2014 Rolex 24 at Daytona Today

stpix wrote in post #16648407
Your opinion not mine. I have been to too many races to count going back several decades and I never recall the scenery behind the cars being blurred like many of the motion panning automotive shots you see.

Gets to be a cliche when overdone.

And I don't recall the wheels being frozen

The cars are going fast it is impossible to freeze wheels with our eyes When I look at pictures I want to feel something. If it's motor-sports it would be a sense of speed and adrenaline none of the pictures convey this message. Freezing a shot works for football and basketball but not for fast cars on a track. My 2 cents

To jump into the middle of the "blur or not to blur" segment......each has a valid point, and to each one must remember.....as in Art, Photography....all is subjective to the viewers "vision".

I shoot motorsports too...and constantly have to focus on getting BOTH sides of that equation...as to the clients/customers, some will like it blurred and some don't. So YES...mix it up and shoot what YOU feel is the standard that you wish to represent.
If your shooting for a client...hopefully you know what THEY like...and will shot that vision first..then yours.

Just a note, I understand you were in the stands...but if you had opportunity to move...it may have helped your shots....but shots are a low desired shot...front..side shots are much better to look at.

stpix wrote in post #16648407
Your opinion not mine. I have been to too many races to count going back several decades and I never recall the scenery behind the cars being blurred like many of the motion panning automotive shots you see.

Gets to be a cliche when overdone.

As someone who shoots motorsports, production cars, and magazine features for a living, your comment is about as ridiculous as they come. Taking your logic to its irrational conclusion, it would then be safe to assume that since backgrounds aren't blurred in real life, we should also expect the wheels to be completely frozen. The comments made about panning where there is motion in the wheels are spot on. Panning at 1/320 to 1/125 will yield plenty of wheel motion yet still preserve the background. The lower the shutter speed, the more motion you will get. Anyone panning at 1/1600 of a second either doesn't have the knowledge of how to operate their camera or the confidence to get a shot done, and above all, doesn't making a living at it.

BTW, the above comments are my opinion, but they are also the accepted norm by those that actually make a living at it, or those that at least understand how a camera functions in relationship to motion.

onesickpuppy wrote in post #16650697
To jump into the middle of the "blur or not to blur" segment......each has a valid point, and to each one must remember.....as in Art, Photography....all is subjective to the viewers "vision".

I shoot motorsports too...and constantly have to focus on getting BOTH sides of that equation...as to the clients/customers, some will like it blurred and some don't. So YES...mix it up and shoot what YOU feel is the standard that you wish to represent.
If your shooting for a client...hopefully you know what THEY like...and will shot that vision first..then yours.

Just a note, I understand you were in the stands...but if you had opportunity to move...it may have helped your shots....but shots are a low desired shot...front..side shots are much better to look at.

Not sure who your clients are, but I can assure you that no one shooting motorsports who actually has clients wants cars parked on a race track, unless of course they are actually parked on a race track.

lusospeed wrote in post #16654071
As someone who shoots motorsports, production cars, and magazine features for a living, your comment is about as ridiculous as they come. Taking your logic to its irrational conclusion, it would then be safe to assume that since backgrounds aren't blurred in real life, we should also expect the wheels to be completely frozen. The comments made about panning where there is motion in the wheels are spot on. Panning at 1/320 to 1/125 will yield plenty of wheel motion yet still preserve the background. The lower the shutter speed, the more motion you will get. Anyone panning at 1/1600 of a second either doesn't have the knowledge of how to operate their camera or the confidence to get a shot done, and above all, doesn't making a living at it.

BTW, the above comments are my opinion, but they are also the accepted norm by those that actually make a living at it, or those that at least understand how a camera functions in relationship to motion.

I shoot for myself. I really don't care what you think accepted norms are. Many times accepted norms are just a currently popular cliche. YMMV

onesickpuppy wrote in post #16650697
To jump into the middle of the "blur or not to blur" segment......each has a valid point, and to each one must remember.....as in Art, Photography....all is subjective to the viewers "vision".

I shoot motorsports too...and constantly have to focus on getting BOTH sides of that equation...as to the clients/customers, some will like it blurred and some don't. So YES...mix it up and shoot what YOU feel is the standard that you wish to represent.
If your shooting for a client...hopefully you know what THEY like...and will shot that vision first..then yours.

Just a note, I understand you were in the stands...but if you had opportunity to move...it may have helped your shots....but shots are a low desired shot...front..side shots are much better to look at.

Thanks for the comments. I shoot for myself and I was there with my wife which complicated moving. She announced after the 2 mile walk from the car and climbing the tower steps that we had gone far enough I would have liked to have been able to get a lower angle but from the grandstand if I moved any lower I would have been shooting through the catch fence. Shooting with my 400 5.6 L I was actually a little closer than I wanted to be for framing. A 100-400 would have been perfect.

stpix wrote in post #16657095
I shoot for myself. I really don't care what you think accepted norms are. Many times accepted norms are just a currently popular cliche. YMMV

I guess you're just a trend setter ahead of the curve. Carry on.

lusospeed wrote in post #16658569
I guess you're just a trend setter ahead of the curve. Carry on.

