|
SNiPER_Magnum posted:I use them to protect the lens from scratches and physical damage, and I've broken a couple of them. You might have to cough up the dough and get filters with honest-to-god anti-reflective coatings to help mitigate this problem then.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
UV filters are baller for cleaning up haze on urban scenery photography. And that's about it really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
I'll look into getting some legitimate protection filters rather than the cheap UV ones for my better lenses. Thanks for the suggestion. I've never had any issues with filters before, but that was my first time shooting a night race.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:
You know what? I'll come back to Auto Focus because honestly the whole technology linked to it is moving so goddamn fast anything I write is out of date the moment I press post. In the past few months I've been trying out various DLSR's / Morrorless and frankly what I was going to write really could only truly apply to older DSLR's - hell even the 7D mk II I have has a lot more to offer than just center expanded to get things right because there is six other setting from there that change exactly how the camera get focus over that. The Sony A7 I now have throws another bunch of screwballs that make writing how to AF with mirrorless a hell of a topic. So how about how about a howto? Namely in this case I think one of the techniques that come up regularly as to "How do I do that??" and it's panning. Now while I come up with a decent post on that, here's a Q/A..... What did I do wrong in the following images? What did I do right?  - I made a BIG mistake here truth be told.  - There's more correct here than wrong. Why is it mostly right? - Same basic mistake as the first one, except not as bad - What I call a 90% shot, it looks great scaled down but blown up its.... not quite  - Proof you dont need the lastest to get a near 100% shot. Canon 40D. Whats wrong I later fixed in post.  - It's still panning involved to get this one. I normally regard this one as a panning shot I got right - the actual look I was going for isnt to everyone's taste admittedly but I still have this one on the wall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 11:47
|
|
|
I'm guessing the "big mistake" with the Subies is framing, i.e. not centered and even cut off in the first one? As far as what's right, it seems like the tough part is getting most of your subject sharp and in-focus while panning (absolute photo n00b here - I have an old DSLR I bought off of BraveUlysses a couple years ago.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Agreed with regard to framing though the photography class I took in college I was told the default isn't necessarily to have the object centered and when it isn't centered you generally want it moving into the frame rather than out of the frame. But the third photo doesn't really suffer from the same issue so maybe not what he's talking about. But personally I'd like to see a little more background in each of the photos. bird with big dick fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
Critique my shots! It's my first time trying panning and while most of my shots ended up being blurry messes, some managed to sneak through looking relatively sharp.    I've been framing with the cars mostly in the center of the frame as that was the easiest for me to track them as they came by. I found by playing around that shutter speeds of around 1/50 to 1/100 gave me the look I wanted with the wheels blurring and the background blurring giving the sensation of speed, of course reviewing on the small camera screen is a bit deceptive and a lot of shots I thought were sharp, really weren't. I feel I may be going too warm on the WB and a bit overboard with the contrast, I've been trying to hold back but I keep wanting to nudge the sliders a little more. It was a grey overcast sky which was great for lighting but makes for a boring top 1/3rd of the photos. Any obvious amateur mistakes I'm making that I'm missing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
When I get a shot that looks sharp on the camera display but then looks blurry on my 27" iMac, I remind myself 'nobody is looking at these pictures at anything larger than 3-5" diagonal' so you can sneak some of the almost-good ones in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Now I actually have some time......Darchangel posted:I'm guessing the "big mistake" with the Subies is framing, i.e. not centered and even cut off in the first one? As far as what's right, it seems like the tough part is getting most of your subject sharp and in-focus while panning (absolute photo n00b here - I have an old DSLR I bought off of BraveUlysses a couple years ago.) Yeah my framing is badly wrong - I should have left more background on either side, let alone the front bumper is riiiiight on the edge. Technically, it's a bloody good pan, it's difficult to fill the frame and catch the subject like that - but if I had left say 2-3 meters either side you get a better sensation of speed. The third one could have also done with more to either side as well and if I had managed that.... well that would have been pretty much 100%. Image 2 - If you are getting a panning shot from a not directly side on, it's fine get the front of the vehicle sharp and let the rear blur. There's a decent sensation of speed with everything else well blurred. It's also well