Critique Moto 3 shot with a BIG question for you all

[Fireproof Creative]

Hi all,

Just going through a few shots from last years MotoGP event from Silverstone and I'd love to hear your opinions of this image of Jorge Navarro from the Moto 3

Jorge Navarro - Honda NSF250RW by Jonny Henchman, on Flickr

Now I'd like to ask you to formulate your opinions of the image before reading any further if I could & as much as possible be honest (its ok no offence will be taken)

Here's some info about the image

Camera: Canon 5D Mark III Lens: EF400mm f/5.6L USM Mode: Aperture Priority File type: Raw EXIF: ƒ/8.0 - 1/500 - 400.0 mm - ISO 100

Location: Through the fence at copse corner, Silverstone.

I have cropped and processed the image in a fairly standard way, that is there has been no fancy composite editing. Just my normal run through Adobe Camera Raw, so highlights, shadows, contrast, sharpening and colour adjustments.
I cloned out a few bits of tyre debris on the track but that's as much destructive editing as I've done.

Now this is a Moto 3 bike during the race, so while not as fast as the top flight, they certainly aren't slow. As anyone who's tried to shoot from this position behind the fence at Copse knows, it's challenging to track them here, the bikes round the pit exit at high speed and you have a split second to pick them up, achieve focus and fire before you start getting fence posts and the bikes moving away from you. I'd say the 1/500 shutter speed, while certainly not the slowest you can achieve, is pretty respectable for bikes and more so given the shooting location.

Here's the kicker, this was shot by one of my friends with next to no experience of shooting with a DSLR, bar a few short tries with my gear while im trying to have a beer he only really uses an iPhone or a compact as most people do for the everyday stuff without too much creative thought. Now he is a big motorsport fan and has been for nigh on 30 years (so yea like since he was 3)... I wonder if that has some subliminal effect on how to determine what a good motorsport photo should look like (or at least a goal of achieving something) after being exposed to that kind of imagery for so long, maybe I guess. I set up the camera and chose the location so that is a factor too (also I'm not suggesting this is a wonder shot, but it is a shot I don't think I could have done any better and actually would be very happy with).

For the sake of argument - here's what he would have been left with without the basic processing or cropping I applied to the image (i.e the original, scaled down to 2048px wide)

This raises a few things for me:

• The gear matters for this kind of shot, there is no question
• It's quite possible to spend your way to a good (in my opinion) technical photograph with some guidance
  
• I'm more reliant on the gear than I thought, developing creatively with the camera is the most challenging thing
• Post processing is a massive differentiator between beginner and experienced photographer (*Getting it closer to the result in camera is a parallel skill i.e they have equal importance, if you struggle with one (or unable for any reason to achieve it) you must be able to do the other)

Caveats before I throw away the camera - Consistency was, as you might expect, bad many, many more examples of user error, missed focus and clipped frames for example. That's not to say this was a lucky shot, there were plenty of usable images, but to be able to shoot a moment on demand, not so likely Also, as mentioned, I made all the decisions in terms of positioning and camera set up... so it was just the act of tracking focus, framing (in terms of getting the subject in the frame) and firing the shutter they had to worry about.

As I think applies to most of us who shoot motorsport that cant afford the fastest, 500 or 600mm lenses, I think its quite acceptable to treat composition as something that can be left to post to an extent. So long as the original frame contains the elements of the image positioned as you intended I don't think it matters that you crop in or even embellish DoF if you physically don't have the means to achieve the shot you want with the equipment you have... so when I say getting closer 'in camera' I mean achieving good exposure, sharpness and technical accuracy within the tolerances of your equipment in the context of the shooting conditions at the time.

My main take away from this, anyone can produce great photographs, being a great photographer though is a much more difficult thing to achieve

So yeah I'd love to hear your opinions of the image which I'll feedback to him... and also look forward to your opinions on the questions the rest raises

 

[MattyW]

He's better than me!

 

[Paul Allen2]

A good post with plenty of valid points. The photo is good and I could not tell it apart from one of yours.

Setting up the camera, your position at the track when taking the shot, and your panning skill all play a part, the more you do the better you get.

It might be interesting to let your friend use the camera for an hour on his own, letting him set it up, basic things like shutter speed, focal length, and chosing a position around the track, and seeing how the photos compare to yours then.

Once you learn the basics...ie how to set up your camera, for the exposure you want, remembering that if focus on your camera is not so quick, you can always try manual focus, you need to get creative, with shutter speed, composition and exposure, looking for that unique photo that will stand out from the rest.

I don't think its always a good thing to dig to deep into whats makes a good photo, you either like it or you don't. I look at it like this, take 100 shots of any subject you like, in a number of different ways and 1 will always be better than the other 99, but ask someone else and most might pick another. It all comes down to individual choice.

