|
Anyone have lens suggestions and/or advice for shooting rally car racing?
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
Since you'll be shooting during the day and doing some panning you won't need a particularly quick lens for it. Just decide how close you want to be and go from there. I shoot a bunch of circuit stuff and if I can get close I just use my tamron 17-50 which seems ideal. If further out then 70-200 all the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Anyone have lens suggestions and/or advice for shooting rally car racing? Have something very solid you can jump behind at a second's notice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:48
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Anyone have lens suggestions and/or advice for shooting rally car racing? Anything around F4 is fast enough. Faster is easier obviously. Length is a function of how much you want to risk getting hit with gravel and/or cars. Something in the 200-300mm range will let you stay a safe distance from the action. As for technique, practice your panning shots. Stand on the side of a busy road and be prepared to take thousands of pictures before you get decent at it. Google around for techniques.. cars look really, really boring when you freeze the action, so you're going to want a nice blurred background and spinning tires.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
GODDAMN FOOL posted:Yea, I'm talking just jumping out, taking a few shots, and driving off, not setting up a tripod or anything. I live in Saskatchewan, though, where the ratio of road-length to residents is the highest in the world - more than 2 km per man, woman, and child here. It's massively empty in this province. Even on the "busy", main highways I frequently see people pull over just to take a leak. A few times people have slowed down or stopped beside me when I'm taking pictures, they're asking if I've broken down and need help. I point at the camera and say I'm just out taking pictures and I get smiles and "OK, have fun!" in return. Perhaps it's me, and I just look like a dim-but-harmless fool. The bridge picture in Understanding Exposure was taken from the side of a very major road in a near-urban part of Germany - a nice vista in the Appalachians on some State Route is nothing like as risky (fines and / or collisions).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Have something very solid you can jump behind at a second's notice. Apologies if this is off topic but I can help but post this every thread rally comes up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4UuZ5mauKk#t=02m58s
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Surely where you state you could probably see if theres a highway patrol coming or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
I don't have a studio and I'm just an AMATEUR at best, but I want to shoot some portraits of myself and friends. (I'm also going to start, next semester, going to school for photojournalism) On that note, I found a "5 in 1 multidisk reflector (Translucent, Silver, Gold, White, and Black)" on Amazon for $10. For above-mentioned portraits, would this be a good buy, or am I completely oblivious to what I really need? http://www.amazon.com/110CM-Multi-Disc-Light-Reflector/dp/B002ZIMEMW/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1299558266&sr=8-7
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
GODDAMN FOOL posted:I don't have a studio and I'm just an AMATEUR at best, but I want to shoot some portraits of myself and friends. (I'm also going to start, next semester, going to school for photojournalism) Reflectors are great and cheap, almost unique in photography equipment. Go here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3170705
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 09:42
|
|
|
CowGuy posted:Would it be worth it for me to sell my Rebel Xsi to purchase a T3i so I can shoot snowboarding videos? The T3i's not that big of an improvement over the T2i. If you can get a T2i for cheaper, go with that (or hell, even a T1i, really.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 09:56
|
|
|
Casull posted:The T3i's not that big of an improvement over the T2i. If you can get a T2i for cheaper, go with that (or hell, even a T1i, really.) If he is going to be shooting a lot of video the flip screen would be worth going t3i over t2i.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
GODDAMN FOOL posted:Do you think it'd be kosher in the eyes of a Highway Patrolman if I were to pull over and take some pictures? Do you think they're going to give me poo poo for this, since technically the shoulder is for broken down vehicles and emergency vehicles?  Besides, if it really is just a rural highway then the rules aren't so strict; I'd say the chances of getting a ticket are pretty small, especially if by the time the cops show up you have some nice photos to show them. dissss posted:Apologies if this is off topic but I can help but post this every thread rally comes up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4UuZ5mauKk#t=02m58s
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice on the rally car question everyone. Something I couldn't find when I was looking at panning techniques is whether or not to leave IS off or on for my lens while panning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:23
