oct 2010, 21:04 (Ref:2776307) | #27 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,479
|
Tatounet, these pics are great as ever!!!!.............but here is where you tell how you made those, so go ahead
|
||
__________________
did anyone find my 3/4-7/8 GEDORE ringspanner at SPA? |
18 Oct 2010, 19:45 (Ref:2776822) | #28 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 282
|
Quote:
ok so to made the first one you need a camera, bad weather and a yellow Cortina last one a camera and a local heros ! Last edited by tatounet; 18 Oct 2010 at 19:58. |
||
|
18 Oct 2010, 22:02 (Ref:2776879) | #29 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,479
|
beautifull beautifull Crossle F3 at 2010 6hours , nice pic?????? ..........canon ixus, CLIC.........go on you boys , more to come and tell us how you did it!
|
||
__________________
did anyone find my 3/4-7/8 GEDORE ringspanner at SPA? |
19 Oct 2010, 09:14 (Ref:2777016) | #30 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,203
|
After seeing Tatounet's superb pics, I'm inclined to give up. I'll try something different. A couple of pics that you can't take as a spectator anymore since there is now high fencing down the outside of Silverstone's Club Straight and the Pedestrian Bridge has now gone. I like all the peripheral detail in pics like these, even though the quality leaves something to be desired. Note big sky, chopper, and photographer who has elevated himself, in first pic. The gentleman in the second pic is my old friend, Bob Bull of Three Counties Radio who used to post here under the name 'Bauble' (get it!). Both pics taken at VSCC meeting, April 2009.
|
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 09:35 (Ref:2777021) | #31 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 152
|
John, about when did you start taking pictures at race meetings?
|
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 09:36 (Ref:2777022) | #32 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,203
|
VSCC, Cadwell, 2009. There can be only one person madder than a Morgan 3 wheeler racer, and that's a Morgan 3 wheeler racer's passenger! Note the neat line of flags in the second ERA pic!
|
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 09:42 (Ref:2777025) | #33 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 152
|
|||
|
19 Oct 2010, 09:42 (Ref:2777026) | #34 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,203
|
In the digital age, about 7 years ago with my old Fujifilm S5000, which I still use for Pit and Paddock shots. Replaced it for racing shots with my Cannon EOS 400D with 100-300mm lens about 3 years ago, and just looking at it I note that the lens needs a good clean, which might partly account for the rubbish HSCC Finals pics!
Last edited by John Turner; 20 Oct 2010 at 07:55. Reason: Camera code wrong |
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 09:43 (Ref:2777027) | #35 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,203
|
Mr Bloxham gets everywhere,
|
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 10:05 (Ref:2777039) | #36 | |
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,369
|
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 11:51 (Ref:2777077) | #37 | |
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,369
|
I'm playing with some new (to me) software to see what it may offer in terms of processing speed and quality gains for volume work. Why is it that two similar products that seem to be intuitive to work with always have one or two major features that seem to be hidden in obscure places?
Oh well ... This image is a bit large but I wanted to retain as much detail as possible depite the compression. Not sure I am done with it yet but I thought I would offer it as and example. It's quite a heavy crop - this is probably about 1/4 (or maybe a little less) of the full frame area which captures the whole car with some space around it. It's from Spa and for once there was strong sunlight - coming from the left so not ideal for lighting the driver but there is potential for improving that. Camera is a Canon 1D MkIII. Lens is a Canon 70-210mm f2.8 L IS Mk II with a 2x Extender fitted. Actual effective lens Length is 210mm for this shot - plus (for 35mm/Full frame thinkers like me) the 1.3 crop factor of the 1D3 sensor. So about a 300mm lens equivalent in full frame terms. 'Film' speed set to ISO 200 retains low noise characteristics but allows the used of f8 aperture (one stop down from the max aperture of the Lens with extender) at 1/500th of a second. Many would say that 1/500th is a bit fast for an action shot but it does mean that there is better potential of sharp detail on the main subject without completely freezing the movement of wheels. Where the stationary background is quite close to the subject, as the grass and kerbing are here, it should still be suitably blurred. Subsidiary Note 1: When I forst uploaded the file I noticed that the colours, especially the green and the yelolow stripe on the car, were not quite as I expceted them to be. Checking why I realised that although I thought I had set the defaults for the 'process' to use the standard internet sRGB colour space it had in fact used the Adobe RGB colour space. Silly me, obviously did something wrong. So I created a new version of the file and uploaded that so see how much different it looked. Quite bit on my screen but it may be different for others. Comments welcomed. Click the thumbnails for the larger versions. Subsidiary Note 2: Just a passing observation about the traditional style open face helmet and goggles and how much that adds, in my opinion, to this sort of shot. As discussed elsewhere in the forum .... |
|
|
19 Oct 2010, 16:13 (Ref:2777136) | #38 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,203
|
Grant that is all far too technical for me!
