Opinions on a photo please.

Can I have your opinion on the following photo, please? I am not sure it entirely works... and before anyone says "dunno, I am not a photographer" that doesn't matter. I don't sell pictures to photographers very often.



thx.

Works for me. shows great motion. If i was going to be critical i would say the depth of field is slightly to shallow and the rear of the car looks a little soft. But the way the water is flying off the car looks stunning. Normal punter its an A1 photo. Camera club judge well we will not even go there you know how anal they can be! lol

I like the contrast between the two cars. Must say though I think he has made a right pigs ear of the Cobra.

If i was going to be critical i would say the depth of field is slightly to shallow and the rear of the car looks a little soft.

Thanks for the comment.

You are right about the rear of the car looking soft, however that isn't down to depth of field. It's actually a parallax shift caused by using a slow shutter speed (1/125th sec) on a 3/4 pan shot and is an inevitable consequence of such a shot (see http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Panning-in-motorsport-photography-11972) for the tech-speak.

The choice of a slow shutter speed, of course, was deliberate to get "motion".

saturn800 wrote:I like the contrast between the two cars. Must say though I think he has made a right pigs ear of the Cobra.

Not sure it started out life as a Cobra... bit of a kit job / silhouette I think. Were it a real Cobra I'd be looking to thump him with my monopod

RPUK wrote:

saturn800 wrote:I like the contrast between the two cars. Must say though I think he has made a right pigs ear of the Cobra.

Not sure it started out life as a Cobra... bit of a kit job / silhouette I think. Were it a real Cobra I'd be looking to thump him with my monopod

Fair enough.

saturn800 wrote:

RPUK wrote:

saturn800 wrote:I like the contrast between the two cars. Must say though I think he has made a right pigs ear of the Cobra.

Not sure it started out life as a Cobra... bit of a kit job / silhouette I think. Were it a real Cobra I'd be looking to thump him with my monopod

Fair enough.

In fact it's on the entry list as a "RAM TRSC 427"

RPUK wrote: It's actually a parallax shift caused by using a slow shutter speed (1/125th sec) on a 3/4 pan shot and is an inevitable consequence of such a shot

Can we get that in English

Only joking although I do have no diea what you are talking about, picture looks great to me

You don't really want me to explain it do you?

OK... in order to "show motion" I used a slow shutter speed. The imaging sensor is exposed to the light for a relatively long time giving the car time to move. I could use an ultra-high shutter speed and "freeze" the car but then you get one of those rather un-dynamic "cars parked on the circuit" shots.

Now, if I kept the camera still I would get a blurry car and static background but that's not the effect I'm going for. The effect I want is the static car / blurry background effect you get if you turn your head to watch a car going past.

In order to get that, I pick a point on the car (the front in this case) and move my lens so that that part of the car stays in the same place in the viewfinder all the time and the background "moves" behind it.

The parallax shift comes about because I'm not square with the car. The back of the car is moving at a different rate with regard to me than the front is. This causes the front to be "sharp" and the back to be motion blurred. The farther away on the car you get from the point I was tracking, the more extreme the motion blur.

Glad you asked?

I always did wonder how you got that kind of shot (really did)

And I do understand the long version!

So I guess my next question is, is there a camera on the market that can track 2 points at once to continue the sharpness to the rear of the car or is that just simply not possible due to the shutter?

I prefer my photos to have ladies in them.

This photo is better than your photo in my humble opinion. I particularily like the contrast between the foreground and background. I think there is a real sence of rythym and vibrancy caused by the photgrapher clever use of shutter speed and filters (clearly he has a used neutral density filter). I think the Chromatic aberration and Curvilinear distortion are absolutely spot one. The lack of halation is to be applauded as it would have been easy to apply and would have spoilt the picture. I think the hyperfocal distance is just about right. The only way this picture could be better is if she had her t!ts out. But that is just my humble opinion

jethro924 wrote:
This photo is better than your photo in my humble opinion.

I concur! I believe its an optical illusion too as my wife tells me there is a car in the photo, though I can't see it myself.

Oh thats what it is, was wondering what the wheel was doing then when I got as far as the knee

jethro924 wrote:I prefer my photos to have ladies in them.

This photo is better than your photo in my humble opinion. I particularily like the contrast between the foreground and background. I think there is a real sence of rythym and vibrancy caused by the photgrapher clever use of shutter speed and filters (clearly he has a used neutral density filter). I think the Chromatic aberration and Curvilinear distortion are absolutely spot one. The lack of halation is to be applauded as it would have been easy to apply and would have spoilt the picture. I think the hyperfocal distance is just about right. The only way this picture could be better is if she had her t!ts out. But that is just my humble opinion

What??? If your being serious then the high lights on the car are to bright, the sky looks, well what sky. and as for the car. WHAT CAR?

Mav666 wrote:I always did wonder how you got that kind of shot (really did)

And I do understand the long version!

So I guess my next question is, is there a camera on the market that can track 2 points at once to continue the sharpness to the rear of the car or is that just simply not possible due to the shutter?

The problem is lens movement and relative speed, so no, it's not correctable.

jethro924 wrote:I prefer my photos to have ladies in them.

This photo is better than your photo in my humble opinion. I particularily like the contrast between the foreground and background. I think there is a real sence of rythym and vibrancy caused by the photgrapher clever use of shutter speed and filters (clearly he has a used neutral density filter). I think the Chromatic aberration and Curvilinear distortion are absolutely spot one. The lack of halation is to be applauded as it would have been easy to apply and would have spoilt the picture. I think the hyperfocal distance is just about right. The only way this picture could be better is if she had her t!ts out. But that is just my humble opinion

While much of what you say is true, the sky is blown so you'd need a Graduated Neutral Density filter to sort that out, not a standard ND. There's some pretty extreme perspective distortion caused by using an UWA lens inappropriately which has made the '44s bum look even fatter than it really is (thank God you didn't have the girl at that point in the frame or you'd be in dead trouble). A proper use of the rule of thirds would have drawn attention more prominently to the girl's principle asset (it's a little high and to the right). Also you could try enhancing the image's symmetry by having her lose her skirt to match the car.

Just some helpful tips

This is now getting into an area that I understand.








No I really do.

Norks?

i'm sold, i'll take the one that shows more skin

well what car?

[img][/img]

Or this car?, mind you If it were mine, I may have summat to say about her sticking her shoes on the bodywork....

[img][/img]

Wax on, Wax off comes to mind..........

Can't see any cars in those pics

Car is far too high and needs lowering

its me!!