Ford Fair 06 Silverstone

[jaymes]

http://jaymesd.fotki.com/car_shows/ff06/

theres my photos from ford fair 06 - i borrowd my mates sigma 70-300mm (but the AF didnt work) i am quite pleased but always happy for some constructive critism (mainly the ones on the track)

[DOverton]

Look good

but too far away, they need a tighter crop if possible

Dan.

[Pete]

Shame about the watermark obscuring the object in many of the pictures. Yep, should be cropped tighter, or got in closer. I managed fairly well there, despite a fence getting in the way... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=201147

Really wished I'd got down to the 0-60 strip though.

[asylumxl]

look pretty good especially consider the af on the lens wasnt working.

[Pete]

Just have to close the aperture down, focus on something track side around the area the cars are going to be and just keep the focus where it is. At those kinds of ranges, the focusing won't change very much. Could even go for the hyperfocal method without too much trouble.

[Trung_EP3CTR]

Most of the track photos look very static. The first set on page 1 looked like you stood and wait for the cars to go past and then you shoot.



Try panning with the cars.

[Jimages]

It's quite difficult to fully appraise those images due their small size, but I would generally agree that the cars look very small in the image. There isn't an awful lot at Silverstone worth having as a background back drop, except perhapps the BRDC clubhouse building.

I'd recomend on getting the cars much larger in frame, and don't worry about gettting multiple cars in frame. Concentrate on 1 and the rest come as a bonus.

300mm is short for many viewing points at Silverstone especially in the public areas, and I can see from your pictures that did shoot from the areas I'm about to suggest.

Outside of Bridge corner. Get up high on the seated terrace, and get a close up pan of the cars as they take the apex.

Inside of Bridge, 3/4 shots to pans as they arrive/apex brooklands priory.

Luffield, you can get a good degree of close up angles here, and there is a spot in the disabled viewing area, where you can get right up againt the fence without trespassing.

Outside of Club exit, where the fence is low, 3/4 pan shots here are relavtively easy as you can get the car in frame without the fence in the way too much.

[jaymes]

thanks guys

yeh i know what you mean they look static the ones that i tryed of panning they were just blurry

the lens was on full zoom - couldnt get all that near to track i thought unless i just didnt find a place

the watermark i may take off, just put on some of them

[Jimages]

Or have a watermark and credit line in the corners.

like...

Trouble is with having a large watermark across the middle of a small image is that it puts people of looking at the image.

[jaymes]

yeh i see what you mean

didnt think as they get resized when i upload them

i can only get better at taking pics i suppose - i should be going to some more motorsports events soon i hope so i can 'practise' then but hopefully i will be gettin a new lens soonish

i quite liked the sigma 70-300mm and i think would like it better if it autofocused

ive seen these brand new for around the £100 mark - are there any other lenses for this sort of stuff around same price?

[Jimages]

Depending on how serious you about your photography, I'd encourage you to look at having a much higher budget for a lense.

Look at something like a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, you can often pick up these in excellent condition on ebay, and you always put a 1.4 or 2.0 convertor on it. My 70-200 cost me about £350 and my tele-convertor cost about £80.

[jaymes]

ive re uplaoded them all without the watermark on the photos so might be able to see them a bit better now

well i am and am not - i like taking pics etc and i know that a good lense helps a lot. i was lucky enough to come into some money to get my camera - i could come into some more soon but dunno whether to 'blow' it all or save some

i dont have a clue whats best for what and what everythin means on lenses - eg whats the f2.8? i thought a 70-300 would zoom more than a 70-200 but am guessin not now

[asylumxl]

Originally Posted by jaymes

ive re uplaoded them all without the watermark on the photos so might be able to see them a bit better now

well i am and am not - i like taking pics etc and i know that a good lense helps a lot. i was lucky enough to come into some money to get my camera - i could come into some more soon but dunno whether to 'blow' it all or save some

i dont have a clue whats best for what and what everythin means on lenses - eg whats the f2.8? i thought a 70-300 would zoom more than a 70-200 but am guessin not now

it will zoom further, but the 70-200 f2.8 is faster (aperture wise) allowing faster shutter speeds, has fast AF and is most definetly sharper.

[jaymes]

the f2.8 bit - does that mean how quick it is?

[asylumxl]

Originally Posted by jaymes

the f2.8 bit - does that mean how quick it is?

aperture wise, yes, the lower the "f" number, basically the more light the lens can let in, meaning you can get faster shutter speeds, useful for low light work or where you need to freeze the action. .

here is a whole wikipedia page on f numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

you can ignore the mathmatics if you wish