I don't know if the EXIF data will survive the transfer but most of the panning was done under 1/100th. The first one was done with a Canon 300mm f2.8L at 1/25th...
All I really know is that they are all 5 litre engines and run on an ethanol mix fuel (pump grade). They used to spit spectacular flames out of the exhausts which made great pictures but sadly they don't do that any more. I also know all the engines are imported.
JD, thanks. I;m a little bit of a gearhead too!
They run engine similar to what is in NASCAR such as the Ford windsor V8 ( 302 small block) and the venerable Chevy 5.0L ( 305 for you who do not know) V8.
I ran E85 in a state-owned car here and it gets poor MPGs compared to gas. it almost left me by the side of the road due to poor mileage.
I have Shot V8's a few time and with the right light and picking your spot, you can pan them down to 1/30th and still get good shots. I did the Historic's a while back at Oran park and got a few rippers down to 1/15th in the sweeper before they came onto the main straight.
I've rarely (maybe never) posted here, but I'm going to comment on your shots, and I hope you'll take my comments in a constructive manner as I'll be somewhat ruthless.
Shot 1 is soft and the car is cut-off in a random manner. Why is this photo of interest to a viewer and why is it soft/cut?
Shot 2 is soft. Why?
Shot 3 is soft. Why? It's better to have two or more cars in a shot as it creates more interest for the viewer.
Shot 4 is better, but still a little soft. Multiple cars makes it more interesting.
Shot 5 has interest, but with the V8 Supercars you should have anticipated the contact and used a shorter lens to get full cars in the shot for more interest.
Shot 6 is soft and the car is cut-off in a random manner, the same problem as Shot 1.
Shot 7 looks like it should have been shot with a slower shutter-speed to increase the feeling of speed.
Shot 8 same comment as Shot 7.
Shot 9 looks like an attempt at doing a pan-zoom that failed.
Now my comments come from my perspective on what I like to see in racing photos, and what I believe an art director at a publication would like to see in a racing photo. Art directors are harsh, and I've been on the receiving end of their tirades about what they don't want (they never seem to know what they do want until they see it though). I shot F1 and other racing as a freelancer with Road & Track, Grand Prix International and other publications for a number of years, so I might be more demanding than most people about racing photos. I don't know if these links will work, but this is where I'm coming from . . .
They are soft because they have had little or no sharpening applied and have mostly been shot with very slow shutter speeds (around 1/50th). They look great in full res. but I'm no master of presenting for the internet. All of these shots were uploaded to Photobucket at 1200x800 so they have been reduced anyway...and not by me. They are displayed here in 1023x682...
Anyway,
1 is shot at 1/25th @ 300mm so it's actually blur, as is the case with most of these. I'll be honest: I had too much lens on because I wanted to see if I could get a glowing brake disc. It's the one I like least
2 is heat affected (which I like BTW) although the lead car is OOF
3 is cropped and has had no sharpening applied because the red bled too much. I would have liked another car in it. EXIF reports SS @ 1/90th which is too slow for most head on stuff
4 is actually not soft at all but it's harder to tell
5 each to his own but I like it that way
6 was cropped that way because I couldn't fit the whole car in and wanted something a little different. That point looked okay to me
7 was shot at about 1/50th so it would be hard to lower it much more
8 ditto
9 is a mistake. I was going to delete it but I liked it. I'm not good enough yet to attempt a pan/zoom.
I wish the EXIF data had transferred across
Thanks for those pics from R&T. My favourite in the 1980s was Bernard Asset who used to shoot for Grand Prix International. I also have a couple of Schlegelmich's books. I notice also that you are in this list to so I'm trying to be careful here. You know: explaining without sounding like a git. The Villeneuve shot looks like it was done at 1/500th or higher, which is good practice for a head on shot. Gee that kerb is high... The Pironi shot looks like about 1/60th or 1/125th but with a speed blur lens over it. Am I right?
My goal here is to spur you on to better results.
Which is what I wanted anyway and for the same reason so thanks. Since you are obviously one of the motorsport specialists, your comments are very valuable. My goal is to assemble a portfolio. Another professional from Australia has looked at my motorbike stuff and liked it but C&C is important to me. Though I'm not very interested in motorsport any more and I don't want to do it full time, I'd like to do a couple of events a year just for a bit of pocket money.
Art directors are harsh, and I've been on the receiving end of their tirades about what they don't want (they never seem to know what they do want until they see it though).
Yep: I get that in my current (somewhat related) job as a video cameraman.
I probably should also point out that sometimes I like an image razor sharp and sometimes I don't care. In many instances here it is not a priority for me at all and just want to capture a feeling. I like the feeling of speed which I thought they gave but if they didn't work for you then I've got work to do. They would probably not impress a picture editor then.
Do you think this is a panning issue? I'm using AI Servo mode (Canon).
Thanks for the Motta article I will definitely read it.