|
|
|
You don't need IS. But I'm pretty sure one of the modes (On some L glass anyway) is for panning and similar. So you may as well use it I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know about Nikon, but on Canon, some of the newer L lenses not only have an option between IS on/off, but also a choice between two different types of IS, one of which is designed to assist only in the horizontal axis, so for panning. No clue how effective it is practically, as I'm terrible at panning regardless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
Anyone know where I would be able to find frames for 3:2 prints? IKEA actually has some great frames for low prices, just nothing 3:2. It's all 5:4 or similar, and the same for the mats contained within. I wonder if I'd be better of just buying such frames and modifying mats?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
carcinofuck posted:Anyone know where I would be able to find frames for 3:2 prints? IKEA actually has some great frames for low prices, just nothing 3:2. It's all 5:4 or similar, and the same for the mats contained within. You're stuck in the unfortunate world of common photo sizes. 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14. The only way you can get anything different is if you go with custom frames or luck out at a store.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Yeah I don't know about Nikon, but on Canon, some of the newer L lenses not only have an option between IS on/off, but also a choice between two different types of IS, one of which is designed to assist only in the horizontal axis, so for panning. No clue how effective it is practically, as I'm terrible at panning regardless. It helps with vertical shakes. You really don't want horizontal IS when doing panning, because the lens will try to compensate for your panning motion, making your picture a horrible disaster. I question that vertical IS is necessary, it's pretty easy to get a smooth horizontal movement with some practice, but if you got the feature, there's no reason to not use it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It helps with vertical shakes. Durr, thanks. That's what I meant, just used backwards terms. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
Some cheap lenses like the Canon 55-250mm can detect horizontal or vertical panning and only use one or the other for IS automatically. Any thoughts on how accurate that is? I've tried it briefly on mine and it seemed to work ok but I'm still very new. This review mentions it. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-is-lens-review.aspx
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:Some cheap lenses like the Canon 55-250mm can detect horizontal or vertical panning and only use one or the other for IS automatically. Any thoughts on how accurate that is? I've tried it briefly on mine and it seemed to work ok but I'm still very new.  LTNS Part 2-1 by Seant018, on Flickr I took this with the cheap 55-200mm lens for Nikon. I pretty much always had IS on, and from my limited testing, I found my pictures were more likely to be less blurry when I had IS on. That was almost a year ago, and I am a lot better at panning now, so I would like to try a comparison soon. Edit: I know it is cropped too tight also  I just never went back and edited it again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 20:01
|
|
|
carcinofuck posted:Anyone know where I would be able to find frames for 3:2 prints? IKEA actually has some great frames for low prices, just nothing 3:2. It's all 5:4 or similar, and the same for the mats contained within.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:Some cheap lenses like the Canon 55-250mm can detect horizontal or vertical panning and only use one or the other for IS automatically. Any thoughts on how accurate that is? I've tried it briefly on mine and it seemed to work ok but I'm still very new. I took all of these shots on a 55-250mm with IS on (newbie mistake): https://picasaweb.google.com/mrxzzy/IndianapolisMotoGP2010 Problem is, my discard rate was close to 90%. I took a couple thousand pictures and threw the vast majority of them away due to blur. Even some of the ones I uploaded have a bit of blur on them. If you're really bored, compare to these pictures: https://picasaweb.google.com/mrxzzy/24HoursOfLemonsCarShots Same camera, same lens, but I had IS turned off. My discard rate was a little under 50%. There's a margin of error to this.. I also had more practice under my belt, but I attribute most of the improvement to having the camera properly configured. tl;dr: Using IS on the Canon 55-250 for panning is a huge mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I took all of these shots on a 55-250mm with IS on (newbie mistake): I don't use Canon, but have you thought it might be the autofocus? I had the most trouble focusing with certain color motorcycles. Also, in one set you are shooting MotoGP, which is insanely fast guys on motorcycles. The other set is car racing, hard to compare these two, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Sevn posted:I don't use Canon, but have you thought it might be the autofocus? I had the most trouble focusing with certain color motorcycles. Also, in one set you are shooting MotoGP, which is insanely fast guys on motorcycles. The other set is car racing, hard to compare these two, I think. Focus mode was an issue for some shots.. I alternate between MF and AF quite a bit, just to get some practice with both. Results were generally the same, turning off IS gave me the best improvement overall. And yes, the MotoGP bikes are ridiculously fast. The corner I happened to be shooting from was the slowest portion of the track, they were well under 100mph when I had the shutter open. The car race was probably in the 50-80mph range. I took a lot of shots of the 250cc and 125cc guys too, with similar results. They're still fast, but not MotoGP fast. