question about motorsport photography

[dann22]

I have a quick question.
Am I wasting my time trying to get my shots as crisp and clear as some of the members on this board using the 1D. Does it have anything to do with the image sensor, or is it the RAW processing that makes yall's images jump. I am using a 30D and I do have a 70-200L with IS/USM. I also use a 2x at times, but my images are plain. I think I might make it back out to VIR this weekend for the AMA races and don't want it to be a waste of time.
I did add a monopod to my collection hoping to get some sharper images this year.

[Inten_Z]

I am interested in this answer as well. I know that the 1D has a faster focus motor which will help for the high speeds that motorcycles are moving. In my case I am using the same setup as you. My normal day of shooting consist of about 2000+ pictures and there is no way to PP that may files a day. So what I did was tweak the contrast and shapness in the cameras picture style. Seems to work for what I do, but can't wait for a professional answer.

[John Thawley]

I have a quick question.
Am I wasting my time trying to get my shots as crisp and clear as some of the members on this board using the 1D. Does it have anything to do with the image sensor, or is it the RAW processing that makes yall's images jump. I am using a 30D and I do have a 70-200L with IS/USM. I also use a 2x at times, but my images are plain. I think I might make it back out to VIR this weekend for the AMA races and don't want it to be a waste of time.
I did add a monopod to my collection hoping to get some sharper images this year.

I carry two 30D bodies and two 20D bodies for backup.. all L glass.

Your equipment is fine. The 2X will soften and slow everything down. Swap it for a 1.4x.

I don't shoot RAW.

Post processing is as critical to the final image as shooting is to the capture. It's not an afterthought. It's part of MAKING great photos. The great photographers of the past were also wizards in the darkroom. So... don't kid yourself... it's important if you really want to finish the job.

I'm not sure where the monopod would help on a 200mm. I hand hold my 400mm f/5.6 ALWAYS. Your 70-200mm is one of the sharpest lenses on the planet and most definitely the sharpest zoom out there. It also yields great color.

Here's an example of no-post processing followed by the same image after processing:

http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=96853&g2_serialNumber=2

http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=97260&g2_serialNumber=1

Not a lot on this one... but I think you can see the difference.

JT

[andrewc]

What would help me enormously is some insight of what the pro's do in their post processing. I appreciate that this may be a bit of a delicate subject as part of the PP routine is part of what gives a particualar 'tog his or her own personal style.

So, assuming you've got a sharp, pleasing picture in camera, thats half the battle won, but a brief description of what you do afterwards to give it that 'pizazz', wow factor or punch would be a useful insight.

[Zilly]

its all about processing getting the picture sharp is half the battle the money shots are the ones that have been processed to perfection

if you guys want i can talk you threw how i process a image i dont mind

[andrewc]

well if you wouldn't mind that would be great.

Capturing the moment is one thing
Capturing the moment well is another
but turning it from 'could be better' to 'top of the class' would be interesting. I'm sure everyone has different processes and it may be an interesting topic.

[Zilly]

i wont show you all my secrets but ill give you more than enough to guid you in the right direction give me 20 minets

[baboymo]

Shot with a 30D and 70-200 2.8 IS. Handheld w/ center-point focus with AI Servo on. All jpegs during this session. I was able to get about 3-4 keepers in a 10 shot burst for each pass. Shots were done in Tv mode with shutter speeds between 1/160 and 1/200.

The only PP in this shot are color tweaks and curves adjustment..no sharpening at all.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1387/993708497_1972dd2884.jpg

[John Thawley]

What would help me enormously is some insight of what the pro's do in their post processing. I appreciate that this may be a bit of a delicate subject as part of the PP routine is part of what gives a particualar 'tog his or her own personal style.

So, assuming you've got a sharp, pleasing picture in camera, thats half the battle won, but a brief description of what you do afterwards to give it that 'pizazz', wow factor or punch would be a useful insight.

I think I may have a better handle on what you are looking for than the previous suggestions. Honestly, I don't think post processing is about "saving" bad pictures. The job of a photographer is to capture a good viable image in the camera. Post processing should involve steps that prepare the image for final "high quality" out put.

