Photography Quality Question (+ Random Race Shots)

UriahRR · Post by **UriahRR** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:44 pm

Hey photographers, pictures are taken at every autocross of varying quality's. My question is, why are the pictures different quality's? What settings must have changed to yield the specific look? Here is what I mean...

#1 - This is a picture taken from my camera, not an SLR, just a 10MP 15x Zoomer. Mediocre quality.

Then there are the pictures the club takes. As far as I know, they use the same camera (DSLR or similar one) at each event, but they have a different person (volunteer) to take the pictures each time. Here are some of their pictures....

#2- Pretty good quality.

#3 - Little better quality.

#4 - And then what happened here? Complete shit quality?
What settings did this guy have wrong to make the pictures come out so horribly?

#5 - To this guy who must have REALLY known what he was doing. How did he get the pictures to look like that? Like the car's from a brochure or something? Almost looks like a sketch. I've seen photos like this from Anthony and LSP, how do you guys do it?

No one has ever made my car look as good as this guy. I mean that shit is almost... calendar worthy.

Basically, besides buying a DSLR, what settings can I change to make my pictures in #1 look like #5's?

Ending on a shitty camera phone pic of a dumped BMW at my school.

Thanks guys

hoping to improve my skillz.

Johny · Post by **Johny** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:26 pm

Well teh last two pictures you posted, it seems like it's main focus is on the middle of the picture, being your car. I dont know about your camera, but theres alot of cameras out there that allow this focus option. The guy also probably had a tripod

If you notice, the middle of your car is sharp where as the background (eg the people, trees) are blurry. That definitely adds to the "pro" quality of the pics. other things might be editing software. I know the HDR filter on photoshop works wonders.

thats about all I can think of

Post by **racer12306** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:14 pm

I'd be curious if someone was shooting in auto and another was not. Auto will get you OK pics most of the time but knowing how to setup a shot, adjust the camera and deal with the sun is an art. The sun can be a real bitch when shooting.

A one stop under exposure can work wonders, especially in the sun. As Johnny mentioned the depth of field looks a littler better on #5. I'd almost be willing to bet that the pictures in #4 were metered in the wrong place, thus causing the car to be dark and the background bright. Slight under exposure and a proper meter reading would turn the pic around.

A camera is only as powerful as the person behind the viewfinder.

Mopar_Korean · Post by **Mopar_Korean** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:41 pm

It looks like picture 2 and 3 have no post processing done to them. The guy could have shorted up the shutter speed. See how the wheels are slightly blurry? A faster shutter would have sharpened them up. However perhaps due to his location on the track, lense, and lighting conditions he may not have been able to. A shorter shutter speed requires more light or the pictures will be underexposed (dark, similar to pictures 4&5). Thats when adjusting the aperture comes into play. However adjusting the aperture directly effects the depth of field. Notice how the background is blurry? Thats a high aperture.

Pictures 4 look as if the guy was facing the sun and slightly underexposed. That explains how the passenger side and 3/4 of the top of your car is lit up vs. the drivers side which has no detail at all.

Pictures 5 look to have post processing done. It looks as if they did some slight HDR effects to spruce it up a bit. Again the shutter is slow (blurred wheels) but in this case its good it shows action.

If you really want to improve your skills take a photography class at your local college. Its a great and cheapish way to learn darkroom processing, camera operation, and how to improve skills.

UriahRR · Post by **UriahRR** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:21 am

Hhmm... good idea.

I don't shoot auto mode, but i just pick one of the 16 pre-programmed settings, usually landscape. When I shoot racing vehicles, I have to sweep the camera with the car in order to get the clear car and blurry background look. Is this necessary with dslrs or can you get crisp shots with the camera stationary on a tripod? I never use my tri-pod either, guess I should.

So, so far;

1. High shutter speed (how high?)
2. High aperature
3. Always face away from the sun
4. Photoshop

Post by **racer12306** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:20 am

Since you adjust the shutter on a DSLR I would say you do not have to sweep with the car, but catching a car in the frame can be pretty difficult at speed. Most of the time a blurry background is preferred for this, however if you get the shutter right for the speed and adjust the aperture properly you will get a nice soft background.

This was taken with my old SLR. Probably near 1/1000 shutter speed, since it's bright and the car was fast. I panned the car from the starting line to the 1/8 mile mark and snapped the shot. Looks like I could have used a little faster shutter to help with the car, but also keep in mind the car was probably doing 250 mph.

