"Running" - Themed Thread Photo Challenge

[skygod44]

Hey guys 'n' girls, here's a challenge to get your teeth into and your AF going into melt-down, hopefully with the result that we can all improve our ability.

The challenge is this:

Post pictures of people or animals (or I suppose birds too, if they're on the ground) RUNNING.

Try NOT to always use high shutter speeds in perfect conditions, and we'll see how much we can all improve and help each other to develop better techniques.

To start with are two from my daughter's Sports Festival yesterday (she's the second one :D) - sadly, I am guilty of too often relying on high shutter speeds, so I want to improve my panning skills too!

Enjoy, and get photographing those moving creatures!!!

[bsaber]

Interesting idea, Simon.

[skygod44]

Interesting idea, Simon.
Thanks Ronnie....these things just come to me - not sure yet of I should be worried?! - but hope you can have a go and either add to the teaching or learning side of the thread. Or both!!
:D

[bsaber]

Here's my contribution. It's not really running but we were walking pretty fast :D

http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt207/ronc86/nightwalking.jpg

[skygod44]

Here's my contribution. It's not really running but we were walking pretty fast :D

Ohhh! Nicely done Ronnie. Love how the blur "works" and shows motion, rather than something OOF.

[Veemac]

I'll play (from a softball tournament I shot last month):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3511/3924792214_823941822e_o.jpg

[Mike]

Shouldn't this be in the Competitions section?

Anyway, here's some from me:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3977698130_85a54f2696_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/3977750330_8df0fde74e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3507/3976954269_792b1abb46_o.jpg

[airfrogusmc]

Here's my contribution. It's not really running but we were walking pretty fast :D

http://i612.photobucket.com/albums/tt207/ronc86/nightwalking.jpg

Killer shot.

Heres a couple of mine.
Just walk'n here
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_9283.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_0796.jpg

and another walk but a fast one
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/Road/158ThompsonCenter-1.jpg

[yogestee]

Boy,,just looking at these images is making me tired :rolleyes:

[tracknut]

Running, and "run over" in one shot :)

http://www.pixf.com/dm_68595.jpg

[yogestee]

One from me..

[tracknut]

One from me..

Yow!

[bsaber]

Ohhh! Nicely done Ronnie. Love how the blur "works" and shows motion, rather than something OOF.

Thanks, Simon! :D

Killer shot.

Thanks!

[tracknut]

Another one - "Hommage to Eadweard Muybridge"

http://www.go-fast.org/albums/dino/a0606/slides/running.jpg

Also see this link (http://www.borzoi.org/anime.html) for high tech animation....

[ssracer]

Spring meet at churchhill downs (good conditions)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3662/3487299072_843bd3c9af_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3656/3487304122_a067bb46b9_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3626/3487295968_4fa02211bd_b.jpg

Not a person or animal...but panning nonetheless
Indy 500 (great conditions):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3561312447_976b18ce1c_b.jpg

Richmond fall race (Way less than ideal conditions for my limited equipment...iso1600 still only got me 1/60)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2467/3985157419_eb8daeee7e_b.jpg

[skygod44]

Hey guys! Great additions to start things off (no Mike, it's not a competition), so let's up the ante.

Motion by humans and animals clearly has some serious issues when not filmed but photographed. Heads bob up-and-down when we walk/jog, and only become a little steadier when we sprint. If you go for a high shutter speed, like my initial shots, the feeling of motion is "robbed" by the brevity of the exposure. But if we use a longer shutter speed, the body's bobbing up-and-down results in a blurred blob for a head.

Can anyone provide some pics which optimize the "in between" of these two extremes for people/animals? Maybe together, we can get some idea/guide to shutter speeds to get the 'feel' of the motion but not the blur.

Also, what do you all think about the shots with horses and dogs where clods of earth or mud/sand-spray kicked up kinda add to the sensation of motion? Does that a give a better sensation of speed than the blurred backgrounds...?