We're talking Photoshop... not PhotoCHOP. :)

I use Aperture exclusively. I will only use Photoshop if I need pixel manipulation. Typically, that means getting rid of sensor dust spots in delicate areas. Aperture has a spot tool... but good dust removal (especially with a pan shot) requires a brush.

So... that aside;

What you want to do is tighten up the image. All DSLRs run a low pass filter in front of the sensor to remove the "jaggies" in digital images. If you can picture blowing up the letter "W" font to 1000% enlargement, you'll see the staircase that pixels create... those are "jaggies." The problem with the low pass filter is it robs detail. Hence, the reason for unsharpen mask or what we call sharpening. You'll always want to apply your sharpening LAST.

In the sample image I posted, I first straightened the horizon. I find that gives the car (in the case) a much more aggressive attitude.

Second I bumped up the levels. In Aperture we have a tool called "Exposure." I find that by bumping the Exposure, Brightness and Contrast, I get a lot more "pop" to the image.

Then I will adjust the saturation. You can do this two ways... "Globally" to all colors, or by individual color. You can get away with a "touch" globally... but you want to be very careful you don't blow a particular color out and start losing shadow and detail. Reds can be notorious. I'll use individual colors to control what I want... often I want to push up the sky a bit. There are two elements to saturation. One is Saturation.. the other is Luminance. You need to coax them both along a little bit at a time.

I "might" use a "touch" of noise reduction before applying my unsharpen mask or sharpening. (same thing) Again... always watch for loss of detail.

Finally, sharpening. This has to be done delicately. I won't attempt to give you specifics since I don't use Photoshop anymore. But do some research and you will see "starting" points for the settings to try. In essence, unsharpening mask in Photoshop is throwing a slight bit of contrast under the edges... this gives the appearance of sharper edges. But your dealing with individual pixels... so if you go to far, you'll end up with a crunchy kind of an edge to things. If you get it right, you'll know. It's the same sensation as when a lens snaps into focus.

Play with your adjustment tools. Take them from one extreme to the other and watch what they do. Learn to be delicate... don't over do things. You're not playing a bass drum... it's a violin... subtle.. delicate.. precise.

After awhile, you'll get comfortable. You'll know what images to push the limits with and you'll know where to hold back a pit. You don't treat portraits the same as landscapes and so on.

No one said it would be easy... but if you can get a handle on it... you'll bring your photography to a new level.

And seriously, forget saving BAD images. It's not going to happen. Sure, there's a time or two when that's the image you have to have... so you do what you have to do. But there are no silk purses being made from sow's ears here. :)

But you can end up with images and colors like this:

http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=94854&g2_serialNumber=2

[TCorzett]

John covered it. You can't save a bad image with post, but you can make a good image great... or a great image awesome! Also, much of the post processing steps really depend on how you shoot and what type of things you like the look of. Personally, I find JT's processed shot to be a tad oversaturated for my tastes (but I'm not the photographer or client, so it really doesn't matter what my tastes are).

My post is usually quite minimal. First off I shoot with zero in-camera sharpening, so do a USM in photohsop (I believe it's a 300, 0.1, 0). This typically results in an image that I'm happy with, but some shots need different (more or less) sharpening... there really isn't any global thing you can do to everything all the time. The next thing for me is rotating horizons or verticals if things are slightly off. I will then typically crop the image. I then set my white and black points for the images in levels... because I typically shoot a 1/3rd stop or so underexposed (I don't like loosing my highlights) I then need to bump up some of the low-end details using the shadows & highlights tool in photoshop (the same thing can be achieved using curves or the mids in the level adjustment). This is typically all that I do with an image unless there is something more dramatic going on.


JPG+Sharpening
http://www.motorsport.com/photos/motogp/2007/usa/motogp-2007-usa-tc-0375.jpg

JPG+Sharpening+Crop+Levels
http://www.unitonestudios.com/gallery/motorsports/2007/07_MotoGP/images/07_MotoGP_11.JPG


As you can see, the difference is very minor. For the most part, if a shot needs more than just minor rotating/crop and levels then I will not use it. If I have to spend hours tweaking settings, creating masks, etc. then it's just not worth it for most things.

