Gatorboy wrote:
I think these would be much better with faces. This would be a great place to setup a remote camera.
I agree with Dave. Faces would make the shots even better.
If not a remote camera, how about a mirror positioned inside the firing line? Might have to reverse the image in post. Wonder if anyone has had success taking photo's of people off mirror reflections? How does image quality fare?
A remote camera would prob get shot
alot of lead going around
I do not have a bullet proof glass shield
This was single hand gun with some long gun practice
Thanks for the comments
yes very loud
shutter at 160-1000 dep on light
shot 1400 pics
no way to get in front of shooters as they are always on the move
some setups take 16sec some 2-3 min
Thanks
Bob
no way to get in front of shooters as they are always on the move
Bob, this just sounds incomplete. OK, I have never shot shooting (that sounds weird), but I've never shot underwater either, and would imagine it, too, presents a lot of technical challenges, but look at the work of Donald Miralle, who puts camera and even flashes, strobes and Pocket Wizards in some places where a "normal" person would say there's "no way to put a camera and a flash in the water"...just think about it.
Just do a Google search on Miralle and "underwater photography" for many, many more examples.
Stretch your imagination - I'm guessing there are some amazing images to be captured by the creative photographer who doesn't let traditional thinking limit him/her.
BOBW wrote:
A remote camera would prob get shot
alot of lead going around
I do not have a bullet proof glass shield
The guys shooting would have to be downright horrible to hit your camera (without trying). I used to shoot field archery, and at 50 yards or less, it's rare to even miss the target -- let alone a camera sitting a few feet off of the target -- so, I would think a gun would be even more accurate.
Gatorboy wrote:
The guys shooting would have to be downright horrible to hit your camera (without trying). I used to shoot field archery, and at 50 yards or less, it's rare to even miss the target -- let alone a camera sitting a few feet off of the target -- so, I would think a gun would be even more accurate.
Had to jump in here. In action pistol, scoring is based on points-score / time so both movement and shooting is under some time pressure. It is still pretty unlikely for a camera set up to get shot directly (but it only takes one to wreck your set up) but there may be spatter off the ground/metal targets/wood splinters flying around.
You can try to take photos from far to the side and just behind the shooter:
The camera was placed ahead of the shooter but off to one side. I wasn't prepared to risk my set-up directly next to a target and as well I thought faces might be blocked by the arms/pistol. The depth of field is much deeper as I had to manual focus ahead of time and allow for different positions.