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Focus mode was an issue for some shots.. I alternate between MF and AF quite a bit, just to get some practice with both. Results were generally the same, turning off IS gave me the best improvement overall. Yeah, I shoot 125cc mainly, but 250cc every once and a while. Like I said, I don't know about the Canon end, but I definitely lost a lot of shots because my autofocus hit the wrong spot. Anyways, the weather is getting nice here again, so I will definitely spend a few days at the track to test this out. Kudos for using MF, I only used it when I had a high shutter speed and wanted to catch people in corners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
AF was definitely an issue, especially when shooting through the fence. But I was able to mitigate it somewhat by avoiding the center AF point.. going for one of the less sensitive outer points worked pretty well. I also toyed around by using single shot AF, focusing on one bike, and then releasing the shutter on the bike behind him. MF felt like it gave me the best success rate, but this is probably because I was only taking single exposures, trying to hit my focus point. With AF on, I tended to shoot machine gun style and this resulted in hundreds of lovely images. The biggest downside to MF is it limited any particular shot to the one point in the corner that I had focused on. If something interesting happened anywhere else in my field of view, it was impossible to catch it before it was over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:The craft/hobby stores (Michaels and such) around here have a few 8x12 options, though usually nothing matted. I'm surprised there aren't more out there, it seems very odd that there are so many 4x6 but so few 8x12. I found exactly one 8x12 frame at my local Michael's, and they were also selling mats to fit an 8x12 in an 11x14 frame (in one colour - white). I also recently discovered basic black frames in 12x18 at my local London Drugs (Canadian drug & department store with a large photo & electronics department). Michael's also sells the mat-cutting equipment and blank mats that would let you cut your own, it worked out to about $120 if I'd wanted to get set up to do that. I too am surprised and annoyed that frame manufacturers haven't picked up on the 3:2 ratio that's been the most common aspect ratio in consumer cameras for 50 years, yet. Custom framing is very expensive, I was quoted $70-100 per picture at a nearby custom framing shop; I didn't ask at the Michael's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I ranted about this just before christmas - cropping is the devil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:I posted about this a long time ago somewhere but I might as well restate it. I cut all my own mats, it really isn't that bad, and it's cheap. My bevel cutter was $25, a 4' ruler was $12, and a box set of straight edges was $25. That's only $62 to get started and you could easily get that number under 50. Don't get a cutting surface; they eat blade and cause them to wander. Instead get an extra sacrificial piece of mat. A roughly 32x40" black mat costs only $6. For frames I roam through scrap and thrift stores. I've found some really nice large (32"+) frames for only $10. Smaller frames and beat up ones are generally $5+. All told it takes work, but considering you can frame a large photo for $16 vs $160 it is definitely worth it. Yea, custom framing is such a scam. A couple pieces of bulk-cut wood, and some guy they spent 15 minutes training to cut it the correct lengths, and then they charge you $100+ for the cheap frames. Where do you get your mat? Are you just using thick crafting type paper?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
The framing thing pisses me off to no end as well. If you don't want to invest the start up costs to cut your own mattes you can get custom mattes cut at places like American Frame for relatively reasonable prices. It still ends up costing as much as the frame itself if you get Ikea/Costco frames.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
subx posted:Yea, custom framing is such a scam. A couple pieces of bulk-cut wood, and some guy they spent 15 minutes training to cut it the correct lengths, and then they charge you $100+ for the cheap frames. http://www.dickblick.com/products/crescent-regular-surface-matboard-grays-and-blacks/
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:http://www.dickblick.com What an unfortunately named web site...