framed. Image 4 - Expanded out, the clearest point is the helmet. Honestly, it's a miss. IF I managed to get the face clear that would have been good, but I didnt. So basically I think if you dont get the bike fully stilled, the front or the face are the next two targets. Framing is pretty good so is juuuuuust not quite caught due to the helmet being clear and not much else. Alt if there was a dark visor..... might have worked! Aslo the resulting Apeture was too drat wide. Image 5 - Framing is too close, shutter speed is kinda too high still. But basic result is okay for what... 12 years ago? Image 6 - Framing again. I'm late on the shot but a bit of cropping fixes it well ...... and that becomes a good action pan. Image 7 - This is a bit different as I used the lens to create the panning effect. That basically means I change the focal length mid shot - so with that I can heavily blur out most of the image except for the focus point - in this case the windscreen. bird with big dick posted:Agreed with regard to framing though the photography class I took in college I was told the default isn't necessarily to have the object centered and when it isn't centered you generally want it moving into the frame rather than out of the frame. Yep the first photo also suffers heavily due to that effect. It's leaving the frame - doesnt matter how good the pan was (and it is a great panning shot), the framing is baaaaad. THE BASICS OF PANNING Shutter speed - as slow as you can manage. The slower you go, the better the sensation of speed you get by blurring out the background as much as possible. Start at 1/100 and drop down - REALLY good pans are at 1/40th but drat you are gonna get a lot of throwaways at that shutter speed...! Basically I dont think there is a hard and fast "You HAVE to be at this speed" rule, it is very much an experience thing and how you develop your technique to keep stable. AF point - Centre point, expanded if possible if the camera supports it. AF drive - AF-C or AF-Servo, the camera needs to be able to shift focus as it wants to. Aperture (f-stop) - I know there's some debate where the correct value is - and frankly there ISNT one. Its going to be trial and error or what effect you want to achieve. Using a larger aperture value - say f16 - is going to potentially run you into lens issues like chromatic abberation but you are also more likely to get the full subject nice and clear, especially if you are not directly side on - side on the aperture can be quite a bit wider which will help with depth of field and blurring out the background esp with a 2.8 lens. Given that you are using a slower shutter speed, the aperture could be wider to get the right effect so thence.... ISO - You are more likely to want to control exposure by ISO in this case. You are probably going to be using a lower ISO than you expect even on a cloudy day as with a slow shutter speed and potentially a wider aperture, there's going to be a LOT of light. Shutter drive - gently caress it, spray and pray. Yeah I hear the howls of the purists saying to try and hit one or two shutter actuations but come on. You got digital. Let it rip. Take a sequence of twenty. So yes I will go as fast as the camera shutter can work... even if I only take a three image burst. Okay now as for image stabilisation - this is a good time to read your lens / camera manual as this can make the camera / lens fight you. It's sensing that sideways movement and it will try to compensate, which you dont want. Either turn it off or see if you can set the lens / camera for panning mode, where it will ignore side to side movements and just stabilise up and down. This WILL make a difference to the ability to get a panning shot. Your stance is also important. You want to be as stable as possible as well. I tend to be one foot forward and leaning in. I'll have one hand on the camera and the other about 3/4ths the way down the lens, you absolutly do NOT want both hands on the camera body - you want the front of the lens to be well supported so to eliminate as much up/down as possible. So basically what I will try and do is pick my point I want to focus on about 5 seconds in advance and then do my best to keep it there. Where exactly you want that to be really depends on how square on or elevated you are - lets say for a full side on, focus on the B-Pillar. So I will be aiming at the B-Billar and have the camera accquiring focus and tracking - it kinda depends how well that will work on how smart the camera's AF is. Later cameras will go into tracking modes that will also kinda ignore the initial AF point after the tracking has been locked. As the car or bike arrives where you want the framing to be, begin to turn your top half of your body and importantly KEEP turning afterwards - dont just break off right where you want the picture to be framed. Follow your subject for a few seconds to be as smooth and as stable as possible. Tripod? No, not without a gimbal style head you might see at an airshow with a truly huge lens. Monopod? No, I wouldnt use one either..... sorta. I certainly wouldn't use it extended with the point on the ground - I will sometimes however use it retracted and in my hand as a balance / handling assist with a big lens. Okay so one more important point - even the best of the best throw away a lot when panning. Like 1 out of 10 shots at best will be worth keeping and honestly even a pro can be there all day and only get a handful of keeper panning shots. This is why spray and pray isnt such a bad idea as the chances of a great shot do actually increase. So does the chance of garbage shots but w/e. Are you here to take a great shot or are you here to be a whiny neckbeard going on about purity of technique and missing the action? And as I hinted at with the 40D, you absolutly do NOT need the latest and greatest to pull off great shots. It is straight out down to your technique and smoothness of your actions. gently caress being a gear neckbeard, just take photos! Bajaha posted:Critique my shots! It's my first time trying panning and while most of my shots ended up being blurry messes, some managed to sneak through looking relatively sharp. The cones are a distraction to the car, which mostly a problem with the Honda. Go EV -1/3 for the white cars to slightly underexpose which will make 1 and 3 better. 