Here's a couple from Cadwell (HSCC, 2008) both at the same location but one places the car in context by the presence of the verge, whereas the other could be anywhere, really. |
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 17:33 (Ref:2777164) | #39 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,369
|
Quote:
I know what you mean on both counts! On the second point ..... One of the problems I discovered when shooting the club meetings was a lack of consistency of line. I obtained a 600mm manual focus lens a few years ago that, on my 400D, means it is a very 'long' lens indeed. Being manual focus you have to pre-focus for fast moving subjects so you work in the old style manual focus methods of pre-focus on a point where you expect the subject to be and then try and predict when they will be exactly there because the Depth of Field - the distance from front to back that will look reasonably in focus to a later viewer, is very small. Maybe half a car length for example. Now, with the 'Pro' drivers (and riders) you can be reasonably certain that on most laps they will be covering the apex of a turn or, if you are not shooting aiming at the apex, will have a consistent line. With others, all bets are off. They can pop up anywhere. Popping up anywhere is potentially more interesting for recording events of course - which is why Auto Focus lenses have made SLR photography so much more popular than it was back in the days of manual everything. However getting the events into a local and identifiable context is more difficult. There are a number of people on 10 Tenths who are far more knowledgable than me and could probably provide a very simple ('cos it is simple really) grounding guide about what is what. If they are not around I can post a few notes about the basic adjustments that are available and from which everything else stems. |
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 20:14 (Ref:2777223) | #40 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,685
|
Grant, perhaps you can explain your evolving technique for dark coloured subjects in variable light conditions
|
|
__________________
Semper ubi sub ubi |
19 Oct 2010, 20:35 (Ref:2777229) | #41 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,369
|
Quote:
If I had one I would Colin. The best option seems to be to keep the camera in a dark environment. Leaving it in the bag seems to avoid the problem .... |
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 20:46 (Ref:2777232) | #42 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 152
|
Grant, lovely shot!
Interestingly, there appears to be no difference at all between the two versions on my screen, which is...strange. Might be down to my problem (you know which one), although that would be slightly disturbing... Now, I know you've cropped this one, but when going for, say, a cockpit shot like this, would you normally try to aim for the detail when shooting? |
||
|
19 Oct 2010, 21:06 (Ref:2777239) | #43 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 282
|
http://cm-arte.com/fr/galerie-photo
A site to visit ! all pictures with the full exif. some outstanding pictures ! |
|
|
19 Oct 2010, 22:14 (Ref:2777260) | #44 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,369
|
Quote:
The difference is most noticable in the green colour of the car and slightly in the yellow stripes and the red of the kerbs and the lining of the driver's helmet though how obvious it might be to anyone could vary a lot depending on the calibration of the screen in use and, potentially, the ambient light of their viewing area. I'm not a Mac expert and it is possible that Mac applications can interpret both sRGB and Adobe RGB back to the same colour shade closely enough that you would not see a difference - after all the image starts out looking exactly the same, of course, in the editing application before writing the jpg output. But I think more likely is that the shading difference is so specific that your particular green sensitivity means that you don't see a difference or that the difference is so subtle it is not easy to see. I am not sure how I can describe the differences in the colour response in a meaningful way but here goes. In the photo on the left, created with the Aodbe RGB colour gamut and displayed in the sRGB colur space of Windows IE, the main body work of the car looks slightly yellower - the colour of a green olive let's say. The grass, starting out as a slightly yellower green in the first place, looks not so different. In the photo on the right, created as an sRGB colour space and displayed in that gamut, has a stronger green for the car body and more vibrant. It is closer to the colour of, say, a frozen pea than an olive. (Frozen peas are remarkably consistent for colour because, as I understand it, they are specially coloured as a part of the process. I suspect that olives may also be treated for the same reason. I am hoping that the treatments are common across different countries ..... ) For the detail question .... In the main if you go for a shot that fills (almost) the frame then the centre of the frame will be somewhere very near the cockpit in the case of racing cars - usually. There are some