off roading on salisbury plain

smiffo

smiffo

Messages
72
Edit My Images
Yes
My son took his new car off-roading at the weekend.

Let me know what you think....
#1
105-1.jpg


#2
061-1.jpg


#3
092-2.jpg


#4
094-1.jpg


#5
112-1.jpg
 
loving the second one (y)
 
Pity the action ones are oof or blurred, they'd have been quite good. The other 2 are just pics of a dirty car. Sorry.
 
I'm agreeing with brash

downloaded a couple of the action shots, 2 & 4, to see what settings you were using, most of the exif was missing, but they were both on 1/60th second, which strikes me as a bit on the slow side, both for closeup panning (no.2) and head on motion (no.4).
There was plenty of light so you could probably have sacrificed some of the depth of field and run say f5-f6 ish aperture to get shutter speed up and the subject frozen. The loss of depth of field wouldn't be an issue as it would isolate the subject from the background anyway.
I'd also consider taking the iso up to 200 or even 400 for action shots, as I find the xti/400d doesnt get much noise at these ISOs. I'm guessing but I'd probably be trying for shutters around 1/200th on the panning and pretty much as fast as I could for the head on (1/800+)

Did you sharpen? I tried a bit of sharpening, No2 didnt like it but No4 improved nicely

On the static shots no1 is fairly OK as the background is nicely in context, but No4 is just parked at the side of the road and is just, well, . . . parked.
I like the way you've got down and got a reasonably low angle on them, but it also means you are suffering from a lot of reflection from the sky on the windows. Using a polarizing filter would probably get rid of that.
On Number 5 the reflection on the rear window is heading for burnout, also the sky, its probable that the sun was to the left of the shot at the rear of the car brightening that bit of the sky, and its put the front of the car in shadow. That's quite a wide range of brightnesses for the sensor and its struggling. Do you check the histogram after shots to see if its all within range?, and do you have flashing highlights enabled on the camera?


I'm not being harsh, they're just the sort of photos I would get and then afterwards find all the reasons they could have been better.
 
Very good constructive criticism Wookie. I enjoyed reading that and thought you summed up this forum nicely by the effort you have good to in helping another member :clap:
 
Wookie said:
I'm agreeing with brash

downloaded a couple of the action shots, 2 & 4, to see what settings you were using, most of the exif was missing, but they were both on 1/60th second, which strikes me as a bit on the slow side, both for closeup panning (no.2) and head on motion (no.4).
There was plenty of light so you could probably have sacrificed some of the depth of field and run say f5-f6 ish aperture to get shutter speed up and the subject frozen. The loss of depth of field wouldn't be an issue as it would isolate the subject from the background anyway.
I'd also consider taking the iso up to 200 or even 400 for action shots, as I find the xti/400d doesnt get much noise at these ISOs. I'm guessing but I'd probably be trying for shutters around 1/200th on the panning and pretty much as fast as I could for the head on (1/800+)

Did you sharpen? I tried a bit of sharpening, No2 didnt like it but No4 improved nicely

On the static shots no1 is fairly OK as the background is nicely in context, but No4 is just parked at the side of the road and is just, well, . . . parked.
I like the way you've got down and got a reasonably low angle on them, but it also means you are suffering from a lot of reflection from the sky on the windows. Using a polarizing filter would probably get rid of that.
On Number 5 the reflection on the rear window is heading for burnout, also the sky, its probable that the sun was to the left of the shot at the rear of the car brightening that bit of the sky, and its put the front of the car in shadow. That's quite a wide range of brightnesses for the sensor and its struggling. Do you check the histogram after shots to see if its all within range?, and do you have flashing highlights enabled on the camera?


I'm not being harsh, they're just the sort of photos I would get and then afterwards find all the reasons they could have been better.
Click to expand...

thanks for the constructive comments. I used 1/60 to try and get some action blur....
 
No 3 for me, it encapsulates the whole experience, loads of energy in the shot, and by shooting at a (relatively) slow shutter speed, the added movement in the mud curtain as added to the mood of the image.

Yep, I really like this shot. :)
 
Les McLean said:
No 3 for me, it encapsulates the whole experience, loads of energy in the shot, and by shooting at a (relatively) slow shutter speed, the added movement in the mud curtain as added to the mood of the image.

Yep, I really like this shot. :)
Click to expand...

yes, I'd agree with that, its a nice shot, the motion blur of the mud curtain is very effective but the vehicle front is still a tad soft. Just had a quick play with it and I reckon just slightly more sharpening helped lots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top