-Todd...

[andrewc]

Thanks John ( & Todd ) for spending the time composing that reply.

I agree with you when you say you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but sometimes you've got the shot in the can in every other respect, the colours and vibrancy needs a little pepping up, maybe the weather wasn't good and the light just wasn't there...

So far this summer, the weather in the UK has been pretty dreadful, whereas the rest of Europe has been melting under bright skies and a heatwave, so everyone here needs a bit of pepping up!

I'll try some of your tips next time, and whilst I don't use an Apple system, I think converting to Photoshop or other software will be fairly straightforward.

Thanks once again both of you for taking the trouble to reply.

Andrew

[dann22]

I appreciate the responses.
Thank you John for the step by step. I will give this some practice tonight.
Thanks tcorzett. I will use your advice and not try to save every shot.
Basically once I get a workflow that I am comfortable with I can stop wasting alot of time.

[evorgsumaf]

Great tutorial from both of you. I have followed Todd's work since I joined the board. But again, thank you both. I have some new "toys" to play with.

Brandon

[Woolburr]

Tips from two of the best...it doesn't get much better than that guys...Thanks John and Todd for sharing a little insight!

[John Thawley]

Just a clarification.... Todd is sharpening first. With all due respect, that is out of sequence. Sharpening is typically the last step. Do all your other tweaks first. I know many photographers that actually do sharpening AFTER they size an image.

If you're using Aperture (I can't speak for Lightroom) while you can do image adjustments in any sequence, Aperture applies them "intelligently".... sharpening is applied last automatically.

It should also be pointed out that what you see on screen and on the web is NOT what will appear in print. You need less sharpening for web images and also, saturation is much greater when viewed on a monitor.

As Todd noted, the Acura image is very saturated. Although... not so much by post processing.. it just so happened that the morning light was pushing all the colors (to my delight.) DId I push them more? Yes. :)

Once you get the mental muscles developed to see your images as you want to see them, the next step is knowing how to apply them for different forms of output. Electronic, photo print, or offset print. A good thing to keep in mind is pixel resolution required for each type of output. Electronic is typically 72 ppi. Photo printers are usually happy around 144 ppi, while offset press printing requires 300 ppi. So.... do the math... the more pixel count/ resolution, the more you push the image. Remember what you are doing. You are manipulating PIXELS. So pixels take on a different size with each type of out put. 72 pixels per inch - 144 pixels per inch - 300 pixels per inch. The inch never changes.. the size of the pixel does. So if you do too much at 72 per inch... it's going to show. If you don't do enough at 300 per inch... it's not going to have the effect you want.

Hope that helps.

JT

PS: Just a quick story on the Acura shot. I had the opportunity to have dinner with Louis Diaz (co-driver or the Lowes Acura) on Tuesday night. He saw the shot on my iPhone. The next day I saw him with Adrian Fernandez and Adrian ordered a large print. ;) Gotta love the iPhone. LOL

[TCorzett]

Just a clarification.... Todd is sharpening first. With all due respect, that is out of sequence. Sharpening is typically the last step. Do all your other tweaks first. I know many photographers that actually do sharpening AFTER they size an image.
I've found that for my web work this process works great. Again, it all has to do with your tastes and the final use of the images. I will also do additional sharpening after final resizing to fit the final use. I like to do a tad of sharpening at the beginning (much like the in camera sharpening might do).

I've never really done side-by-side comparisons of sharpening before vs. after, so can't say if one way is better than the other in a double-blinded way. In theory I'm sure it makes a difference, but I doubt that I could show someone two prints and have them able to determine which one was sharpened first vs. last... again, I've never done the tests to prove it though (I did do a test the other day for a one-step vs. multi-step interpolation... and the multi-step won hands down... but not a the viewing distance for the 2'x3' print, which was identical in my eyes).

-Todd...

[John Thawley]

Todd:

To be fair, I think the most important thing here is getting people accurate information. Certainly, you can use unsharpen mask on the image "first"... I see no problem with that one way or the other.

