Hopefully not OT...photographing 911's in action?

[Wrecked944]

Well, this question is "technical" and it is about "911s" so I hope it doesn't get booted to OT.

I tried my hand at photographing some 911's in action at AutoX last weekend for the first time. I used a 35mm Nikon N2000 SLR with 800 speed film and a 52mm lens. I got as close as I could to the course and left the thing on autofire - just snapping a zillion pics as the cars went by. But I am mightily disappointed with the results. Here are some of my "best" shots...





Pretty crappy. So can anyone offer advice on how to take better pics of 911's "in full tilt"?

[djmcmath]

Hmmm ... my first thought, and please forgive me if it sounds foolish, as I'm just brainstorming: you used too fast of a shutter speed. The cars look stopped. If you left the shutter open for just a little longer, you'd get some motion blur, giving the viewer an impression of the speed. My first instinctual thought...

Dan

[Jack Olsen]

Longer lens, slower shutter speed.

[Eric Coffey]

Yup, try a longer focal-length and slower shutter speed. I'd try experimenting with speeds around 1/40-1/60th of a sec. to start off with. Also, try combining slower shutter speeds with actually panning the camera to "follow" the car/subject as you click the shutter. I would also recommend slower film, especially in bright sunlight conditions. The reason your shots are so grainy is due to the 800 speed film. When I shot 35mm, I never used anything above 100 speed film. Try experimenting with different shot composition and capturing the subject at different angles. It is usually best to avoid putting the subject in the center of the frame as well. Lastly, try to incorporate some of the scene to give the shot context (for example, the shots you posted are too closely cropped IMO). Have fun!

[Wrecked944]

Wow, thanks for the advice. I am a total beginner at this. Using slower speed film and slower shutter speed seems anti-intuitive to me so I'm glad you said it. I probably would have gone the other way and made it worse. Do slower speed films have more clarity - or less "graininess" as you would say? Is 100 speed film clearer than 800 and 50 clearer than 100?

And what effect would a longer lens have? And I must confess I don't know what a "longer focal length" is. Total nube here.

HA !! And regarding the placement of the cars, it is mostly purely accidental. I am such a beginner I just set the thing on autofire and blew off a zillion shots. I actually got a bunch of pics with just a fraction of a car and even a few of just empty pavement...

[vash]

a slower shutter speed will mean you will need to compensate with a wider aperature. this will do two things, you will see the movement with some of the car parts blurred, like the spinning wheels. and it will shorten the perspective, which means the background will go out of focus a bit.


a longer lens or telephoto will change how far the background looks with respect to the subject. for the life of me, i cannot remember if it make it look farther away or closer. and yes, for the most part, slower film has less grainyness, the particle are smaller. fast film has big particles to see more light. it has been awhile since my photo principle class, i hope i am not wrong. the last roll of film i shot sucked. i bet autofire is how the pros do it.

[masraum]

The higher speed the film the more grainy it is. 800+ is pretty grainy. The grain in 100 is hardly perceptible.

Here's a good article on action photography
http://www.photographic.com/phototechniques/192/

[}{arlequin]

hmmm, I had some questions about these things too... the link does not seem to work.

What happens with a slower film but with a higher shutter speed?

I've been wondering whether we could have a photo technique thread (and photochop too) somewhere here... my Sony digital does not seem to act the way I think it should w/ certain settings. I've been very close to getting "Photo... for dummies" or something like it LOL

If we saw others' camera settings for a particular shot, we could try to replicate them. This may be unrealistic, b/c I don't really remember what settings I used for some of my shots, and once they leave the memory stick, the settings are lost.

[John Brandt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by }{arlequin
[B]hmmm, I had some questions about these things too... the link does not seem to work.

What happens with a slower film but with a higher shutter speed?



Underexposure.