There isn't really a clear cut use these settings and it will work. You can be shooting at 250/5.4 and be getting perfect shots, then the clouds cover the sun and you have to back it down to 125/5.4. I suggest the photo class like Mopar_Korean said. A great way to really get a handle on what is needed to compose a good shot. There are even some classes that target digital photography specifically.

C1DoG · Post by **C1DoG** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:39 am

I agree with Frank. Most of the time it is trial and error to get that perfect pic taken.

LilSparkPlug · Post by **LilSparkPlug** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:47 am

My main gripe with all of those pictures is that your wheels are stationary as if the car isn't even moving. That tells me the shutter speed was too fast. I'm on my netbook right now but if I were on my PC I could tell you exactly where they went wrong by looking at the settings on the pictures. The focal point needs to be adjusted in a few of them as well.

The quality of the two you like is the best out of the bunch, but the background is still a bit blown out and the colors off. In the grainy shots the ISO was likely the culprit along with a wrong shutter speed.

+2 on taking a photography course that would definitely help you out a ton

. If you were closer I'd help you in person.

UriahRR · Post by **UriahRR** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:25 am

These are some samples of pictures I've taken, again, all with the sweep method because if I were to leave it stationary, the car would just be a blur going past. On that note, I believe the wheels are blurred in a few of these.

I always use a Nikon Coolpix L100, can be a real bitch sometimes. I've gotten pretty used to working around the areas it lacks, but when I hand the camera off to others, I'm lucky if any shot isn't a mass of blur. One area it lacks TREMENDOUSLY is taking pictures inside or in low-light areas. Everything looks grainy and dark. You can adjust almost anything on this camera except ISO, I believe, which I read somewhere pissed off a buch of people because that's not a setting to leave out.

Tell me how these look, not trying to whore I promise. I took all of these.

And then its problems - When it's night time

- And when the sun hits white cars it causes massive glare

Besides playing with shutter speed for blurryness and depth of feel for crispness, what exactly do some of you guys do in photoshop or whatever programs no make the sky vibrant with the clouds in focus and a car sitting just below them looking more realistic than real life, almost like a video game image, some of the pictures you've taken LSP I've had to save just because the pictures have a 'too good to be real' sort of feel to them.

Thanks again.

Danteneon · Post by **Danteneon** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:35 am

Off topic, but it strikes me odd when I see a Viper giving a pass signal to what looks like a stock car

And yes, I mean stock car as in racing, not a stock car. errrm...what?

UriahRR · Post by **UriahRR** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:42 am

The Viper was actually passing the stock car, I believe it was more of a 'fuck you' signal for the stock car holding up the Viper in the corners. The Vipers were unanimous that day, especially when the Competition Coupes and GT-1's started running. The Vipers pictured above are just the ACR and ACR-X and even they were outrunning the stock cars / cup cars.

AND the Modern Performance SRT-4 was keeping up with some of the Vipers, so that's a fast-ass Neoon.

Danteneon · Post by **Danteneon** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:48 am

Ah, got ya. It looked like the "OK to pass" signal you give when doing a driving school or a non competition event.

UriahRR · Post by **UriahRR** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:02 pm

They were using point-by's all day, this one looked a little more pissed of a motion. Could be wrong, though. But the Viper was passing.

Here's another example of a mediocre background and pretty nice car, but the photographer makes them sparkle.

How he do dat?

LilSparkPlug · Post by **LilSparkPlug** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:40 pm

The SRT belongs to Doug, he has the same turbo I do and a basically one off suspension setup. Amazing car, super nice guy as well.

As for your pictures, the shot of the red Viper, the shot of red car #2 and red car #77 and the Jager car were your best ones. The car looks like it's in motion, although with a coolpix you're going to be lacking a lot of the features needed to take an awesome rolling shot.

As for ERabbit's SRT that you posted a lot of that is editing. It's not all just camera work although that does play a huge roll.

Here's a rolling shot I took, it's horrendous but...it shows what look you want for the wheels/background. It has a lot of bad points though, it's grainy, slightly blurry (car isn't super sharp) and my lens was full of rain. :\ I need more opportunities.

Mopar_Korean · Post by **Mopar_Korean** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:07 pm

Another tip, PRACTICE! PRACTICE! PRACTICE! Then when your done, PRACTICE some more. lol

Dont think you need some $1000 DSLR and $1000 lens to take good pictures. I know of some experienced photographers who can shoot better with a 35mm disposable then a chump with 10k worth of gear. I shoot with a old school 1st gen Cannon Rebel DSLR and some $50-150 lens.