Do add your thoughts/pics.....
Cheers all.
:D

[hollis_f]

My first outing with my 7D was to take some shots of my friend's horse. Unfortunately the weather outside was abysmal and the indoor area is very, very dark. Even at f4 and ISO1600 I was stuck shooting at 1/15s. Still, when given lemons you make lemonade - so I decided to try some motion blur shots. And found that you really need faster than 1/15s for a cantering horse - still I quite like this one...

http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/7D_20090928_044.jpg

I'm definitely going back to try again. There are certain stages in the jump when the horse's head is virtually motionless and I'd sure I can get some better versions of this.

[tracknut]

AS you've noted, it's very hard to get a decent panned shot of an animal (probably a human, I don't know) in motion. As compared to a car, where the only thing with relative movement is the spokes of the wheel. I've found that my customers generally do not want those shots either, they see them as "out of focus" rather than artistically interesting. In any event, I shoot them once in a while for fun to see what I can get.

Here's one, shot at 1/80:
http://www.go-fast.org/albums/indy/a0607/slides/dm_14332.jpg

and one at 1/15th:
http://www.go-fast.org/albums/dino/a0512/slides/img_9278.jpg

On the other hand, showing the dog's body movement and position is of great importance to the owners. Rather than blurred legs, they want to see interesting positions, dogs in extended and tucked positions, and dogs doing what they were bred to do. Blurred backgrounds are cool, but many customers don't notice them either. As a rule, they don't want "art" (even B&W is a no go), they want accurate images of the extremes of performance.

Here's two examples that have had great interest:

This one because of the lean of the dog and tucked legs through a turn:
http://www.go-fast.org/albums/indy/a0602/slides/mg_13410.jpg

And even though this is oof, it shows an extreme of the spine of a borzoi, fully extended, even hyperextended (concave):
http://www.pixf.com/dm_76580.jpg

And yes, dirt flying is a good thing, I just don't happen to have my fingers on one at the moment.

Dave

[ssim]

I ran across these guys near Sedona, Arizona and they were running and jumping into a pool in a stream. I shot these on my 1DmkIII and then copied each image to a new layer and then masked out the background where appropriate. They really had to run to get out past the rock outcrops and land in the water.

http://www.pbase.com/ssim/image/117948427.jpg

[ssracer]

and one at 1/15th:
http://www.go-fast.org/albums/dino/a0512/slides/img_9278.jpg



I actually really like this shot for some reason

One place that cars can become tricky is in the corners as they are all varying their speed. I have a couple from turn one at richmond where one car will look good but they get blurrier as you move out from that car. Its hard to get the car you want to be the one that is sharp...lol

[Karlo]

http://ks-foto.com/images/20091006193723_img_2633sports.jpg

Here is my addition.

[tracknut]

One place that cars can become tricky is in the corners as they are all varying their speed. I have a couple from turn one at richmond where one car will look good but they get blurrier as you move out from that car. Its hard to get the car you want to be the one that is sharp...lol

Yep, not only that but at a corner, the car(s) is not staying the same distance from you, so purely panning is not going to keep the whole car in focus. Some of the car is getting closer to you, some may be getting further away from you... basically it's a mess :)

Dave

[skygod44]

Excellent additions from Frank, Dave, Karlo and Sean. Thanks guys.
Frank, I think it's really interesting how the noise in your horse shot somehow adds to the feeling of the hideousness of the shoot itself, and I for one, love the artistic effect, despite the "technically inferior" result.
But as Dave pointed out, pet owners don't (usually/ever?) want art. Just a picture that shows their pet in an "odd" position. So if it's animals we're shooting for their owners, that shot would, unfortunately, be "out".
So where does that leave us?
Looking at Karlo's pic, I laughed out loud because I suddenly felt that the runners could have been simply balancing on one leg - and yet I love the feeling that they're running into the frame, top-right! I've attached another pic of my daughter that I think gets around the issue of a "balancing-on-one-foot-runner", because I chose a shooting location where I'd scouted out the other kids, and the faster ones were all leaning over - as did my daughter.
But still, I don't like it that much........
I'm still pondering on this one though, because I love motion in a stationary photo. It's what, for me, epitomizes how a photo can outclass video a thousand times over - "motion in a moment of time".
Over to you.....