 

[Fireproof Creative]

He's better than me!

Hahaha that sounds like something he would say to me But I don't think it's true, there's much more to it like Paul says (thank god) & you know it haha!

A good post with plenty of valid points. The photo is good and I could not tell it apart from one of yours.

Setting up the camera, your position at the track when taking the shot, and your panning skill all play a part, the more you do the better you get.

It might be interesting to let your friend use the camera for an hour on his own, letting him set it up, basic things like shutter speed, focal length, and chosing a position around the track, and seeing how the photos compare to yours then.

Once you learn the basics...ie how to set up your camera, for the exposure you want, remembering that if focus on your camera is not so quick, you can always try manual focus, you need to get creative, with shutter speed, composition and exposure, looking for that unique photo that will stand out from the rest.

I don't think its always a good thing to dig to deep into whats makes a good photo, you either like it or you don't. I look at it like this, take 100 shots of any subject you like, in a number of different ways and 1 will always be better than the other 99, but ask someone else and most might pick another. It all comes down to individual choice.

Very much agreed (with everything you say), I think the very best photos are the ones that take risks and that do something that is perhaps more outside the mainstream which also opens it up to more of the subjectivity you mention. Haha I guess what that means by proxy is i'm quite a 'safe' photographer I think [know] he would struggle much more given free reign, although after not very long we developed a rudimentary guide to settings where he'd shout 'They are coming out all blurry' and id say' what are the numbers in the bottom left' [of the view finder] hahaha It didn't take long for him to start realising the connection between shutter speed, a steady pan and a sharp photo.

What I really found interesting though (and I've tried this with a few friends now), is that they, after some instruction using my gear - will inevitably get at least one shot that is indistinguishable from one I've taken myself, even at some fairly agressive shutterspeeds... meaning that besides my technical knowledge of the camera and choice of location.... the only areas I have a real advantage is in consistency and post processing, which are both easily learned

Also you make a very good point which I hadn't really considered properly

I look at it like this, take 100 shots of any subject you like, in a number of different ways and 1 will always be better than the other 99, but ask someone else and most might pick another. It all comes down to individual choice.

We often look at images in here in isolation, i.e 8-9 of the cream of the crop from a weekends shooting, now that would be awesome if you went out and only took 8 or 9 photos, but that's just never the case is it haha So I think theres a skill in actually being able to choose your best images from a memory card dump and value in looking at said dump as whole I'd love to take a look at one of say, Darren Heath's memory cards after a days work to see what he gets before cherry picking... I'd wager overall its going to be way way better compared to mine (of course) but would probably also make me think he's not as good as I thought he was. In the same way im fairly sure if some of the real beginners here went through mine they wouldn't see much that would impress them (that sounds arrogant - I mean after 7 years hopefully I've produced some photos people like by now.. i don't mean to suggest that I'm anyones yardstick now). So yea I think being able to select the one in 50 or what ever shot is a key part of the process to, which wasnt really part of this experiment as once he took the photos I did everything else.

 

[sk66]

• The gear matters for this kind of shot, there is no question

• It's quite possible to spend your way to a good (in my opinion) technical photograph with some guidance

• I'm more reliant on the gear than I thought, developing creatively with the camera is the most challenging thing

• Post processing is a massive differentiator between beginner and experienced photographer (*Getting it closer to the result in camera is a parallel skill i.e they have equal importance, if you struggle with one (or unable for any reason to achieve it) you must be able to do the other)

Absolutely.

IMO it's a very good image... SS's a bit high IMO, but slower would potentially reduce the keepers significantly. My only gripe about the image is due to the location on the track (leaned in and looking away).

 

[srhmoto]

It's a competent shot, and the type I used to take most of the time, but in reality it's nothing special. You gave him the location, camera settings and some very capable gear so in reality timing and panning are all(?!?!?) they had to worry about. For me, the skill of the photographer is finding the location / composition and then using the combination of shutter speed and aperture creatively. I struggle with this, and am really trying to work on it.

Just my opinion of course

Simon.

 

[Fireproof Creative]

It's a competent shot, and the type I used to take most of the time, but in reality it's nothing special. You gave him the location, camera settings and some very capable gear so in reality timing and panning are all(?!?!?) they had to worry about. For me, the skill of the photographer is finding the location / composition and then using the combination of shutter speed and aperture creatively. I struggle with this, and am really trying to work on it.

Just my opinion of course

Simon.

