Best way to 'hide' catch fencing?

Messages
23,490
Name
Toby
Edit My Images
No
What would 'hide' catch fencing better, an 800mm eq lens at f6.3 or a 600mm eq lens at f4?

At race circuits more and more catch fencing is going up making it a nightmare for photography, and I'm constantly frustrated that I either get a hint of a crisscross pattern across the image, or you lose significant contrast and detail on certain parts of the image. It's been made even worse recently in that they're now putting a second low fence up meaning you can't get right up against the catch fence making it even harder to hide the fence.

Now depending on the light (bright sunshine or overcast) and how far away the car/bike is sometimes it's not visible, but if it's bright sunshine, or the car/bike isn't that far from the fence then it shows, and I get pretty frustrated.

I can't afford, nor am I willing to carry big 600mm f4 lenses, and tbh I've had to downsize due to health issues anyway so am now shooting with m4/3 which of course increases DOF and makes 'hiding' fences even more difficult. So my question is this, what will make more of a difference hiding the fence, focal length or aperture?

The reason for my question is that I have the Panny Leica 100-400mm f4-6.3 which gives the effective FOV of a 200-80mm lens, but even at 800mm eq there are times when there's still a hint of the fence. The other issue with shooting at 800mm eq is that heat haze can often cause a reduction in detail and sharpness. I've been considering the Olympus 300mm f4 (600mm eq), but would this 'hide' the fence any better?

If I use online calculators 400mm (800mm eq) f6.3 gives a slightly shallower DOF than 300mm (600mm eq) f4 and initially I think well clearly the 800mm eq lens will be better at 'hiding' the fence, but then I wondered if it was as simple as this. Is DOF the only determining factor or does simple having a wider aperture disguise it more due to the physics of the way the light bends, similar to how dust spots on the sensor don't sow at wider apertures?
 
I've not looked in to it, so this may be way off the mark, but I'd expect the "dust spot on sensor" effect to be due to the dust not actually being on the sensor, but on one of the filters in front of the sensor, allowing oblique angled light to get behind it. A wide aperture would give a broader beam, allowing this to happen. I await correction.

There is a formula that gives the depth of field, and I've often wondered about playing around with it to see which of the variables has the most effect; but it would involve partial differentiation of a relatively complicated (for me, in photographic terms) equation.

Based on these thoughts, I'd go with the on line depth of field calculator as giving the best way of assessing the relative merits of focal length and aperture.
 
I've not looked in to it, so this may be way off the mark, but I'd expect the "dust spot on sensor" effect to be due to the dust not actually being on the sensor, but on one of the filters in front of the sensor, allowing oblique angled light to get behind it. A wide aperture would give a broader beam, allowing this to happen. I await correction.

There is a formula that gives the depth of field, and I've often wondered about playing around with it to see which of the variables has the most effect; but it would involve partial differentiation of a relatively complicated (for me, in photographic terms) equation.

Based on these thoughts, I'd go with the on line depth of field calculator as giving the best way of assessing the relative merits of focal length and aperture.
The dust spot effect is due to the light hitting it at different angles (with wide apertures) rather than straight on (as with small apertures) as you say, and I wondered if this effect would be applied to showing/hiding catch fencing and so it's not just DOF that needs to be considered?
 
You would need to experiment IMO. Almost all lenses render FG blur differently than they render BG blur. One of the two is likely to render the FG blur "smoother" and therefore less apparent regardless of the DOF.

Probably the best way to obfuscate the fencing is by panning at a slower SS... then it *completely disappears acting only as a slight ND filter. Unfortunately, panning isn't really a viable option for a lot of shots.

(* horizontal support cables/bars will remain)
 
Last edited:
You would need to experiment IMO. Almost all lenses render FG blur differently than they render BG blur. One of the two is likely to render the FG blur "smoother" and therefore less apparent regardless of the DOF.

Probably the best way to obfuscate the fencing is by panning at a slower SS... then it *completely disappears acting only as a slight ND filter. Unfortunately, panning isn't really a viable option for a lot of shots.

(* horizontal support cables/bars will remain)
Thanks, yeah I guess that makes sense. I’ll have to hire the lens and try it I think (I’ve already used my Olympus test and wow allocation). I do a lot of panning but like to get head on shots etc too.
 
BTW, the "dust spot effect" is due to the light hitting the sensor from different angles when the dust is on the sensor. And it is due to the dust only existing in one image of many that make up the exposure when it is on a lens element. Neither would apply to the source image/light...
 
Fencing is the bane of my life, I shoot short oval motorsport, and it's all through the catch fence, and at most tracks I attend there's a secondary barrier keeping spectators away from it as well. Slow shutter panning often doesn't help as you still see the horizontal.

In my own totally unscientific anecdotal experience I think focal length is king, at least when I'm shooting across the in-field at cars on the opposite side of the oval, at the long end of my longest lens, the fence goes away, but it depends on the density of the fence / grid pattern. At some oval tracks the grid is large and the far away cars can fit within a single "cell", but if the fence is tight your only option is to try and blur it out, and that never seems to end well for me.

On a totally unrelated note I've been offered a photography day at Snetterton by Olympus, where I get to try out the EM1X, and there are no fences at Snetterton to shoot through, you can shoot over them from every spectator spot!
 
In my own totally unscientific anecdotal experience I think focal length is king,
I think what you mean is less DOF. If nothing else changes 2x FL ='s 1/4 DOF (4 stops)... but IDT there's really enough difference between the options mentioned to be very significant. Higher magnification does mean the lens sees less fence, but since the distances are fixed that just means a little less cropping in post.
 