You are welcome to get your inspiration from the pack and accepted norms if you wish. Its ok todays fads will be tomorrows laughable old styles.

stpix wrote in post #16658739
You are welcome to get your inspiration from the pack and accepted norms if you wish. Its ok todays fads will be tomorrows laughable old styles.

You're right, those that depend on doing the job right, and make a living from it are just a bunch of individuals without a creative bone in their body and who endlessly copy each other. I am sure that you don't make a dime from shooting cars from the nosebleed section at Daytona, so you can afford to be avant garde and a real maverick with your photos.

You're also not a very humble individual, when others suggested that you lower your shutter speed to at least get motion in the wheels. That was a reasonable suggestion to help you get better photos. It is for the most part what you would find in these forums. It is also likely that there are a vast number of individuals with infinitely more experience than you that you can learn from. Smug and lame excuses justifying your mistakes speak volumes. You don't know the difference between criticism and advice.

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but those round things called wheels on cars actually spin, and when you look at them as they drive by, you really can't see the spokes.When you dial the shutter down, you're capturing what is real and in front of you. As for your comment about tomorrow's laughable style, go back over the decades and look at motorsports photos, car ads, magazine features where motion is portrayed and you will find - wait for it - MOVEMENT IN THE WHEELS.

The best part is, none of this matters and your Daytona photos with frozen wheels, power lines in the way, fencing, etc are pathetic. Your should stick to shooting birds and the moon, at least they don't have wheels.

96whiteknight wrote in post #16642505
They all look parked on the track.

My exact thoughts!

lusospeed wrote in post #16660382
You're right, those that depend on doing the job right, and make a living from it are just a bunch of individuals without a creative bone in their body and who endlessly copy each other. I am sure that you don't make a dime from shooting cars from the nosebleed section at Daytona, so you can afford to be avant garde and a real maverick with your photos.

You're also not a very humble individual, when others suggested that you lower your shutter speed to at least get motion in the wheels. That was a reasonable suggestion to help you get better photos. It is for the most part what you would find in these forums. It is also likely that there are a vast number of individuals with infinitely more experience than you that you can learn from. Smug and lame excuses justifying your mistakes speak volumes. You don't know the difference between criticism and advice.

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but those round things called wheels on cars actually spin, and when you look at them as they drive by, you really can't see the spokes.When you dial the shutter down, you're capturing what is real and in front of you. As for your comment about tomorrow's laughable style, go back over the decades and look at motorsports photos, car ads, magazine features where motion is portrayed and you will find - wait for it - MOVEMENT IN THE WHEELS.

The best part is, none of this matters and your Daytona photos with frozen wheels, power lines in the way, fencing, etc are pathetic. Your should stick to shooting birds and the moon, at least they don't have wheels.

So what? The blurred backgrounds caused by motion panning are extremely unrealistic. even if popular. And nobody can show me that they actually saw "spining" wheels with their eyes either. Its an instantaneous view.

If you like it and its the way its always been done. Fine. You do it. Just don't proclaim that it is the one "right way"

stpix wrote in post #16660431
So what? The blurred backgrounds caused by motion panning are extremely unrealistic. even if popular. And nobody can show me that they actually saw "spining" wheels with their eyes either. Its an instantaneous view.

If you like it and its the way its always been done. Fine. You do it. Just don't proclaim that it is the one "right way"

You missed your calling in life, clearly you would have made a superb comedian.

I am fascinated by your comment below.

"And nobody can show me that they actually saw "spining" wheels with their eyes either. Its an instantaneous view."

Explain to me how wheels do not spin? Maybe in your universe they don't, but in this one they do. Shocker, isn't it?

I struggle with obtuse stupidity and you have crossed into that realm. You win, let me know when you get that Pulitzer prize.

stpix wrote in post #16660431
So what? The blurred backgrounds caused by motion panning are extremely unrealistic. even if popular. And nobody can show me that they actually saw "spining" wheels with their eyes either. Its an instantaneous view.

If you like it and its the way its always been done. Fine. You do it. Just don't proclaim that it is the one "right way"

If you follow a passing car with your eyes, the car looks sharp, the background is a blur & so are the wheels. It's not as if we're portraying something unnatural. But suit yourself.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #16664570
If you follow a passing car with your eyes, the car looks sharp, the background is a blur & so are the wheels. It's not as if we're portraying something unnatural. But suit yourself.

Actually a blurred background is quite unnatural but if you like it go for it.

Some people like charcoal drawings or watercolors for dramatic representations of visual images. I prefer sharp detail. That is why I buy cameras instead of charcoal and paint.