Haha I think that's fair.. also pretty much a good appraisal of how I consider my own photography oh well

 

[stevie borowik]

Your editing style always leaves me wondering what you do to your shots but that isn't a bad thing, I like the way you do it. Just need to get you trackside more often to exploit the opportunities.

 

[Fireproof Creative]

Your editing style always leaves me wondering what you do to your shots but that isn't a bad thing, I like the way you do it. Just need to get you trackside more often to exploit the opportunities.

Haha it's really nothing special, just works better on certain types of shots I guess (probably why all my stuff looks the same )

 

[ukaskew]

The gear matters for this kind of shot, there is no question

I'd disagree with that. I've tried a frightening amount of mirrorless cameras, some of which have terrible continuous AF by any standards but I seem to have a knack of making them work perfectly well. I also spent a day with a £100 Canon 1100D and £100 Tamron zoom and I honestly couldn't pick them out from the more expensive stuff I used to use if you lined them all up. Side-on pans are not taxing on gear at all and in terms of outright image quality even slightly poor technique will render £5k of kit no better than an exceptional panner with £500 of kit.

It's similar to the focal length argument. Some motorsport photographers will insist that you need 300mm/400mm etc to shoot motorsport, yet there are plenty of creative guys out there shooting 200mm and below very successfully, even at expansive wastelands like Silverstone.

In terms of creativity, I think super long super fast lenses are a stumbling block for many, you rarely see an amateur using full-on pro gear (i.e. 500mm f4) who is shooting 'creatively', but limit somebody to 200mm and they have no choice but to find different ways of doing things. I've got the 'long lens' bug a few times over the years but always get bored very quickly and end up selling. My last expensive mistake was a Fuji 100-400mm, I spent most of the Silverstone 24hr using it below 200mm!

I've not used a modern DSLR for motorsport for a long time, so I'm not sure how 'easy' the technical aspect of it is now. Panning in particular is far more reliant on technique than kit (in my opinion), so I guess you don't need to be a good general photographer as such, as long as you can pan smoothly and have a knack of dialing in the speed of your movement relative to the car it's then just a case of hitting a button. As the example is at 1/500 above technique plays less of a part, it would take some serious, serious practice for a complete 'newbie' to shoot the same shot at 1/60 with any sort of consistency, for example.

 

[Fireproof Creative]

I'd disagree with that. I've tried a frightening amount of mirrorless cameras, some of which have terrible continuous AF by any standards but I seem to have a knack of making them work perfectly well. I also spent a day with a £100 Canon 1100D and £100 Tamron zoom and I honestly couldn't pick them out from the more expensive stuff I used to use if you lined them all up. Side-on pans are not taxing on gear at all and in terms of outright image quality even slightly poor technique will render £5k of kit no better than an exceptional panner with £500 of kit.

It's similar to the focal length argument. Some motorsport photographers will insist that you need 300mm/400mm etc to shoot motorsport, yet there are plenty of creative guys out there shooting 200mm and below very successfully, even at expansive wastelands like Silverstone.

In terms of creativity, I think super long super fast lenses are a stumbling block for many, you rarely see an amateur using full-on pro gear (i.e. 500mm f4) who is shooting 'creatively', but limit somebody to 200mm and they have no choice but to find different ways of doing things. I've got the 'long lens' bug a few times over the years but always get bored very quickly and end up selling. My last expensive mistake was a Fuji 100-400mm, I spent most of the Silverstone 24hr using it below 200mm!

I've not used a modern DSLR for motorsport for a long time, so I'm not sure how 'easy' the technical aspect of it is now. Panning in particular is far more reliant on technique than kit (in my opinion), so I guess you don't need to be a good general photographer as such, as long as you can pan smoothly and have a knack of dialing in the speed of your movement relative to the car it's then just a case of hitting a button. As the example is at 1/500 above technique plays less of a part, it would take some serious, serious practice for a complete 'newbie' to shoot the same shot at 1/60 with any sort of consistency, for example.

Good insights Chris, thanks for taking the time to really get into the question. I'd agree generally with your panning argument, however in the case of this shot the location means the camera has to have a really rapid and accurate AF response to be able to pick up the subject and allow you to fire the shutter while the subject is at the best angle. I had the chance to use my friend's entry level Nikon and Canon gear (while I have nowhere near as much experience or skill as you I like to think I sort of know what I'm doing) I found they just couldn't cope with the demands in terms of accuracy.