However, unsharpen mask is a process of adding contrast to the edges in an image giving the appearance of sharper. This used to be done in the "wet" darkroom using two negatives.. one slightly blurred... stack on top of one another. Now... Photoshop doesn't find the edges in your image. Instead, it locates pixels that differ in value from surrounding pixels by the threshold you specify. It then increases the contrast of neighboring pixels by the amount you specify. So, for neighboring pixels the lighter pixels get lighter and the darker pixels get darker. Hence, the reason you should sharpen AFTER your other adjustments.

This is especially critical with noise reduction. If you have a noisy image and you apply Unsharpen Mask before the noise filter, you will simply end up sharpening (read increasing) the grain/noise.

Finally, the effects of the Unsharp Mask filter are more pronounced on‑screen than in high-resolution output. If your final destination is print, experiment to determine what settings work best for your image.

It is best to sharpen an image multiple times in small amounts. Sharpen the first time to correct blur caused by capturing your image (scanning it or taking it with your digital camera). AFTER you’ve color corrected and sized your image, sharpen it again (or a copy of it) to add the appropriate amount of sharpening for your output medium.

I've paraphrased from Adobe's online documents... but believe me, this isn't a matter of "taste"... there is a proper method and it will produce the best results.

JT

[Ospi]

Great posts and advice guys. Iv been doing more or less the same process, though since i shoot in RAW i fix my levels, saturation, shadows etc in that before putting it in photoshop for resizing and sharpening. Though i need to work on my initial photos lolol.

Anyway awesome advice, ill certainly be back and forth from this thread.

[Baldone]

could anyone give me a tutorial on posting 8 shots instead of just 2 in laymans terms email or pm i don't mind which thanks :)

[PhotosGuy]

tutorial on posting 8 shots Post a link to an image
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3914336&postcount=11

[S.Horton]

What would help me enormously is some insight of what the pro's do in their post processing. I appreciate that this may be a bit of a delicate subject as part of the PP routine is part of what gives a particualar 'tog his or her own personal style.

So, assuming you've got a sharp, pleasing picture in camera, thats half the battle won, but a brief description of what you do afterwards to give it that 'pizazz', wow factor or punch would be a useful insight.

I asked this question so many times in many posts -- always quizzical about how people process color, sharpness, etc. So, I know exactly how you feel!

Short answer: There is no standard process.

Medium-sized answer: Process selected depends upon what software you're using to process photos and the subject of the photo, plus the desired outcome.

I'm sure it took me more time, outright, to learn enough PP to get by than it did to get the light into the camera properly.

[jasestu]

I've come across what I think is some damn good rally photography here - http://www.blackbullet.com/nelsonrally/page_01.htm

I'm trying to work out what I need to do to get to that level. If you've got time I'd appreciate a comparison between the above and some of my rally work (examples here: http://www.colourandlight.co.nz/galleries/tmmc21oct07/index.html)

The Nelson Rally ones on the blackbullet site are really crisp, is it a function of post processing, or better lighting to start with?

Take a look at some of those Nelson Rally ones about 3/4 down the page, vs one of mine for comparison (below), where do I improve?

[John Thawley]

I don't shoot rally.... but I can tell you that your shot is over-exposed.

From a content standpoint, your shot is not very interesting. It's a car a bit sideways. Can't see wheels spinning.. a little dust a little crossed up... that's it. At the end of the day, it's all about content. The other site you point to are providing good perspective with unique angles to the action. I didn't notice any unusual post-processing... just good timing and a good eye for being where the action is. You'll also notice, their shots are looking up... or looking down... some wide angle stuff... all very "in your face" and interesting.

John

[Over Actor]

I've also been trying to get some feed back on making my Photos "pop" I'm usually racing at the tracks but when Im not I get my camera out and shoot a few.

Ive been told alot of my angle's and photos looks good. But I know my PP is off. My photos come out over exposed alot so i have to make up for it. Which makes for some over saturation.
But to tell you the truth. the first image you posted john as a comparison. Helped the most.

Being able to take the unedited photo make adjustments to look like your finished photo helped me learn photoshop( newb).
So I guess practice makes perfect. and I def. need to learn photoshop.