2 is actually pretty well spot on expsure-wise. You might have been too high on the ISO which seems to show up mostly with the Liberty. Can you pull EXIF data? Framing on 1 is really good, 2 and 3 could have been framed a bit wider. You could photoshop the cone out pretty easily in 3 Dont sweat the number of throwaways and TBH those 3 are quite good. I'd be happy with them except for the cones - which is kinda a minor issue anyway and more a personal preference. quote:When I get a shot that looks sharp on the camera display but then looks blurry on my 27" iMac, I remind myself 'nobody is looking at these pictures at anything larger than 3-5" diagonal' so you can sneak some of the almost-good ones in. LOL that's a good point too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
If there's no cones how will I know it's an autocross though
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback and efforpost on panning! I don't think it's iso noise, 3 was shot at 100mm ISO 100, f/9.0, 1/125s. It might be some artifacting of imgur compressing the image when they're uploaded? I can do a side by side and the looking at the spokes my local file is visibly less noisy when viewed at 100%. I've heard low ISO that's boosted in post can be noisier than just natively shooting with a higher ISO, but that's not what's happening here. I am curious how I pulled this off: 142mm ISO 100, f/14, 1/40s  Framing is too close like some of the others, but the areas that are in focus and out are a little odd, and the motion blur on the rear wheel lugs looks a little funky. The shot isn't perfectly perpendicular but I wouldn't expect F/14 to have that shallow of a DOF, maybe jitter with panning or accidentally rotating the camera as I panned?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
net work error posted:If there's no cones how will I know it's an autocross though Either the tape numbers or just say it a TRACK DAY BRO!!! Bajaha posted:Thanks for the feedback and efforpost on panning! Yeah probably the image processor Imgur uses then. It's waaaaaaay too noisy to be accuratly reflecting ISO 100. Something I noticed on a recent gitlin post that Ars-T was really making photos look blurred and with bigger DOF issues that what the full sized file actually had - full size was considerably better. Not something the gallery software I use to host seems to have an issue with. quote:I am curious how I pulled this off: 142mm ISO 100, f/14, 1/40s A good example that perfect clarity isnt the be all and end all - I *like* that shot So what you have here is that your shutter is slow enough that you have gotten car rotation. The back of the car has moved closer to you and that's why it appears to have blurred - you dont have a DOF issue at all. It's kinda interesting the passenger side roll bar is blurred but the drivers seat is noticably less due it hasnt moved as much relative to you - best way t see it is have a look at the shadow of the tail lights and you can see just how much the rear has moved towards towards you The green "mist" coming off the front tyre is a headscratcher. There's *something* coming off that tyre causing that green mist but for the life of me I cant figure out what. Track / grass debris maybe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
Deliberate double post - that title change threw me...... Going through some of my shots, I like this panning the most -   a) Lots of background but none of it distracts from the car itself b) Small details on the car are about as sharp as could be possible with the equipment in use c) SENSATION OF SPEED (which actually .... will lead into the next post. What on earth IS that and why is it so important?) d) It's a 962 being used in anger. C'mon whats not to love about that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
Here's my favorite pan to date: My cloud backup is fighting me, but here's the main sequence:     And i really like this post work: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:And i really like this post work: This has a real 1970s vibe about it, I really like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Slight divert while SENSATION OF SPEED post is done. When I started this thread a whiles ago I was rather dubious of mirrorless and thence I bought myself a Sony A7R / been trying out a few different mirrorless bodies. I'm looking to replace my old 7D at some point as well as hopefully getting the dream big buck monster 1D X Mk III or whatever full blooded pro body arrives soon soooo....worth dipping a toe in. Mostly for automotive stuff I've been kinda disappointed Tracking has been kinda lacking, speed modes not really great, buffer sizes meh, battery