British GTs at Oulton Park

D

droopsnoot

Messages
273
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Here's a few of my shots from Oulton on Easter Monday.

1

webIMGP0220 by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

2 (not a GT)

webIMGP0195 by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

3

webIMGP0131 by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

4.

webIMGP0111 by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

5.

webIMGP0032 by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

In particular, I'm concerned at the lack of clarity when I compare these images to the two other threads from the same meeting. I'm trying to figure out whether this is my issue, or that perhaps I should not expect the same kind of quality on what is probably a less expensive camera (I haven't checked what the others were taken on).

So, any comments or suggestions welcome.
 
Were these cropped much? In a couple I looked at the lack of sharpness was due to panning technique, not matching panning speed to car motion, though some seemed OK other than having more grain that I'd expect at iso800.
 
You are shooting these at maximum resolution aren't you? They just look very compressed and like they haven't been taken at maximum quality to me. #4 actually looks OK apart from the grain and compression artifacts. There's a good set of photos in there I think they just need a bit more processing work.
 
Thanks for the thoughts. My process was to shoot them at full resolution, load into PS (an old version), crop to suit the image, adjust levels (generally to lighten them), adjust contrast, adjust saturation (on some of them only), resize to 1024 x whatever works (to post on the web) and then apply the "sharpen" filter. One of them might also have the "despeckle" done too.

What I did realise earlier was that these are all based on the camera JPGs rather than the raw images, mainly because my version of PS doesn't support raw in this format (DNG) and I have never really got to grips with the raw editor that I have. As an exercise, I might have another go at processing one of the same images from raw and see if it comes out any better. I'd love to think that it would.

I do have a bit of an issue with panning, and I keep meaning to do a few track days at Oulton (I'm quite local) to get some practice in, but somehow never quite get around to it. I've got a lot of images that are much further out of focus - and typically, some where I manage to catch one car overtaking another, it's the one in the back that is sharp.

Again, thanks for the constructive comments, I'll have a look at what I'm doing here and see what can be improved and maybe post some more experiments if they look better.
 
droopsnoot said:
Thanks for the thoughts. My process was to shoot them at full resolution, load into PS (an old version), crop to suit the image, adjust levels (generally to lighten them), adjust contrast, adjust saturation (on some of them only), resize to 1024 x whatever works (to post on the web) and then apply the "sharpen" filter. One of them might also have the "despeckle" done too.

What I did realise earlier was that these are all based on the camera JPGs rather than the raw images, mainly because my version of PS doesn't support raw in this format (DNG) and I have never really got to grips with the raw editor that I have. As an exercise, I might have another go at processing one of the same images from raw and see if it comes out any better. I'd love to think that it would.

I do have a bit of an issue with panning, and I keep meaning to do a few track days at Oulton (I'm quite local) to get some practice in, but somehow never quite get around to it. I've got a lot of images that are much further out of focus - and typically, some where I manage to catch one car overtaking another, it's the one in the back that is sharp.

Again, thanks for the constructive comments, I'll have a look at what I'm doing here and see what can be improved and maybe post some more experiments if they look better.
Click to expand...

So the jpeg sidecar file attached to the RAW is a low quality preview rather than the full image, that may be the problem. My 80D only produces 1080 x 1024 jpegs attached to a RAW, rather than the full 6000x4000 resolution. Some updated software would help. Lightroom is very good indeed these days if you don't mind paying a tenner a month for your software.
 
Thanks - I'm a bit anti-subscription model for software, even though when I used to work at a place that sold software, I could see it was the way it would all go. It may be that I have no option, unless I just want to take stuff in ideal conditions.

My JPEGs are the same dimensions as the DNG files, but of course it might well be the case that the in-camera conversion is not so good, and of course it applies a range of compromises.
 
Last edited:
Lightroom is still available stand-alone as a purchase, and if your camera isn't ery new then you could look for a 'used' Lightroom 5 instead. Also have a look at DXO Photolab and On1 Photo Raw (both good packages, both available on 30 day trial and then outright purchase).
 
Thanks, I will have a look at those options. I have been playing with Raw Therapee, but as I installed my PC in 32-bit mode, I'm even limited to an old version of that. Camera is reasonably old now, a Pentax K-x, and that may well contribute to the issues, but I'm reluctant to just blame the hardware.
 
It looks like you are suffering from high ISO noise, due to the weather conditions. What were your ISO settings?
 
Anywhere between 400 and 1600 as the conditions changed. I don't want that to sound as if there was more planning on my part than there really was - in general it was in auto ISO allowing the camera to pick anywhere from 100-800, but I extended the range at one point. Trying to keep a low ISO was one of the reasons I took my manual 50mm f1.7 lens with me, but the conditions (not wanting to be back and forth to the car swapping lenses when I'd found a spot a bit out of the wind) stopped me from trying it out.
 
Last edited:
I had another go at some of these, processing via RawTherapee to use the raw images rather than the in-camera JPGs. I'm not sure these are significantly better, and I may well just have to accept that this is about as good as they will get. I'm not completely sure these aren't a little worse in some aspects. Another change I've made is to upload in a slightly higher resolution in case that is contributing.

procIMGP0131. by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

procIMGP0032. by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

It's frustrating, especially as more of you have now posted your much-better images. But part of me is hoping for bad weather next time I'm there (May 19th, if all goes well) just so I can try to improve.