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
Not just a website, they've got physical stores. Of course I didn't know about them at all until I moved to Chicago for a few years, and never knew what the gently caress this Dick Blick was that everyone was referring to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
I bought an assortment of low-grade filters, including a green Cokin-A filter. I remember seeing somewhere that green filters are useful for B&W film. Can somebody confirm this, and let me know what kind of effect colour filters have when shooting B&W? Do these effects carry over to digital, with a B&W conversion in post?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
quote:Framing chat 3:2 isn't all that hard. Buy 11x14 or 12x16 frames, print at 8x12 on 11x14 paper, expect to lose a little bit at the edges, and toss 'em into some of these: http://www.redimat.com/products/conservation.html Items 11b, 12, and 14b are the right size. They're hard to find in actual stores, but they're cheap enough on the internet. Go with something acid-free and use an acid-free backing too. I've put some of my 8x12's into 12x16 frames and they look great that way. Good balance of space around them without looking cramped or wasteful. The "home decoration" premade wood frames from places like Michael's tend to have an annoying problem: the recess for the backing is too shallow to fit a front mat, the print, and a proper mount. I ended up using sliced sheets of acid-free printmaking paper for the backing instead. One of the local chains keeps having awesome deals on frames lately... got myself a big armful of nifty Nielsen and Bainbridge bamboo frames recently, they look pretty dope. Looks like Blick has 'em too: http://www.dickblick.com/products/nielsen-bainbridge-ecocare-frames/ Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Mar 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 22:34
|
|
is go
|
ExecuDork posted:I bought an assortment of low-grade filters, including a green Cokin-A filter. I remember seeing somewhere that green filters are useful for B&W film. Can somebody confirm this, and let me know what kind of effect colour filters have when shooting B&W? Do these effects carry over to digital, with a B&W conversion in post? Yes, they are for b&w. Off the top of my head green is Used for landscapes to increase the contrast between trees and the sky. I prefer orange and red ones for digital, I use them for sky photos mostly. They do affect digital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Can somebody confirm this, and let me know what kind of effect colour filters have when shooting B&W? Colored filters lighten their own color and darken their complement. So in the case of a green filter, like ThisQuietReverie said, you'll often get better contrast between the trees and the sky. Why? The greens of the foliage will be lightened (own color), and the sky will usually be slightly darkened (not quite the complement, but over in that direction). If you understand the additive color wheel, you understand how to use colored filters. The trick is to keep in mind actual honest-to-God colors and not human shorthand. We call a sky "blue," but you'll get a pretty tame effect from a yellow filter. Slap on a red or orange filter, the complement of the actual color of the sky, and you'll get those looming black skies everyone from Ansel Adams to Jerry Uelsmann loves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
Green filters are also somewhat useful for B&W portraiture. Every color of filter darkens its complimentary color, so a green filter would make red lips a lot darker, creates more contrast against skin. Pink skin gets a little darker too. Color filters aren't really meant for color work at all, but it could be useful for digital shots that are intended to become black-and-white. Shut off the auto white balance if you're gonna try that. I've found yellow to be the most generally useful one though. Makes outdoor shots and landscapes look a lot more interesting and balances the contrast between sky and ground, without being quite as overpowering as an orange or red filter. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Mar 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:58 |
|
|
If you want to gently caress around with filters and B&W and you're not sure which one to use in a certain situation, you can use picture styles on your camera (if you're using a Canon DSLR) to simulate the result for a preview before you get it on film if you're using something like a view camera or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 08:58
|
|