life awful, nothing genuinely built like a7D mk II. But I think we have seen two cameras that finally show for our hobby and interest, mirrorless is finally good enough. The first is the rather expensive Sony A7R IV which has 10fps and some really, REALLY tasty tracking that keeps focus explicity on exactly the point you aim at. Also the face tracking sees eyes even when there is a helmet on. Battery life is good and it's erganomics are more DSLR-like, which mostly in my opinion is what mirrorless overall has completely lacked DSLRs are just plain better in the hand. The other is the very recent Canon M6 mk II.... which is, lets be fair a consumer level camera and that erganomic problems that blight mirrorless. HOWEVER.....it is a mirrorless that is much more specifically for us. 14fps, tracking modes that handle motorsport wonderfully well if the reviews can be believed (and Canon launch the M6 II alongside the 90D at a race meeting at Road Atlanta),nice buffer sizes and the ability to use EF lenses without issue. By the looks of it, it convincingly out performs any APS-C DSLR for our specific requirements, abeit with ergonomic problems and worse battery life - it still looks like it does 1000 shots per battery so..... is that a problem? Thats not to say it's DSLR equivalent - the 90D - is crap. For most DSLR's its a good upgrade, it is however slower and doesn't have the cool as tracking modes. I'll see if I can get my hands on one to test beecause for us it's a very interesting camera that looks to be releasing at a good price and works with all the EF Canon glass (I'm hesitant to go Sony because.... fuuuuck the glass prices are mindblowing)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 11:28
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:(I'm hesitant to go Sony because.... fuuuuck the glass prices are mindblowing)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:RF glass isn't any better, though you can always use the entire EF glass lineup. RF glass might be worth the eye bleeding cost tho, it's looking better than anything else for what they have released so far. Pity there's no RF mount camera that matches the glass quality TBH adapted telephoto EF doesnt work too hot on Sony bodies which is a problem. Adapted EF onto M or RF mount Canon tho..... they work perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
Olympic Mathlete posted:A good thread. I used to roll with a Canon 350D years ago before it got nicked. It taught me a lot about photography. I nabbed a 50mm 1.8 for it which was pretty great until it decided it didn't want to release from the body and annihilated the connection pins. I did end up taking the camera to bits and fixing them and it all worked perfectly again and then it got robbed. Anyway, yes. Digital is fantastic because you can hold the loving shutter down and just go... I went to a gig with the 50mm in a dingy basement and shot some 1200 shots in an hour, of which about 150 were pretty good, 50 bang on what I was after. I have a 350D (actually a Kiss Digital N) lying around, I finally got a new camera in January. Don't know if you're still looking for one. Well loved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
SENSATION OF SPEED One of the problems with photography is that it is in the end, a flat 2D space which happens to lend itself to static results. Now that's fine if you are shooting say a car show and all that you are shooting are actually still - you are trying to use light and visual effects to make an image pop and stand out from a snapshot, so thence you can use high shutter speeds, wide apertures and low ISO with saturation and sharpness bumped. But we dont want that if the car is in motion - we dont want flat still images that could be basically just the car just.... there. Examples?   This is from the first event I ever pointed a camera at. Flat, lifeless, may as well be parked. From the same event -  (Okay I didnt take that one, thats me being a hoon) Now that still looks flat but now we have something better - water spraying, smoking tyres, the car isnt static but we have still got problems  And again, the gravel flying imparts a sense the car is in motion but we aint there yet  Ahhh NOW we have something!  poo poo flying but.... it's a snapshot and looks fairly flat and lifeless  I'll get back to this one as it's where things are starting to "pop" and there is some sensation of movement  Okay here we go, flat snapshot. The park looks parked!  Soooo... the car IS parked here but it looks wonderfully in motion  And again, the car is basically stationary but it *looks* like it's going like hell So stepping forward yeeeeeears now...   NOT panning shots   Not the best of shots but I'm including it to make a point https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157158043004575&set=a.10157158032754575&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157158036969575&set=a.10157158032754575&type=3&theater Too easy (I'll go find non facebook links tomorrow) ---------------------- Well I kind of think it's becoming fairly obvious that the basic technique is much like panning but you can also use the car's enviroment esp when you are in an advantageous shooting position. Now while the image quality has gone waaaaaaaay up overall, I think the core concept that makes things better is understand that a static image of a moving car is bad. So for me, there are two ideas that I think you can use as a takeaway - 1) Keep your shutter speed lower. I know the tempation is