Here one that I did at an auto-x the other day. Any tips?
20d with a 24-85 ef lens
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb65/flat4nc/Sanfordauto-x56.jpg

[JD1476]

I've been having trouble with printing out what I shoot . I don't know if its the printer settings , the paper, or my resolution. I use Canon Digital Photo Professional to adjust most of my pictures. Then when it come time to print At first I was using 500 dpi which I thought was ok ( thinking higher dpi the bester the output ). Then I started reading some posts on the net & dropped it to 300 dpi & still looks a little off & isn't getting the look I want. I'm using an HP 3 in 1 photo printer & every day photo paper glossy. What can I do to make the prints look more natural, (I shoot with a Canon XT & 30D camera)?



Thanks,

JD

[andrewc]

is your monitor calibrated?
is your printer calibrated?

[John Thawley]

I've been having trouble with printing out what I shoot . I don't know if its the printer settings , the paper, or my resolution. I use Canon Digital Photo Professional to adjust most of my pictures. Then when it come time to print At first I was using 500 dpi which I thought was ok ( thinking higher dpi the bester the output ). Then I started reading some posts on the net & dropped it to 300 dpi & still looks a little off & isn't getting the look I want. I'm using an HP 3 in 1 photo printer & every day photo paper glossy. What can I do to make the prints look more natural, (I shoot with a Canon XT & 30D camera)?



Thanks,

JD

I doubt "calibrating" is your problem at this stage. Calibrating is typically an issue when you get to color critical levels. Sounds like you're still trying to find the ballpark.

Understand this, printing can tend to be a bit of a black art until you find a winning combination of settings and paper.

There are some set-up steps you should run through via your printers manual. Make sure you follow those... cleaning, head alignment etc. And, by all means, use their ink.. not refills or off brands.

Also, buy the paper they recommend.

Now, DON'T edit a photo. Take one out of the camera and print it.

What I'm trying to do here is get you to begin with baseline / default settings. You need to know that your starting right according to "the book."

Inkjet printers should do fine at 144 ppi.

If you follow all the BASIC set up and settings, you should get a decent result.

From there, start making your changes, but only change ONE THING at a time. Monitor what that change does. DO NOT change two or three things at once. You won't know which change as been effective or screwed things up.

You need to create your process. Start basic... adjust.. find a set of settings you like and work from there. You can't be all over the place with your printer settings. You'll never get it right.

If you decide to try another brand of paper... be prepared for a change... and a possible change in your settings to get what you like.

I don't know about editing in Canon's software, but if you continue to use it, see if there is a "printer profile" (which is a color profile) for your printer. Also, check in your print settings if there is a "Paper profile" for the type of paper you're using.

This will all take a bit of work... but, as I said, it's something you'll do once and find your baseline. If you plan on doing a lot of printing, it will be well worth your while (and hairline) to get it right.

Honestly, I don't do it anymore. I find labs do a much better job... even Costco or Walmart can pretty much nail it at a far less cost (after you calculate your time, paper, ink and throw-aways) than doing it at home.

All the best,

JT

[andrewc]

I thought my prints were off what I was seeing on screen as the monitor required calibrating. Since getting a Pantone Huey, my prints have been what I'd expected - I'd been making the mistake of optimising for my screen which was off colour...

I only use my home printer for quick things, I use a local lab or online services for most stuff.

[JD1476]

Another thing I notice is that when I export to PS sometimes the pictures look darker. I've ordered prints of slightly touched up pictures & they seem fine.

I've thought about buying a monitor calibrating device, but a bit hesitant due to reviews of a few of them. I feel they are some what of a gimmick & the same results can be had without it.

I'm starting to use RAW more often, but like the amount of pictures I can get with JPG large format.......

I'm currently using 4 gig Extreme III Sandisk cards.
At home I use a Dell ultra Sharp 19" monitor with digital DVI connection for viewing & editing & a 640 MB EVGA video card.

[andrewc]

Maybe worth asking around to see if you could borrow a monitor calibrator. My one made quite a difference. The default was very blue compared to the calibrated colours.

[Welby]

Another thing I notice is that when I export to PS sometimes the pictures look darker.