(I'm getting a problem with it not showing the second image, not sure why as it appears when I edit the post. Hopefully that will go away).

ETA - I did just have a look at a Lightroom trial version, unfortunately my choice to install this PC as 32-bit means I can't download even their old version, so if I'm going that way it's much more involved.
 
Last edited:
droopsnoot said:
ETA - I did just have a look at a Lightroom trial version, unfortunately my choice to install this PC as 32-bit means I can't download even their old version, so if I'm going that way it's much more involved.
Click to expand...

I think you'll struggle to find modern 32 bit software - even Lightroom 5 seems to be 64 bit only, as is On1 PhotoRaw and DXO Photolab.
 
Looking at the EXIF on your Flickr images you are only exporting at 72 DPI which is one of the reasons the photos don't look great, they are exporting at a very low quality. My images export at 340 DPI which will obviously preserve a lot more detail from the original RAW file. Not sure how you would change this in Rawtherapee as I have never used it but it is certainly something I would look at.
 
Thanks, I will check that.

I think it looks like you're right @ancient_mariner, the more I look the more it seems that the choice I made when I installed (which was based on the majority of stuff not working properly on 64-bit at the time) was the wrong one. Oh well.
 
Here's an experiment to see if any of these look any better here:

proc_a_IMGP0019. by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

proc_a_IMGP0029. by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

proc_a_IMGP0050. by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

proc_a_IMGP0220.-1 by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

proc_a_IMGP0137. by Mike Edwards, on Flickr

I've been doing a bit of reading up on Raw Therapee, first in terms of exporting at a higher resolution as @RichardC27 mentioned above, but also in regard to removing (or reducing) high ISO noise. Seems that the "sharpening" button actually makes things worse in those cases.

I suspect this is probably as good as they're going to get, but I'm pleased that I posted them as between you, you've pointed me to some useful ideas and I've learned something. They're still not at the quality of some of the other images from the same day at the same place, but they may be heading in the right direction. So thanks to you all for the suggestions.
 
droopsnoot said:
Thanks, I will have a look at those options. I have been playing with Raw Therapee, but as I installed my PC in 32-bit mode, I'm even limited to an old version of that. Camera is reasonably old now, a Pentax K-x, and that may well contribute to the issues, but I'm reluctant to just blame the hardware.
Click to expand...
I have a copy of LR5 I am no longer using. It isn't compatible with my body.
 
Hey mate, hope you are doing alright.... just to jump in with my 2 cents (although pretty much agree with virtually everything Richard C said above). Don't get too disheartened by the images from other photographers... you are using equipment that is nearly 10 years old in an area that has seen great strides in technical performance, particularly in terms of autofocus accuracy, ISO performance and resolving power - 3 things that definitely would have hampered you given the conditions, that's not to say it's all about the equipment, but lets not beat about the bush here, it makes a massive difference. I think all the other guys posting from Oulton, myself included, are making use of newer bodies, with higher resolution sensors and better glass that provides us with much greater flexibility in the long run.

It's clear ISO noise gives you headaches... the trouble is unless you can mask the details (which you can in lightroom and photoshop), when you sharpen your shots you're also going to be sharpening the noise - it's tough to tell at the size you've uploaded most of these (1024px wide?) but you can see on the final shot of the merc and the mclaren that whole image looks like it has a layer of grain over it because of the sharpening... the GT86, TFsport Aston and the Team Hard Ginetta are soft and no amount of processing will help you in that sense - if I had to guess I'd say the conditions didnt allow your lens to get a solid lock on the cars and/or the contrast tricked the focusing system a bit as they all show signs of misfocus. The Beechdean shot looks ok to me, again though, it's tough to tell at this size.

I realise it's not a popular thing to say, but the hardware (both lens and body) does make a significant difference and I think you're seeing the results of that predominantly when you're comparing your shots to others here. I'm definitely not saying bin it off and give up - I'm saying you have to work a lot harder in areas where togs like me have cameras that take away some (if not loads) of the effort required - for instance if your focus system cant keep up you'd be better off sticking it in manual and using the prefocus technique and really practice your panning accuracy and release timing (I for one know I lean on the camera extensively to make up for my technique). For the most part here I don't believe processing will significantly alter your results and you shouldn't pin too much on that avenue... technique is where you need to focus your attention, especially in terms of the parallel pans as its a good leveler of equipment.

Sorry to sound a bit miserable but I believe it's more helpful to channel advice in areas where you will see a significant improvement rather than giving you false hope :\
 
Graphix501 said:
Sorry to sound a bit miserable but I believe it's more helpful to channel advice in areas where you will see a significant improvement rather than giving you false hope :\
Click to expand...

Very much appreciated G, I'm just always reluctant to try to throw the blame off to something else. I think I mentioned I had a manual f1.7 lens that might have given me a bit more to play with, but just didn't fancy trekking to and from the car to swap it over, and also didn't fancy getting no shots at all during the "main" race, especially with hindsight as the second one was cancelled. Also I was there as a visitor / car displayer who also wanted to take some photos, rather than a photographer, which of course made a difference to attitude.

I'll keep practising, though, that's what it's all about, whether that's with taking the shots in the first place, or processing them afterwards. I'd rather improve the former so as to reduce the need for the latter, but that might just be the old-fashioned me showing its head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top