Prev: longevity
Next: 3D camcorder
From: Dudley Hanks on 28 Jul 2010 00:30
Sonar was working, but the mind went blank...

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/LatestPics/TightGroup.jpg

The above pic is one that was "close, but no cigar."

I think I got the cars framed pretty good, but screwed up on the camera
setting.

I was switching modes, and instead of rotating the command dial all the way
left to get wide open, I rotated right and got F32. The shutter speed was
so slow that there was significant motion blur, both from the cars speed and
from camera shake.

Still, for future reference, I'm wondering if there's anything that sticks
out about the pic, positive or negative, that might help me make a better
shot next year.

Thanks for any info you might provide.

Take Care,
Dudley


From: Sharon on 29 Jul 2010 10:04
Hi Dudley,

Your composition is good, but even with the aperture mistake it's difficult
to for me to tell what your point of focus was. The first car rounding the
corner has slightly less motion blur than the others behind it, but the
fence was in your way of focusing on the cars and is a little blurry as
well. Did you have a chance to take another shot with a larger aperture?

Sharon


"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:-8ednYcl4-TmL9LRnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Sonar was working, but the mind went blank...
>
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/LatestPics/TightGroup.jpg
>
> The above pic is one that was "close, but no cigar."
>
> I think I got the cars framed pretty good, but screwed up on the camera
> setting.
>
> I was switching modes, and instead of rotating the command dial all the
> way left to get wide open, I rotated right and got F32. The shutter speed
> was so slow that there was significant motion blur, both from the cars
> speed and from camera shake.
>
> Still, for future reference, I'm wondering if there's anything that sticks
> out about the pic, positive or negative, that might help me make a better
> shot next year.
>
> Thanks for any info you might provide.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>


From: Dudley Hanks on 29 Jul 2010 11:23

"Sharon" <sharon_barbour(a)hp.com> wrote in message
news:i2s092$kq5$1(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> Hi Dudley,
>
> Your composition is good, but even with the aperture mistake it's
> difficult to for me to tell what your point of focus was. The first car
> rounding the corner has slightly less motion blur than the others behind
> it, but the fence was in your way of focusing on the cars and is a little
> blurry as well. Did you have a chance to take another shot with a larger
> aperture?
>
> Sharon
>


Thanks, Sharon, that's actually what I'm interested in.

I had a few shots with the wrong aperture come out the same, with the lead
car less blurred than the rest, or at least that's what it sounded like from
the descriptions I've heard.


To me, this sounds like something to work on next year, trying to get just
the right aperture / shutter speed to freeze the lead car, but to get a bit
of blur in the others.

It sounds like the more blurred cars are heading more directly across the
image, so they are more prone to blur, while the front runner is further
into the corner, so it is heading more towards the lens, and less prone to
motion blur.

The tricky part will be to get better seats, so that darn fence won't be as
much of a problem.

The end result should be sort of a DOF type image with the single non-blurry
car followed by a couple of progressively more blurred machines, with the
blurring all dependant on angle of travel rather than DOF.

Thanks for your description. It leads me to believe I'm on the right track,
so to speak ... :)

Take Care,
Dudley



From: Ray Fischer on 1 Aug 2010 15:44
Dudley Hanks <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>Sonar was working, but the mind went blank...
>
>http://www.blind-apertures.ca/LatestPics/TightGroup.jpg
>
>The above pic is one that was "close, but no cigar."
>
>I think I got the cars framed pretty good, but screwed up on the camera
>setting.

You framed the fence even better.

>I was switching modes, and instead of rotating the command dial all the way
>left to get wide open, I rotated right and got F32. The shutter speed was
>so slow that there was significant motion blur, both from the cars speed and
>from camera shake.
>
>Still, for future reference, I'm wondering if there's anything that sticks
>out about the pic, positive or negative, that might help me make a better
>shot next year.

Motion blur can be useful to show the speed of the cars, but you need
to find a better shooting location.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: DanP on 2 Aug 2010 05:26
On Aug 1, 8:44 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Dudley Hanks <dha...(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> >Sonar was working, but the mind went blank...
>
> >http://www.blind-apertures.ca/LatestPics/TightGroup.jpg
>
> >The above pic is one that was "close, but no cigar."
>
> >I think I got the cars framed pretty good, but screwed up on the camera
> >setting.
>
> You framed the fence even better.
>
> >I was switching modes, and instead of rotating the command dial all the way
> >left to get wide open, I rotated right and got F32.  The shutter speed was
> >so slow that there was significant motion blur, both from the cars speed and
> >from camera shake.
>
> >Still, for future reference, I'm wondering if there's anything that sticks
> >out about the pic, positive or negative, that might help me make a better
> >shot next year.
>
> Motion blur can be useful to show the speed of the cars, but you need
> to find a better shooting location.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer        
> rfisc...(a)sonic.net  

At a wider aperture with the focus on cars the fence would disappear.

DanP
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: longevity
Next: 3D camcorder