View Full Version : Marathon photos - any good?
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 06:04
I would like some feedback and criticism on my recent photos please.
About ten days ago I photographed two running events - Humber Bridge Fun Run and Half Marathon. Got loads of photos, but found it was a little difficult to focus, although I did try. I wonder if you may be kind enough to have a look and maybe spot some problems/issues with technical side, as well as "artistic" side.
I had Canon 400D with Tampron F/2.8. I have tried to use shutter priority mode with ISO 400 (it was sunny/cloudy) and shutter of around 1/300..1/500, depending on light. The F/ was autoset by the camera and was in range of F/8 to F/4 (which I think is ok, right?)
I wonder - what did I do wrong?
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 06:33
You probably should post this in the sharing/athletics forum, UNLESS there's an issue with the equipment...and then if it's a lens issue it should go in the lens forum...as for the pix...well it looks like you had the camera set to sequence mode (is that what it's called?...I don't know 'cause I just shoot one shot at a time) and you just let er rip...and as long as you got the pix you wanted I see nothing wrong other than they show little effort in the selection process...remember one good pic is worth a 1000...well okay maybe not a 1000 but I try to just show the best/most representative of the scene...
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 08:27
I'm curious why you'd go with Tv. DOF is important in a shot like that, and as long as you're staying above camera-shake shutter speed, that's not really important for this type of work. F/4 would've made focusing a real challenge.
I think you did fine, though. The company that solicits me for sales after a run does no better, really.
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 11:02
When putting images up for review, it would be better to select just a few rather than to offer a lot of very similar ones.
Always remember that pictures which may have attraction to you may not necessarily interest others and they're unlikely to plough through them hoping to find a gem.
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 11:08
Thanks for the comments!
The idea behind sharing the vast majority of images was that the webpage will be linked to from the orginiser's page and therefore a lot of participants would visit and would like to find themselves. That's why all the pictures that are of decent quality were published.
Although you are right of course, it is good to concentrate on a couple, rather then a couple of hundred.
Also, a question - why "F/4 would've made focusing a real challenge." - does it really matter if it is F/2.8 or F/10 - will the autofocus struggle? If so, does this mean lower F/ = better focus? I did not know that...
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 11:13
not that it won't autofocus properly, it has to do with depth of field at that point. F2.8 will have a shallower depth of field where f10 will allow for more room in front and behind your target.
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 14:41
So would you say that it is better to keep F at around /10 and decrease shutter (or even go to a different mode), so autofocus will become a little easier?
so, instead of F/4 and 1/500 go for F/10 and 1/200 - something like that?
2nd of July 2007 (Mon), 14:45
unless you want to single out an individual or a group from the background it's good to have a lower F stop. use manual mode and if all else fails bump up the iso. :) i checked out the pictures by the way and they look great from the few i looked at. :D
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.