Fencing is the bane of my life, I shoot short oval motorsport, and it's all through the catch fence, and at most tracks I attend there's a secondary barrier keeping spectators away from it as well. Slow shutter panning often doesn't help as you still see the horizontal.

In my own totally unscientific anecdotal experience I think focal length is king, at least when I'm shooting across the in-field at cars on the opposite side of the oval, at the long end of my longest lens, the fence goes away, but it depends on the density of the fence / grid pattern. At some oval tracks the grid is large and the far away cars can fit within a single "cell", but if the fence is tight your only option is to try and blur it out, and that never seems to end well for me.

On a totally unrelated note I've been offered a photography day at Snetterton by Olympus, where I get to try out the EM1X, and there are no fences at Snetterton to shoot through, you can shoot over them from every spectator spot!
The Olympus events are good, but make sure you 'fight' for the 300mm f4 as they only have 2 or 3 and everyone wants one. When I went there were enough EM1x's and 40-150mm f2.8's for everyone.

I've never been to Snetterton but I am going to have to start looking at going to different tracks as Donington is getting silly now with catch fencing. I'm off to Silverstone for the Moto GP and know that Silverstone is also a royal PITA, and is the main reason for this post tbh. I'm wanting some nice close images of all the riders but particularly Marquez, Cal and Rossi.
 
If you can get infield, around Village, there's a lot of gaps in the fencing for the cameras, which oftem aren't used. No good for the big meets though, unless they have the cameras there on a crane/cherry picker then those spots are free. The circuit gates are also low allowing you to shoot over, or there's the grass bank near the paddock exit which allows you to shoot over the fence but down onto the cars etc.
 
@snerkler, if you stay away from the main three Silverstone, Donington and Brands hatch you'll find they're much more photography friendly. Snetterton is very good with the catch fencing being mostly waist height.
 
At formula E there were two rows of fences. I tried a few options and settled on 135 f2 wide open. Any panning suffering from horizontal grey streaks though can’t think of a way to overcome that.
 
I've given up visiting race circuits with the intention of photography.
There used to be a couple of places at Silverstone but I suspect they have been obstructed by now.
I did get some reasonable shots from the grandstand opposite the old pits with a long telephoto lens, but they weren't a patch on what you could get by being trackside.

I'm afraid motorsport photography for the average punter is a thing of the past, which explains the popularity of events like the Goodwood Festival of Speed.
 
If you can get infield, around Village, there's a lot of gaps in the fencing for the cameras, which oftem aren't used. No good for the big meets though, unless they have the cameras there on a crane/cherry picker then those spots are free. The circuit gates are also low allowing you to shoot over, or there's the grass bank near the paddock exit which allows you to shoot over the fence but down onto the cars etc.
Thanks. Apparently they're closing the infield off to 'general punters' for Moto GP now so I doubt very much I'll be able to get in there. I think part of Luffield is still fence free (it was when I last went in 2017) but other than that it'll be fencing everywhere :(
@snerkler, if you stay away from the main three Silverstone, Donington and Brands hatch you'll find they're much more photography friendly. Snetterton is very good with the catch fencing being mostly waist height.
Yeah I need to start going to different circuits, it's just time. Donington is easy for me to get to, the next nearest are Oulton Park and Cadwell which are about 2 hours away.
 
Spent yesterday at brands, and there were very few places to take unobstructed pictures.
Its a shame, because the ticket says "motor sport is dangerous" so it should be my responsibility to stay safe, and be able to take photos.
I work in construction and health and safety is the bain of my life.
 
Not been for a while. But.. Focal length, my old 300 and 400mm primes wouldn’t even try to focus on the fence, even got limit switches to push them through. The longer the focal length the clearer the images where. But often used the 1.4tc to extra length. But try and get as close to the fence as possible. Works for wildlife in zoos too. Not used my 600mm for at brands yet but been pushing it doing some wildlife including in a zoo. Did try and make sure the sun isn’t directly behind you helps
 
Not been for a while. But.. Focal length, my old 300 and 400mm primes wouldn’t even try to focus on the fence, even got limit switches to push them through. The longer the focal length the clearer the images where. But often used the 1.4tc to extra length. But try and get as close to the fence as possible. Works for wildlife in zoos too. Not used my 600mm for at brands yet but been pushing it doing some wildlife including in a zoo. Did try and make sure the sun isn’t directly behind you helps
Thanks, I have no trouble with it focussing on the fence, plus it has a limiter if I did (y).

TBH I do know most of the ‘tricks’ to hide catch fencing, it was just a question of whether aperture or focal length play more of a role (y)
 
Thanks. Apparently they're closing the infield off to 'general punters' for Moto GP now so I doubt very much I'll be able to get in there. I think part of Luffield is still fence free (it was when I last went in 2017) but other than that it'll be fencing everywhere :(
Yeah I need to start going to different circuits, it's just time. Donington is easy for me to get to, the next nearest are Oulton Park and Cadwell which are about 2 hours away.

Silverstone used to be brilliant infield but now it's full of hospitality on all the corners...
 
... the next nearest are Oulton Park and Cadwell which are about 2 hours away.

You should definately take a trip to Cadwell sometime, no catch fencing anywhere and lots of places to get good views, and some very, very close to the track.

It's 3 hours for me so haven't been often, but it's always been worthwhile.
 
Apart from Charlies, Park and Chris Curve.

LOL, OK, haven't been out that far, and only been a few times, mostly stuck to the Mountain, Hall Bends, Hairpin, Coppice. Did take a drive out to Chris Curve and Gooseneck last time I was there, which are fine, didn't go round to the other side.

So, you should definately check out Cadwell Park sometime, almost no catch fencing anywhere .... :p
 
Last edited:
Back
Top