[hollis_f]

Frank, I think it's really interesting how the noise in your horse shot somehow adds to the feeling of the hideousness of the shoot itself, and I for one, love the artistic effect, despite the "technically inferior" result.
But as Dave pointed out, pet owners don't (usually/ever?) want art. Just a picture that shows their pet in an "odd" position. So if it's animals we're shooting for their owners, that shot would, unfortunately, be "out".


Tee-Hee. I guess I'm lucky. My friend is a very arty-type. That shot is the one she didn't like too much, the others were much more blurred. This was one of her favourites!

http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/7D_20090928_035.jpg

[skygod44]

Tee-Hee. I guess I'm lucky. My friend is a very arty-type. That shot is the one she didn't like too much, the others were much more blurred. This was one of her favourites!
Wow! Goes to show how communication with the "client" (if she is one, or even if she isn't!) is so important. I'm reminded of a model shoot I did in July where a shot I was going to bin was my wife's favourite, and the client was stunned by it....never would have guessed myself!

[ssracer]

Here's an example of what I was talking about when the cars get into the corner...I was shooting for the 88, but I think the 44 actually came out the most clear:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2663/3985894674_e907319b98_b.jpg

One I kept trying to get all night was the glowing brakes in the middle of the corner...I never could quite get it right. Too many variations of car speed and position. This was as close as I got:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2517/3985153599_09a17df2bc_b.jpg

[yogestee]

Not strictly people running but people on machines that are travelling bloody fast..

Panned..

[skygod44]

Interesting Sean, but can you lend your skills to perfecting a "running" shot? It's really a combination of panning and establishing an exposure-guide that I'm aiming at in here to get motion frozen, but with living things.....
Thanks anyway for showing great panning skills.
:D

EDIT:
And you too, Jurgen! I've seen lots of great shots from you in Laos....any of them with, for example, kids "running"? If not, then this is your next challenge!
;-)

[ssracer]

I am far less capable when it comes to people...especially my two and a half year old. Here's one from this weekend where he was chasing some other kids in a circle...keeping up with the sporadic pattern was hard enough, then my lens has trouble keeping up with focus as he kept getting closer then further quite fast...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2543/3989156992_2da88f0b27_b.jpg

[yogestee]

And you too, Jurgen! I've seen lots of great shots from you in Laos....any of them with, for example, kids "running"? If not, then this is your next challenge!
;-)


Thanks Simon.. OK,,the gauntlet has been thrown down,,I'll take up the challenge..

[skygod44]

I am far less capable when it comes to people...especially my two and a half year old. Here's one from this weekend where he was chasing some other kids in a circle...keeping up with the sporadic pattern was hard enough, then my lens has trouble keeping up with focus as he kept getting closer then further quite fast...
Now we're talking!!!!
Ok, so, first of all - what a gorgeous son you have Sean! So, are you using servo mode in these? I find it works with my 100-400L, but not so good with my other lenses. Instead, I use single shot, have the focus on the *button and pick a spot just in front of the subject to pre-focus on, and then "go for it" as they move through the in-focus zone. The accuracy needed then depends on the aperture I'm trying for. And that bit is what really challenges me!
Thanks Simon.. OK,,the gauntlet has been thrown down,,I'll take up the challenge..
Excellent! Looking forward to it.
Let's all improve together!
:D

[ssracer]

Thanks! I have tried both servo and single shot. I think I was actually in single shot here because I had been shooting still pics all day and didn't think to change it when they started runing. As much as I love my 50mm 1.8 II, focusing speed is not one of its better features...lol. I also use the * button for my AF.

[skygod44]

Thanks! I have tried both servo and single shot. I think I was actually in single shot here because I had been shooting still pics all day and didn't think to change it when they started running. As much as I love my 50mm 1.8 II, focusing speed is not one of its better features...lol. I also use the * button for my AF.
What about the aperture? I can't access the EXIF on your shot, but I'm guessing it was around f/2? And I know what you mean about focus speed, and loving a 50mm lens - my 50mm is highly over-used, and I have a horrid feeling that the motor will die before I can afford to upgrade it....though I'm not sure the 50L is much quicker either...
:rolleyes:

[ssracer]

Aperture was 2.8 on that shot and shutter speed was 1/250

[skygod44]

Aperture was 2.8 on that shot and shutter speed was 1/250
Ouch! Very tricky to nail it on a moving 2 year-old! Next time, try the pre-focus method I mentioned, and if he's not bobbing his head up and down too much, try different aperture/exposure combos so we can see if there's a "magic ratio" for kids. And I'll do the same with my daughter, as soon as the current typhoon blows itself out.