exceptions of course but most of the time the cockpit will be in the middle, more or less. This is good because most cameras have their most sensitive focus point in the centre of the image area and if using a servo focus setting that means that the area on which the best focus can be achieved is in the centre of the frame. Also, if you are able to almost fill the frame, there is a good chance that the sharp part of the image, as defined by the Depth of Field available from the Lens/Sensor combination and the Laws of Physics, will be quite small. So if all of the cockpit looks sharp the chances are that, optically, the extreme front and rear areas of the car will not be totally sharp anyway, even if the car was not moving. The level of perceived detail available is a matter of our interpretation of what is and what is not sharp and is arrived at, to some extent, by comparing the sharp and less sharp areas of an image. It is not necessarily an absolute judgement. If you are panning a shot by following the subject from a point within a fixed (or relatively fixed) radius - say the inside of a bend - the chances are that the subject, at all distances from you, will stay at more or less the same distances all the way through the bend and all parts of the subject will stay at more or less the same distance from each other. But if you are panning for a moving subject travelling in a straight line or if you are on the outside of a bend different parts of the subject will move towards you or away from you at different speeds meaning that the subject overall is not at a constant distance from you and different parts of the subject are not at constant distances from each other as far as your viewing location is concerned. So the chances of the entire subject staying in focus and not showing any signs of motion blur are much reduced. Artistically that is fine and can be used, intentionally or not, to create some spectacular shots but the absolute level of detail available overall will always be reduced to some degree. The equivalent in audio terms would the Doppler effect. Your Spa shot of the single seaters shows the effects of Depth of Field (even with a small aperture which tends to increas the perceived total distance that looks sharp) and motion blur. The main gaggle of cars are all, more or less, sharp with the movenemtn frozen by a high shutter speed. But the spinning car at the back is a little further away and so slighly out of focus plus it is moving acridd the frame rather than diretly towards the camera. Whilst motion towards the camera will be slightly blurring the image difference is small enough to be undetected whereas the sideways movement of the spinning car, whilst not covering a huge distance, is enough to ensure it is not as sharp as the rest of the image. Back to the original question - in effect what one aims at is fixed by how one wants to frame the subject and what the camera can do to help. If you want to take cockpit/head shots then forget the whole car and go for the head or a prominent part of the cockpit as the focus target if you can. One other thing to bear in mind if relying on the camera's auto-focus system is how that AF works. It was only recently that I realised just how significant that can be in certain situations but, in summary, you need to give it something to work with. That normally means that it will be more effective with something offering good contrast (Black racing numbers on a white background for example, or vice versa) and most likely something where the point of contrast runs horizontally across a 'landscape oriented' shot. (If you turn the camera through 90 degree to portrait orientation then vertical lines of contrast will work better ....). In that respect then yes, aiming for detail may well help although I suppose there are situation where certain focusing systems may be overwhelmed by a lot of detail. That said different cameras have different configurations and so may respond, er, differently. Finally, no matter what, there is no substitute for 'good' light. |
||
|
20 Oct 2010, 08:07 (Ref:2777382) | #45 | ||||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,203
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
20 Oct 2010, 10:07 (Ref:2777448) | #46 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 282
|
||
|
20 Oct 2010, 10:10 (Ref:2777450) | #47 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 152
|
|||
|
20 Oct 2010, 10:11 (Ref:2777451) | #48 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 152
|
Wonderful shot of the Minshaws' E-Type, Tatounet.
|
||
|
20 Oct 2010, 10:27 (Ref:2777460) | #49 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 152
|
|||
|
20 Oct 2010, 10:28 (Ref:2777462) | #50 | |
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 282
|
||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finally someone has seen the light | Axeman444 | Formula One | 50 | 9 Jan 2010 16:25 |
hmm the G light? | TheMong | Formula One | 7 | 24 Jun 2009 10:55 |
police camera action... | roys1 | Marshals Forum | 49 | 25 Dec 2007 19:39 |
Anyone running light? | Adam43 | Formula One | 46 | 7 Mar 2004 14:42 |
Light Steering | woodyracing | Racing Technology | 3 | 12 Feb 2002 18:12 |