Automotive Photography Competition #172

[pat_ernzen]

Why do you dodge the question?

Probably because it's kind of a dumb question. Why WOULDN'T he use a fast shutter in that situation? All a longer shutter is going to do in that situation is blur the object you're trying to focus on.

[Wouter Melissen]

Probably because it's kind of a dumb question. Why WOULDN'T he use a fast shutter in that situation? All a longer shutter is going to do in that situation is blur the object you're trying to focus on.

Why would it blur the object you focus on?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Properly Panning & keeping the camera on a tripod would certainly minimise blurring the subject of the shot.

[henk4]

Probably because it's kind of a dumb question. Why WOULDN'T he use a fast shutter in that situation? All a longer shutter is going to do in that situation is blur the object you're trying to focus on.

have you done any track shots?

[John Thawley]

Well... there's no such thing as a dumb question, though I would think a knowledgeable shooter would know.

Two reasons... first, I was more concerned with the depth of field. I wanted enough to keep the whole car sharp.. including the wing... but I wanted it shallow for the background to REALLY drop out. At ISO 100, any slower would have bumped my aperture more and not added anything to the photo. A slower shutter would have simply increased the chance of a softer image. Plus (though you wouldn't be able to tell in this picture) the car is just about to enter the turn and was coming across my lens. I wanted a head-on... had the car come across the face of the lens even a little bit, it wold have softened the lettering and the nose etc.

Not sure who mentioned a tri-pod... but surely, you must be kidding?

Didn't mean to cause a stir, just wasn't sure why the question was asked the way it was. Had you asked, "why did you shoot at 640?" I would have answered. When you asked "why did you shot with such a high shutter?" it implied the speed was wrong. 1/640 was perfect for what I was doing.

JT

[John Thawley]

pat_ernzen
Mazda MX-5
Not sure when, definitely less than 3 months ago.
Canon 20D w/ Tamron 17-50mm and diffused flash.
Some editing.

Sure wouldn't mind seeing the EXIF data on this shot.

JT

[Wouter Melissen]

Well... there's no such thing as a dumb question, though I would think a knowledgeable shooter would know.

Two reasons... first, I was more concerned with the depth of field. I wanted enough to keep the whole car sharp.. including the wing... but I wanted it shallow for the background to REALLY drop out. At ISO 100, any slower would have bumped my aperture more and not added anything to the photo. A slower shutter would have simply increased the chance of a softer image. Plus (though you wouldn't be able to tell in this picture) the car is just about to enter the turn and was coming across my lens. I wanted a head-on... had the car come across the face of the lens even a little bit, it wold have softened the lettering and the nose etc.

Not sure who mentioned a tri-pod... but surely, you must be kidding?

Didn't mean to cause a stir, just wasn't sure why the question was asked the way it was. Had you asked, "why did you shoot at 640?" I would have answered. When you asked "why did you shot with such a high shutter?" it implied the speed was wrong. 1/640 was perfect for what I was doing.

JT

Fair enough, I always try to stay at or under 1/400 to get motion blur in the wheels.

[henk4]

Didn't mean to cause a stir, just wasn't sure why the question was asked the way it was. Had you asked, "why did you shoot at 640?" I would have answered. When you asked "why did you shot with such a high shutter?" it implied the speed was wrong. 1/640 was perfect for what I was doing.

JT

you could also have gone down to ISO 100....the wheels of the car in the pic are hardly visible, but they still look rather static. (meant as a constructive comment)

[John Thawley]

you could also have gone down to ISO 100....the wheels of the car in the pic are hardly visible, but they still look rather static. (meant as a constructive comment)

However, that would not accommodate the car's turning in and traveling across the face of the lens.... softening the shot. I'm fairly comfortable with the shot the way I shot it.

[John Thawley]

Fair enough, I always try to stay at or under 1/400 to get motion blur in the wheels.

I choose to assess each situation as necessary.

Thanks,

JT

[henk4]

However, that would not accommodate the car's turning in and traveling across the face of the lens.... softening the shot. I'm fairly comfortable with the shot the way I shot it.

traveling across the lens? Is this not for what panning was invented?
Anyway the shot is superb no doubt about that...

[Wouter Melissen]

I choose to assess each situation as necessary.

Thanks,

JT

You are welcome.

[Gt1Street]

You are welcome.

You are too kind

[pat_ernzen]

have you done any track shots?

Yes.

Why would it blur the object you focus on?

Because the object is coming nearly straight at the camera and likely, quite quickly. With such a shallow DOF, that's going to blur/soften pretty quickly (as he mentioned).

[John Thawley]

traveling across the lens? Is this not for what panning was invented?
Anyway the shot is superb no doubt about that...

Yes. But, that was not the shot I wanted.

Surely, I don't need to defend my panning skills too. LOL

Here's a similar shot from yesterday. 1/800