[EdT82SC]

Not only do you need to use a slower shutter speed, but you need to follow your subject. This takes a bit of practice to get good at. All you do is move the camera as you take the picture so that the car you are shooting is always centered. This will result in pictures where the car is relatively sharp except for moving parts like the wheels will be a blur. The background will also be a blur. The blurring is what gives you the feeling of motion. My avatar is a picture of me in my car taken this way. Here is a larger copy:

[unclebilly]

I dunno, I shoot old TLR medium format cameras. My advise would be to open your apeture up to F5.6 or F8 and focus on the car. Cars look faster when you have no depth of field (the back ground is blurry). I think you're still going to want to shoot a fast film like iso800 so you don't get everything blurry due to camera shake (I wouldn't expect good results handholding any camera at speeds slower than 1/100th of a second).

1/60th will give you bad results unless you're using a tripod or at the very least, a monopod.

The suggestion to use a zoom lens (longer focal length) is basically what I'm saying, the longer focal length lenses have a very narrow focal plane.

[Emission]

I shot this bike on Mulholland last weekend using my Nikon D70 (Digital SLR). It was my first attempt at a moving vehicle (lighting sucks as it was overcast).

1/250 F/4.5

The trick is slower shutter speeds and follow the object!

[}{arlequin]

great responses guys. Thanks. What ends up happening to me w/ slower "film" is that I also get the subject blurry, not just the background. Guess I'll still have to experiment, but I'll try Emission's settings and see what happens.

[maxnine11]

here's a picture of Emission taking a picture.



1/200, f-4.5, 105mm
ISO setting (digital camera) 200

[Emission]

Here's the shot I took while Max was shooting me!

You want to give cars/bikes a bit of open space in the frame in front of them. It adds to the impression of speed.

(BTW, Max taught me everything I know about shooting moving objects!)

[Randy Webb]

all above + use tripod with pan head.

Decide what you want to have blurred.... play around.

[EdT82SC]

Originally posted by }{arlequin
great responses guys. Thanks. What ends up happening to me w/ slower "film" is that I also get the subject blurry, not just the background. Guess I'll still have to experiment, but I'll try Emission's settings and see what happens.

I don't think you get quite enough blur at 1/250 of a second. See how much blur there is in the picture of my car from my earlier post? Also note the back end of my car is a bit fuzzy too. It's harder to get a crisp picture of the subject when you have a longer exposure. Shoot a bunch of rolls, and try different settings until you find ones that work for you. Film and processing is cheap compared to the money we spend on our cars.

[Oldporsche]

I zone focus. That's to say that I focus on where the car is going to be when I take the picture. Then I can follow him at will through the lens. This combined with the shutter speed and aperature will let me make the car look still or at speed. It keeps your mind on the picture and not on all of the controls to get the picture. Try it, you'll like it.

David Duffield

[porcupine911]

[Eric Coffey]

Originally posted by unclebilly
I think you're still going to want to shoot a fast film like iso800 so you don't get everything blurry due to camera shake (I wouldn't expect good results handholding any camera at speeds slower than 1/100th of a second).
1/60th will give you bad results unless you're using a tripod or at the very least, a monopod....

I just don't see any upside to ISO 800+ film, especially in daylight conditions. In some cases it can actually eliminate the possibility of the motion-blur effects if it is too bright out (shutter speeds too high, even at the lenses smallest aperture).
Also, you can hand-hold a camera at 1/60 with good results with a steady hand and a little practice. IMO it's rare that you'll get unwanted blur with a hand-held 35mm even at 1/80. However, keep in mind that the potential for blur will increase at longer focal lengths. These pictures were taken handheld at 1/40-1/50 with a 35mm equivalent of approx. 100mm lens (digital SLR) at ISO 80 & f8-ish:

Originally posted by John Brandt
What happens with a slower film but with a higher shutter speed?

Underexposure.

Not necessarily. With slow (ISO 50 for example) film, you just need to have/use a fairly "fast" lens (wider aperture/lower "f" number). When I shot 35mm, I primarily used 50 and 100 speed film, but had lenses with maximum apertures of at least f2.8. The problem is that the wider the aperture, the more money the lens will cost you!