Yep agree with everything you say regarding creativity, I think I sort of said the same thing... The long lens thing can be restrictive (depending on your goal of course) but again provides a much simpler way of producing a good 'technical' photograph (i.e sharp, good dof, nice angle of subject), speaking generally about non-photographers I think because of the prevalence of the stock type magazine shot ( that's what most people tend to identify as a successful shot. I think there's a tendency sometimes to shoot for the admiration of your peers and forget mass market appeal (right or wrong)... I've won competitions with images that people outside the photography sphere say are 'too blury', 'why have you cut the back off', 'it'd be better if you were closer' yadda yadda

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you in terms of IQ too In my experience there's a giant chasm between entry level and pro gear, particularly in regards to how much detail can be resolved and how flexible the files are for editing, more so when cropping images closer to 100 % (I guess due to a combintation of AF consistency, optical quality and sensor capabilities).

 

[ukaskew]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you in terms of IQ too In my experience there's a giant chasm between entry level and pro gear, particularly in regards to how much detail can be resolved and how flexible the files are for editing, more so when cropping images closer to 100 % (I guess due to a combintation of AF consistency, optical quality and sensor capabilities).

Probably true, I'm a passionate hater of the editing process (not for any moral reasons, it just bores me/I'm not good at it!) so I probably don't notice the flexibility/cropping side of things so much when I use different gear. That's why I like the Fuji JPEGs when shooting motorsport, they require so little work compared to CaNikon RAWs.

My main aim when opening Lightroom after a motorsport event is to get out again as soon as possible! The times when you've posted before and after shots I've been stunned by what's possible in skilled hands, as long as the technique is there to capture the core elements well their appears to be plenty of flexibility to really make a photo pop.

 

[Fireproof Creative]

Probably true, I'm a passionate hater of the editing process (not for any moral reasons, it just bores me/I'm not good at it!) so I probably don't notice the flexibility/cropping side of things so much when I use different gear. That's why I like the Fuji JPEGs when shooting motorsport, they require so little work compared to CaNikon RAWs.

My main aim when opening Lightroom after a motorsport event is to get out again as soon as possible! The times when you've posted before and after shots I've been stunned by what's possible in skilled hands, as long as the technique is there to capture the core elements well their appears to be plenty of flexibility to really make a photo pop.

Haha that's because you're a better photographer than me the long lens thing helps get around the fence problem as a spectator, for the tracks I generally shoot at anyway, so working wide is more difficult as options where it doesn't impede you are much reduced compared to somewhere like snetterton for instance. It's all relative I guess... I think what I'm trying to say is getting a good generic shot is much easier with better gear, getting a great photograph (from an artistic point of view) is much more reliant on skill than equipment

 

[GreenNinja67]

Did he only take the one shot or did he hold the button down on drive and this was the best?

Either way it's a cracking photo!

 

[Fireproof Creative]

Did he only take the one shot or did he hold the button down on drive and this was the best?

Either way it's a cracking photo!

Haha he'll be happy with that, 3 burst sequence... 2 useable one not so much

 

[GreenNinja67]

Haha he'll be happy with that, 3 burst sequence... 2 useable one not so much

Good going indeed.


A short story which is in keeping with this thread................

Back in the days of the 90's my photographer friend Keith Russell in Sussex invited me along to Goodwood circuit for a Sunday run what you brung day. I was very much into landscapes at the time but came away from there with 2 full 36 exp. rolls of HP5 with almost every shot a "keeper".
He couldn't believe it, especially as I was using a Canon T90 with a 200mm f4 lens. I quickly learnt the art of snap focussing.
So it can happen.
In fact in later months Keith got me accredited with West Sussex County Times, took me along to Brands Hatch and did the write ups of the local (to us) riders and drivers every Sunday, while I did the photography and developed and printed the shots when we got home in my darkroom.

Those were the days!
I enjoyed that press bib.

Best lenses? the aforementioned Canon FD 200mm f4 and a vivitar 400mm f5.6.

Ah memories (and the looks of scorn from the Autosport chaps)


Terry.

 

[Fireproof Creative]

Good going indeed.


A short story which is in keeping with this thread................

Back in the days of the 90's my photographer friend Keith Russell in Sussex invited me along to Goodwood circuit for a Sunday run what you brung day. I was very much into landscapes at the time but came away from there with 2 full 36 exp. rolls of HP5 with almost every shot a "keeper".
He couldn't believe it, especially as I was using a Canon T90 with a 200mm f4 lens. I quickly learnt the art of snap focussing.
So it can happen.
In fact in later months Keith got me accredited with West Sussex County Times, took me along to Brands Hatch and did the write ups of the local (to us) riders and drivers every Sunday, while I did the photography and developed and printed the shots when we got home in my darkroom.

Those were the days!
I enjoyed that press bib.

Best lenses? the aforementioned Canon FD 200mm f4 and a vivitar 400mm f5.6.

Ah memories (and the looks of scorn from the Autosport chaps)


Terry.

Haha I'm not sure my friend has that much natural talent