This would be due to PS being a colour managed program as opposed to when you are viewing them in windows explorer or whatever you use not being colour managed hence the differing colours. Same goes for many web browsers. Have a good read in the processing forum about colour management.

[spurry05]

just a quick one for TCorzett and John Thawley or any one that want to answer go give the humble opinion


are you guy's shooting in jpeg or raw? please

and btw hi nice forum

[Shutterbug Doug]

John and TC, great stuff here! i suggest everyone rate this thread and see if it can get a sticky somewhere because you both have given all of us aspiring motorsports photogs some great shooting and PP tips here!
The attached shot isn't supposed to be interesting, it's supposed to be purdy.....lol
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c288/DChellew/Tour%20de%20Georgia%202008/Porsche.jpg

[spurry05]

just a quick one for TCorzett and John Thawley or any one that want to answer go give the humble opinion


are you guy's shooting in jpeg or raw? please

and btw hi nice forum
anyone help me on this please

[John Thawley]

For the most part, I shoot jpeg.

JT

[Wishbone Racing]

Niavely I always viewed post processing as "cheating" but after reading this thread and thinking of it as the dark room stage, I'll go back to some of my favorite images and have a go at the tings I've read about.

[ryant35]

Niavely I always viewed post processing as "cheating" but after reading this thread and thinking of it as the dark room stage, I'll go back to some of my favorite images and have a go at the tings I've read about.

I used to feel this way, but now I shoot off-road racing and it gets dusty, so post processing is necessary to fix any washed out shots because of dust.

This is right out of my 40D. Although I do have my saturation & sharpness turned up a little.
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k173/ryant35/IMG_4080.jpg

[monkeynuts1]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/monkeynuts1954/lemans02034.jpg
Hi guy's great site and i am trying to learn all the time .Yhis shot was taken at last years le-mans ...........do your worst :othe post above stated that he had increased the sharpness and saturation in the camera how?i have a 40D

[ryant35]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/monkeynuts1954/lemans02034.jpg
Hi guy's great site and i am trying to learn all the time .Yhis shot was taken at last years le-mans ...........do your worst :othe post above stated that he had increased the sharpness and saturation in the camera how?i have a 40D

The image style button under you lcd screen. I set the first under defined option for motorsports, sharpness up 1 stop & saturation up 2.

[monkeynuts1]

The image style button under you lcd screen. I set the first under defined option for motorsports, sharpness up 1 stop & saturation up 2.
Is this a rule of thumb or these settings can be used for all motorsports also what effect does this have becuase sometimes my pictures are bland in color/contrast even though the shot is good (if you understand what i mean)..................even more confused STEVE:confused:

[ryant35]

Is this a rule of thumb or these settings can be used for all motorsports also what effect does this have becuase sometimes my pictures are bland in color/contrast even though the shot is good (if you understand what i mean)..................even more confused STEVE:confused:


No rule of thumb, I just noticed when you make these changes on the 40D that actually make a difference in the pictures. I never noticed a change in my old 20D.

So instead of having to photo shop thousands of images, I make the changes I like in the camera.

[Wishbone Racing]

Ok I gave it a shot, here's my first attempt.....
Before.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a27/HarveyWishbone/BSN49.jpg

After.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a27/HarveyWishbone/BSN49-1.jpg

[monkeynuts1]

No rule of thumb, I just noticed when you make these changes on the 40D that actually make a difference in the pictures. I never noticed a change in my old 20D.

So instead of having to photo shop thousands of images, I make the changes I like in the camera.
Well it helps if you read the instructions :oI had the settings on faithfull which might be the dull tone to the shots ,I have taken your advice and i will give it a go (all the gear and no idea):rolleyes:I have just swapped from a 350D to the 40D so loads of settings to understand............Steve:lol:

[ryant35]

Well it helps if you read the instructions :oI had the settings on faithfull which might be the dull tone to the shots ,I have taken your advice and i will give it a go (all the gear and no idea):rolleyes:I have just swapped from a 350D to the 40D so loads of settings to understand............Steve:lol:

I had to do the same thing. I upgraded from my 20D and saw a new button and of course I had to play with it.

