Critique my rollers please.

I am still struggling with my rolling shots and I don't know why.

Yes, they aren't all in perfect locations, but what I am struggling with is camera settings. Will going higher on the f number (smaller aperture) help me to get the car crisper in ther shot?

Go ahead and tear these apart though. I only ask that you include suggestions on how to fix what you think is wrong.

Thanks

Sorry a couple images are larger than you 1024 rule, so I posted the next size down. A larger version can be foun in the link in my sig.

1.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Oh hi!

Higher than what? There's no EXIF info in your images.
These don't look all that bad. I've seen a lot worse.

i think they pretty good, nice and clear. especially the VW.
on a side note why dont they have hoods?

I think you could afford to bump the contrast up in the first shot a little, but they are good shots.

Chad Truss wrote in post #8247181
Will going higher on the f number (smaller aperture) help me to get the car crisper in ther shot?

A smaller f-stop (ie 2.8 ) will allow more light to enter the camera and will decrease the depth of field (you will get more bokeh)

A larger f-stop (ie 22) will allow less light to enter the camera but will increase the depth of field (you will get less bokeh)

If you increase the f-stop (ie go from 2.8 to 4) you will get less light entering the camera so you will have to slow the shutter speed or increase the ISO but more of the picture will be in focus because of the larger DOF.

northpointphoto wrote in post #8249367
A smaller f-stop (ie 2.8 ) will allow more light to enter the camera and will decrease the depth of field (you will get more bokeh)

A larger f-stop (ie 22) will allow less light to enter the camera but will increase the depth of field (you will get less bokeh)

If you increase the f-stop (ie go from 2.8 to 4) you will get less light entering the camera so you will have to slow the shutter speed or increase the ISO but more of the picture will be in focus because of the larger DOF.

But at speed none of that matters. The whole thing can be in focus for all I care, the backgriund will still be blurry because of the motion.

And I am at a slow shutter speed ofr daytime shooting to begin with.

I didn't hide the EXIF data, it should be available, but I don't know how to look at it online.

I think I need so much improvement because I know people that do these rollers as well and they come out so much clearer and crisper than mine do. I'm trying to figure out why mine look softer than theirs.

Here is an example of what I am talking about that was taken by a friend of mine. Look at how crisp the car is......

Oh, and the hoodless look.....

That BMW is a work in progress/bomber kinda thing. He swapped in a huge motor and was going to paint it up all nice, but then stopped working on it once he got it running because it was just so much fun. He might finish it up, he might not.

And the Saab, my car, is a car that I am trying to go for the hoodride look with. My Saab is a bit rough around the edges, so I replaced the hood and doors with rust free parts, but they were the wrong color. And under the hood I am trying to incoporate junk, thats why I have the handicaped parking sign spark plug cover. I just went hoodless to show off the sign and to go for a supper ratty look.


Oh, and I really do appreciate the compliments on my work. I think it's getting there, but I see photos like the red Lexus example I posted and I wonder why my photos are never that crisp.

For one thing your friend shot that picture at F/20 which leaves little to no DOF, so I'm willing to bet that is one reason his pictures may be just a little sharper just do to the fact that more is in focus with less DOF. I can't read the EXIF data from your pics but you could be shooting at something like F/4 so you'd see a big difference. You also never know what sort of pp has been done to the photo compared to how you would pp your photos, so that could play into it as well.

Thats what I am asking for.

I don't know how you are supposed to see my EXIF data, but I didn't hide it, I don't know why it's not available to you. I know for a fact that I shot at a way lower f-number though and you are saying that the higher f-number will help. That is what I wanted to find out.

Thank you.

Chad Truss wrote in post #8252556
Thats what I am asking for.

I don't know how you are supposed to see my EXIF data, but I didn't hide it, I don't know why it's not available to you. I know for a fact that I shot at a way lower f-number though and you are saying that the higher f-number will help. That is what I wanted to find out.

Thank you.

In your Flickr account options, you can choose if want EXIF data to be provided or not when you post photos, I'll bet that you don't have that selection checked off.

gdusek84 wrote in post #8253593
In your Flickr account options, you can choose if want EXIF data to be provided or not when you post photos, I'll bet that you don't have that selection checked off.

I leave that accessable. You need to click on the "more info" link at the bottom right corner of the page.

I shoot most of my rolling shots f/16 and 1/30th to get a result like youre after.

You probably use "Save", instead of "Save AS" which saves the exif data.
Exif Viewer

Your friend used 1/20 sec. What do you usually use?

I was at 1/50 sec, but the shutter speed isn't going to be why he got the subject more crisp, in fact at 1/50 sec my chances were better.

I think the issue is the f number. I am probably setting it too low and increasing the DOF. I will work on it.