to have a higher shutter speed to catch the car as sharply as possible but while yes you get a sharp result, you dont get any hint of movement. Panning of course has a lot more background blurred and it's the core concept but we still want to apply that to regular shots that we want to take - for example going waaaaaay back - I'm trying to get the car cleanly (LOL I failed) but the the wheels are frozen and hence the mind is not fooled into thinking it's more than a static snapshot. That's really the whole point here - you want the viewer's mind to fill in the blanks, to get a feel the car at the time of the shot was indeed mobile and doing something other than hard parked. So as I said, the core concept here is a lower shutter speed of say 1/250th to begin with - I like to go slower to say 1/160th to get more wheel blur but to be able to get the rest of the car sharply - a low ISO and filters to help restrict the amount of light esp on bright days to give me a wider aperture so I can blur the background a bit too. The cleaner I can get the car and the more wheel blur, the more the viewers mind is thinking "Yep fast" So in the case of the Forester, the wheels are blurred to add to the water spray. A faster shutter would have frozen the action but... the wheels would be static and it loses some action and life. 2) Enviroment. Not everywhere we are can be a pan and it does get monotonous. So..... this is where some leg work comes in handy. Have a scout around to see what could make cars look like they are doing something. How about jumping a curb? Maybe a bit of a slide? What about picking up wheels? Lots of body roll? Or maybe cars attacking each other on a brake duel? Okay well some of that is luck of course but on a track day or a skid pan I'm always moving around looking for things that make cars look to be in motion. Maybe a corner is being cut? Flying grass works well for the effect we are looking for. Bikes tend to be easier in this regard as they lean and the riders are moving about. Of course rallying tends to be like that too as poo poo is flying but I will these days still shoot with a slower shutter to get the wheels as blurred as possible to really make the image work. If cars are coming straight on at you..... go fast on the shutter. If it's a jump.... fast is again fine because the fact the car is not on the ground does the sensation of speed for you. So with the Galant VR-4 that I got straight no - the dust is flying, the car is clearly sliding hard sideways, so while it's absolutely front on, the mind fills in the speed details for you. Is there much more to it than that? Honestly... not really. But what sounds simple takes practice and also legwork. I try to move around a lot, I'll have two camera with different lens (Hell at the last WRC I went to I had three cameras all being used at the same time to get different angles and lens lengths!) but moreover I like to view things through the viewfinder and have a think about what will convey what I want. In many ways conveying a sense of speed and movement is subjective so experiment and play around.There's not a lot of fixed rules here apart from what I've kinda outlined above so it's really a lot easier to review images and see what to you works. 3) Smoke and flames. DRAMA!!!! Well you wont always find them but finding yourself with the opportunity for images with sparks, flames and smoke REALLY helps sell the sensation of speed. Drag racing and drifting are your two best options with this one - Loads of smoke, fire and tyres exploding is perfect!   
CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Sep 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
 1/100, F7.1, ISO 100, polariser filter to take at least 1EV of light out so I can run a wider aperture, +.3 EV to compensate for shadow. Full sequence was 10 shots, 2 immediately deleted. 4 usable, 2 of which I'd be happy to put online, this one was just a tiny bit clearer. Over the day I pretty much had 2-3 per sequence immediately binned, 3-4 which were.... eh and one that really nailed it. Doing the conversion from RAW to jpg degraded the image quality a bit which I'm going to have to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
        More from different positions once I cull 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
 I like this photo I took
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
 Postin about mirrorless for motorsport soon. Mirrorless beats DSLR with the same lenses.There are a feeeeeeew problems tho..... 
CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Oct 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 10:01
|
|
|
I finally got around to shooting some stuff on my new setup. still got a lot to learn and improve, but this camera (Sony A6500) is much easier to get salvagable shots than my old 550D one boring angle because i only have one lens and couldnt really hit anything else even at the long end (28-75)          
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2019 11:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Laserface posted:I finally got around to shooting some stuff on my new setup. still got a lot to learn and improve, but this camera (Sony A6500) is much easier to get salvagable shots than my old 550D This is a spectacular shot - let me know the next time you are going out to the drifting, I want to take the new camera out      I *think* I'm working out how to use the M6 mk II ......
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 09:35
|
|