[rnourse]

Just remember that picture styles are applied to jpegs but not (directly) to RAW photos.

DPP will interpret the picture style for a RAW and apply it but lightroom will not. That's why lightroom previews look great (the embedded thumbnail jpeg has the style applied) but then seem to suddenly desaturate when the actual raw is rendered. Lightroom doesnt honor picture styles unless its actually been applied to the image directly (a la jpeg)

[williamsf1]

question for you guys...

I'm still learning my 40D (some great tips on this site!!!!) however can someone answer this??

on the rotary dial when you set the sports setting, you get the H for highspeed multi frame rate 6.5 a second....

how do you get that using say Tv ?

I want to take pics at high speed, so I am guessing I need say ISO 100 1/125 and Tv

ideas?

Im using a 17-85 and 100-400 white lens...

cheers!

[John Thawley]

question for you guys...


on the rotary dial when you set the sports setting, you get the H for highspeed multi frame rate 6.5 a second....

how do you get that using say Tv ?


cheers!

Push the button on top marked AF • Drive then spin the big thumb wheel on the back of the camera. This will provide you with single shot, timed shot, slow speed burst and high speed burst choices.

[JVBAKER0]

I've got myself tied in knots regarding the best "philosophy" when shooting fast moving objects. I've been trying to take some pictures of motorcycles in action and I just can't seem to get a really sharp image. I"m shooting an XTi with a 70-200 f4 IS. Is it fundamentally easier get sharper pictures by increasing the f/# ( and therefore increasing the DOF) or by using a faster shutter speed ? Is it easier to get a sharper picture at the short or long end of the zoom range.
I'm relatively new to this style of photography so admittedly my panning skills need some work.
Pardon me if this is a dumb question but I've managed to frustrate myelf big time and I could use some advice to help push the reset button.
Thanks.

[John Thawley]

If you are panning the shot (following the subject) Depth of Field is completely irrelevant.

Put your camera in Tv mode... start with a reasonably higher shutter... for bikes, start at maybe 1/500 - now follow the bike ... shoot.... keep following.

You should also set the camera to a single focus point (sensor).

Once you're getting good results, start lowering the shutter speed. 1/400 - 1/320 etc.

With bikes, you'll not need to go too slow. Ultimately, you will reach a point where something is NOT sharp... you may have a sharp section in the image.. but other areas will be soft. This is normal as you slow the shutter down. With cars... that can be acceptable. With bikes, you'll want the rider and the bike to be sharp. So, unless you're going for "art"... don't get it too slow.

The zoom range is not necessarily a factor... but it does make a difference in your movement. Remember, an object further away from you is passing you at a slower rate. Closer to you, it is passing at a greater rate. Speed blur and panning is all about the camera movement. You'll want to position yourself at a distance from the subject that allows you to pan smoothly and comfortably. Too fast is jerky... to slow is wobbly. So a zoom can help you fine tune the distance to fit YOUR panning motion to the car's rate of travel.

If you search this part of the site, I'm sure there are some tutorials of mine that talk about panning.

JT

[ryant35]

I agree with everything in the post above, and to add my 2 cents, when I was learning to pan I would go back on the LCD screen and zoom in the vehicle to determine if it was sharp and that the background is blurred enough to your liking. My average shutter speed is 1/250 sec in Tv mode. I go slower for a while and then faster if my subject is moving towards me. You will eventually learn what parts of a track are good for which speeds.Also when you shoot in Tv at 1/250 sec you end over f/8 so that fixes your depth of field question.

If you are shooting on a flat level track I suggest shooting with a monopod to start out. But if you can use the collar mount on the lens not the bottom of the body, IMO it's really akward to handle the camera this way.

[GilesGuthrie]

The previous posters have given you most of what you need, but don't forget you need the AF Mode to be AI Servo as your distance to the subject changes as you pan.

It may help if you post some samples for critique.

[williamsf1]

ok after reading a lot on here.... this is what I cam up with!

last weekend at silverstone F3

camera is 40D 100-400 lens no editing no photo shop...ISO 100 F 7.1 1/200th


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/2775790043_2bf1b8d474_b.jpg