Personally I dont like photoshop. Unless your using it to do some outlandish effects that clearly isnt real (i.e.HDR) its like a girl with implants. A fake ass tease.

At the end of the day your taking pictures for yourself. If you think they are good then they are good. Dont do it to make others happy unless your getting paid to do it.

UriahRR · Post by **UriahRR** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:24 pm

Mopar_Korean wrote:Personally I dont like photoshop. Unless your using it to do some outlandish effects that clearly isnt real (i.e.HDR) its like a girl with implants. A fake ass tease.

Oh, I love HDR then!

And yes, believe me, I take about 1000 pictures over a race weekend and have a hard time deciding which ones are the best, the keepers, the ones that, well, someone would pay for, because as much as I love photography and love taking pictures for myself, if I can get paid for doing something I love on a hobby-bassis, then I've found myself a pretty sweet deal. I've already sent a team pictures because one of their team members had a brief chat with me and liked the shots I took. Honestly, I was taken back because I don't feel I'm at the pro level yet, so for now, all the races and car stuff I do is just practice practice practice - and I love it.

And if HDR is what #5 used and the guy with the srt used, then that's what I must use, because I LOOOOOVE that look on a picture. Almost like a sketch the way the bricks and windows are and the curves of my car's hood so curvy, curvier than even real life, it's beautiful.

EDIT: Whew, geez, I may just have to pay one of you DSLR guys to do a good shoot of my car at the next big meet and HDR me up.

JeffM · Post by **JeffM** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:26 am

Completely off topic but damn...

Look at that ground clearance.

LilSparkPlug · Post by **LilSparkPlug** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:18 am

The mirrors remind me of spark plug socket "T" handles.

UriahRR · Post by **UriahRR** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:20 am

Yea man, I love the body lines on those old Lola, Chaparral, Lotus, and Porsche Prototypes (believe it or not the first orange car is a Porsche). I love seeing how those prototype cars evolved into what they are today - record winners like the Nissan R92C and the legendary 24 Hour (and almost everything else) Winning Audi R8, both of which are also pictured above.

And that R8 man, when you see a REAL R8 in person, whew. When that thing goes by, all the other teams stop and watch it pass. Even though you're competing against it, you still love it for what it can do.

Should be at 24 Hours of Daytona with a team in January, might not be able to take as many pictures, though, but we'll see.

2gn2uner · Post by **2gn2uner** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:27 am

You can pick up an amazing used DSLR (nikon d70s) for yourself for around $200 bucks, if you don't need telephoto, you can pick up a 50 mm 1.8 for anywhere between $50-$100 bucks. Optionally, you can buy a half way decent ND filter(singhrays are the best). circular polarizers are good investment too and you can take amazing outdoor shots that are vibrant, sharp as a tack and have that perfect blurred background and motion on the wheels.

Most decent point and shoots now a days cost around 300-400 bucks, for that cost you can get the above mentioned set up and do all that yourself. Also, google " the dave hill look" and you can learn to make your pics better than the overcooked HDR pics. the key to photography is lighting, your imagination, and practice, not what you shoot with.

To improve your photog skills, check out the strobist page and read blogs form some photogs you admire, you can learn photography without taking a college course. For shooting film, check out fstoppers. There seem to be some very knowledgable folks here as well who have given some great advice. You are headed in the right direction with your work as well. I liked many of those pics.

UriahRR wrote:
Mopar_Korean wrote:Personally I dont like photoshop. Unless your using it to do some outlandish effects that clearly isnt real (i.e.HDR) its like a girl with implants. A fake ass tease.
Oh, I love HDR then!

And yes, believe me, I take about 1000 pictures over a race weekend and have a hard time deciding which ones are the best, the keepers, the ones that, well, someone would pay for, because as much as I love photography and love taking pictures for myself, if I can get paid for doing something I love on a hobby-bassis, then I've found myself a pretty sweet deal. I've already sent a team pictures because one of their team members had a brief chat with me and liked the shots I took. Honestly, I was taken back because I don't feel I'm at the pro level yet, so for now, all the races and car stuff I do is just practice practice practice - and I love it.

And if HDR is what #5 used and the guy with the srt used, then that's what I must use, because I LOOOOOVE that look on a picture. Almost like a sketch the way the bricks and windows are and the curves of my car's hood so curvy, curvier than even real life, it's beautiful.

EDIT: Whew, geez, I may just have to pay one of you DSLR guys to do a good shoot of my car at the next big meet and HDR me up.

UriahRR · Post by **UriahRR** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:47 am

Wow, thanks dude