ASCS Sprint Cars

Here are a few shots from my first day at the track with the Mark III

1-

high 5 for not shooting flash on these. not sure why, but most dirt track photogs shoot flash and it drives me nuts.

phoenixheat wrote in post #14238080
high 5 for not shooting flash on these. not sure why, but most dirt track photogs shoot flash and it drives me nuts.

Because they aren't really nothing more then snapshooters in reality.

I am aware of a guy that thinks the goal is to make the car as sharp as when in is sitting in the pits, including the tires.

Bosscat wrote in post #14238270
Because they aren't really nothing more then snapshooters in reality.

I am aware of a guy that thinks the goal is to make the car as sharp as when in is sitting in the pits, including the tires.

I don't totally agree with this comment. In reality, a lot of dirt tracks aren't lit well enough to shoot without flash.

For me to shoot W/O a flash at my track my settings looks something like f 3.2 1/60 or slower at ISO 1600 or higher and they are still under exposed. Even the best technique in the entire world would make that a difficult night on a good photographer.

Nice shots!!! I'm really feeling #6.

Thanks guys, Im not a fan of the flash stuff at all other than using it for a tad bit of fill light during the daylight hours. I do however do use it sometimes at night as some drivers like that look but for me I don't like it one bit. I am one of the rare guys that don't use flash at the tracks I visit.

Loudoggsruca07 wrote in post #14238737
I don't totally agree with this comment. In reality, a lot of dirt tracks aren't lit well enough to shoot without flash.

For me to shoot W/O a flash at my track my settings looks something like f 3.2 1/60 or slower at ISO 1600 or higher and they are still under exposed. Even the best technique in the entire world would make that a difficult night on a good photographer.

This track is not lit all to well these were shot at 2.8 ISO 1600 if I recall and the shutter speed was maybe 1/125

Loudoggsruca07 wrote in post #14238737
I don't totally agree with this comment. In reality, a lot of dirt tracks aren't lit well enough to shoot without flash.

For me to shoot W/O a flash at my track my settings looks something like f 3.2 1/60 or slower at ISO 1600 or higher and they are still under exposed. Even the best technique in the entire world would make that a difficult night on a good photographer.

With as good as today cameras are at higher ISO's 1600 is no biggie, and I have printed 16x20's from a 50D and the Pro lab that printed it didn't believe it was 1600 until they looked at the file.

I am aware of a big shot (in his mind anyways) sprint car shooter, that when he is done his shots look like they are well lit red flag shots.

Bosscat wrote in post #14238270
Because they aren't really nothing more then snapshooters in reality.

Thanks.

The main reason I use a flash is to get enough light to get me 2 cars in focus at one time. Low shutter speeds kill side by side shots if the cars aren't going very close to the same speed. The flash, IMO, gives me a little more of a chance to get some side by side shots. I can send all the artsy, low shutter speed stuff into the paper but 99% of it won't make it to print. If you throw enough light at the subject you will see movement in the tires, although it appears kinda backwards.

Brandon,

I'm very interested in your thoughts on the MkIII after using it for a few months. I really hate to hang up the MkIIN but I want something with better high ISO performance. Oh, you've already got dust on your sensor (see image 5).

Bicknell55 wrote in post #14244512
Thanks.

The main reason I use a flash is to get enough light to get me 2 cars in focus at one time. Low shutter speeds kill side by side shots if the cars aren't going very close to the same speed. The flash, IMO, gives me a little more of a chance to get some side by side shots. I can send all the artsy, low shutter speed stuff into the paper but 99% of it won't make it to print. If you throw enough light at the subject you will see movement in the tires, although it appears kinda backwards.

So what if the background car is fuzzy, if its being passed at a high rate of speed it should be. I see thousands of dirt track and oval shots that look like its a red flag, save for the dust in the air, which would be there anyways. In my mind if I can read the word "Hoosier" on the track it is a parked car. I have never been able to read what make of tire a car is using when in motion, and nobody should in a still photo either IMO. I have non photographer friends that understand this too.

Its like looking at MX photos of bikes on hardpack. If the tires are not turning, the rider could just be posing if there is no roost or dust in the air.

Bosscat wrote in post #14247343
So what if the background car is fuzzy, if its being passed at a high rate of speed it should be. I see thousands of dirt track and oval shots that look like its a red flag, save for the dust in the air, which would be there anyways. In my mind if I can read the word "Hoosier" on the track it is a parked car. I have never been able to read what make of tire a car is using when in motion, and nobody should in a still photo either IMO. I have non photographer friends that understand this too.

Its like looking at MX photos of bikes on hardpack. If the tires are not turning, the rider could just be posing if there is no roost or dust in the air.

I understand what you are saying but showing a car, dirt modified or late model, "up on the bars" would be a tell tale sign that the car was in motion even if the wheels are frozen.

It could also be broken in the right rear and if the car has been carrying the inside front wheel it may have stopped spinning, but would not show this if the other three wheels are also frozen.

It is like the brake tap in MX to drop the front wheel. but of the front one is not spinning....

Loudoggsruca07 wrote in post #14238737
I don't totally agree with this comment. In reality, a lot of dirt tracks aren't lit well enough to shoot without flash.

For me to shoot W/O a flash at my track my settings looks something like f 3.2 1/60 or slower at ISO 1600 or higher and they are still under exposed. Even the best technique in the entire world would make that a difficult night on a good photographer.

Have you tried shooting at ISO 3200 or even 6400? Your 50D can handle it. The track that I shoot at is quite dark too but I shoot ISO 6400, 1/100, F2.8.

Bicknell55 wrote in post #14244512
Thanks.

The main reason I use a flash is to get enough light to get me 2 cars in focus at one time. Low shutter speeds kill side by side shots if the cars aren't going very close to the same speed. The flash, IMO, gives me a little more of a chance to get some side by side shots. I can send all the artsy, low shutter speed stuff into the paper but 99% of it won't make it to print. If you throw enough light at the subject you will see movement in the tires, although it appears kinda backwards.

I don't know that showing motion is considered artsy. If you have to use flash because your editor wants that, then I get it... other than that. yuck Side note: I looked at your site and you have plenty of very nice panning shots on the dirt track during the day. To me, those just look better. Side side note: have you ever tried panning at a slower shutter speed with rear curtain flash? I think you could get close to balancing out the flash and ambient light (with shutter speed and iso), get b/g movement and keep the car sharp via flash. maybe a win win win?

The problem is dirt track racing and dirt track racing photography has been stuck in the stone age since the stone age. The magazines are full of that flash shocked look, because thats how its always been done. Its why those that get trackside access that realy don't understand photography, but know somebody at the track, shoot high shutter speed in the day time, cause to them seeing the word "Hoosier" is second nature from flashed photos, so they do ebverything in their power to carry that look throughout the program.

This isn't 1989 anymore, cameras do an amazing job at high ISO's that we could never imagine just 10 years ago. The local racing magazine here as well as many "photographers' just don't get it, that a panning shot isn't artsy, its the reality of how the brain sees a race cars on a racetrack. It ain't rocket science.