[tracknut]

Ouch! Very tricky to nail it on a moving 2 year-old! Next time, try the pre-focus method I mentioned, and if he's not bobbing his head up and down too much, try different aperture/exposure combos so we can see if there's a "magic ratio" for kids. And I'll do the same with my daughter, as soon as the current typhoon blows itself out.

I would suggest that you're talking about a very different type of shot here, and that pre-focusing isn't going to help one bit in this scenario.

First, you're talking about a kid running toward you, I presume, and your focus point is somewhere just in front of him, and you have your magic finger poised on the shutter button, waiting for the kid to run through the focus window. So this is no longer a discussion of panning, showing motion, etc, as there is no way you'll get a panned shot here unless you wanted the background still and the kid blurry. Maybe I'm missing the possible artistic shot here, I just don't see anything useful out of that. So given that qualifier, there's no reason not to use a high enough shutter speed to just freeze the kid. Set it to 1/1000 and be done with any worry about motion. And then you only have focus to worry about. This problem is one of tracking the kid with the center focus point, and having a camera and lens that can keep up. I would hazard that this should be quite doable with reasonable pro-sumer equipment. I used to shoot dogs running straight at me with a 20D and 100-400 lens, and it worked perfectly fine. I'm sure the newer cameras are focusing faster than the 20D, and while the 100-400 is a good lens, it's not stellar fast.

On the other hand, if you're not talking about the kid running toward you, but instead he's running laterally such that you could conceive of panning, then rather than pre-focusing somewhere, you can certainly just track him with the center focus point, as usual, and try to get one of the "movement shots" this thread is about.

Dave

[ssracer]

I was actually attempting to track him around his entire running circle, so panning was definitely in play. This just happened to be the only shot that came reasonably close enough to OK to keep. But I do understand your point.

[skygod44]

I would suggest that you're talking about a very different type of shot here, and that pre-focusing isn't going to help one bit in this scenario..... Dave
Get what you're saying Dave, but I disagree that motion towards us means that freezing action is the only/best option.....
I was actually attempting to track him around his entire running circle, so panning was definitely in play. This just happened to be the only shot that came reasonably close enough to OK to keep. But I do understand your point.
.....what I'm suggesting, is that with kids (or most people/animals really) arms/legs tend to flap all over the place when they're running. And especially when they move towards us, the head should move less, relative to the arms/legs, as far as our position of view is concerned. So blurring arms/hands/legs could be much easier to achieve if the subject is moving towards us.
Thoughts?
Pics?

[tracknut]

I guess my point would be that if the kid (or whatever) is coming toward you, and your interest is in keeping his head in focus, panning is not the solution. Zooming might be closer to the solution, but even still, the perspective is changing. So while the head may be steadier than the arms, it's still going to end up out of focus regardless of your mad skilz with the camera.

Dave

[skygod44]

I guess my point would be that if the kid (or whatever) is coming toward you, and your interest is in keeping his head in focus, panning is not the solution. Zooming might be closer to the solution, but even still, the perspective is changing. So while the head may be steadier than the arms, it's still going to end up out of focus regardless of your mad skilz with the camera.
Dave
Very true.

Well, I'm stumped.
All I can think of doing is some dull maths using exposure times, distance from lens, and acceptable movement of limbs vs heads to retain some blur while keeping the head in focus enough.
And I never liked maths at school!
:rolleyes:

[bric-a-brac]

bride's idea... who am I to argue? :p

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2655/3989720585_c1fd8baf35.jpg

[skygod44]

bride's idea... who am I to argue? :p

That's clever. Posed, but clever!
So despite the lack of motion, the concept works.
Maybe you've got a new approach there, bric-a-brac!
(Well, not brand new, but worthy of experimentation!)
Thanks for adding....