Dos and don'ts... - Page 5

minimangler · 23 Apr 2008, 16:33 (Ref:2184995)

I'd like to point out I had a good, clean well exposed shot of every car head on within 3/4 hour of the first practice session starting, and didn't need to shoot 10000000 frames to do it. if you can't get a picture without having to take 100 attempts, don't be a pro. After that i "arsed around" as you so eloquently put it, and got some "pretty pictures".

And I didn't even have autofocus in the britcar blizzard (http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/235552...7604202748376/) and don't understand what the whole "autofocus whinging" is about.

redshoes · 23 Apr 2008, 16:58 (Ref:2185010)

Quote:

Originally Posted by minimangler

And I didn't even have autofocus in the britcar blizzard (http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/235552...7604202748376/) and don't understand what the whole "autofocus whinging" is about.

As Hubble said, it's about contrast. AF will have less of a problem focusing on a black car against a white background, as in your example.

Difficult to tell with all the snow but I'm not sure the car in that example actually is in focus anyhow.

timtime · 23 Apr 2008, 17:04 (Ref:2185013)

All people have done on here is try to help you and your last post must make them wonder why they bothered trying. No one is whingeing about autofocus they are trying to give you advice. If you didnt have it in a blizzard your pictures would be all the better for it, that is the whole point of what people are saying.

Your autofocus could have been distracted by the snowflakes in a blizzard in much the same way as it could possibly have in the misty conditions on sunday morning. Hence burst shooting can sometimes help get a result in those conditions.

You say yourself you dont understand but you also dont seem to want to profit from others advice, one day you might want some advice lets hope you haven't alienated everyone who might have possibly been prepared to help you by then.

minimangler · 23 Apr 2008, 17:11 (Ref:2185020)

I meant to say i didn't have autofocus issues- the autofocus was on and working fine. Hubble, it's focused fine, just slightly noisy thanks to having to rtun a fairly high ISO.

Tim- i'm not ignoring advice- why would i set this thread up simply to ignore it? I'm making a point. Isn't that what forums are for?

Robin_D · 23 Apr 2008, 17:45 (Ref:2185048)

One thing that really hacked me off was the amount of photographers that blocked our run at Copse for the start of the GT and GT3 race. After being asked more than once, I just gave up. If I needed to get through I'd just shove them out the way. Broken camera or not.

minimangler · 23 Apr 2008, 17:59 (Ref:2185064)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin_D

One thing that really hacked me off was the amount of photographers that blocked our run at Copse for the start of the GT and GT3 race. After being asked more than once, I just gave up. If I needed to get through I'd just shove them out the way. Broken camera or not.

How do you mean blocked you run? Stood in the gap!? That's pretty stupid.

Wasn't me (thankfully)!

Hubble · 23 Apr 2008, 18:07 (Ref:2185072)

Quote:

Originally Posted by minimangler

I'd like to point out I had a good, clean well exposed shot of every car head on within 3/4 hour of the first practice session starting, and didn't need to shoot 10000000 frames to do it. if you can't get a picture without having to take 100 attempts, don't be a pro. After that i "arsed around" as you so eloquently put it, and got some "pretty pictures".

And I didn't even have autofocus in the britcar blizzard (http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/235552...7604202748376/) and don't understand what the whole "autofocus whinging" is about.

Jake, I've tried to be patient, and even tried to offer you a little advice on composition etc before, but now you've overdone it.....

As you seem to know so much about motorsport photography, perhaps you can enlighten us all with a masterclass, obviously nobody here has much of a clue.

One day (if you are lucky) you'll be working for a magazine, and your photo ed will be demanding 500+ shots out of you from an event. Everything from pit & paddock, hospitality, posed driver/team shots, press conferences, driver briefings, grid shots, plus track shots from testing, practice, qualifying and any races. Or you may be shooting for drivers/teams, and they might want 30+ images of each driver/car, and they'll specify what sort of images they want, where taken, what background etc. Worse still, both. This is the reality of it.

In 2006 I had nearly a dozen drivers in an international race series, and needed to provide between 15 and 35 guaranteed shots of each of them, so you have to shoot 25-50 so you can weed out the ones with dodgy backgrounds, soft focus etc to hit your target. And the shots had to be a variety of all the above. I was given a two page briefing on what was required for every session – very specific shots – from practice to qualifying to race.

I can tell you, hand on heart, you will not know your a**e from your elbow. You'll have to jog with your gear from one end of the grid to the other taking driver shots as you go before the green flag lap, then sprint to wherever you need to be for the first lap. At the end you have to run back to shoot the podiums, then, if your luck is bad, you'll have to shoot your drivers with trophies separately, because they finished high in their class. Think about it. Then think that just as you are doing that, the grid is forming for the next race. And so it starts again. And it’s easy carrying one camera and a couple of lenses. Try it with 20Kg of very expensive cameras and lenses etc, costing upwards of £10,000. That you paid for out of your own pocket.

I've looked at your gallery from Silverstone. There's some nice shots there, but I feel they're lacking in imagination - stick the car centre frame, tilt the camera for dramatic effect - bang! It's not as simple as that. The shot from just before Bridge of CR Scuderia 56 - you weren't low enough – try lying on your back by the bridge support on the outside of the track, and shoot as the car crests the rise. Clear air underneath the car, and you can't see the grandstands in the background, only the tips of the trees. You were there for two days, yet seemingly didn’t venture further than the section between Vale and Copse. No Maggots/Becketts? No Hanger Straight? No Stowe? Too far to walk? Silverstone is easy to get around - try going to Pau.....

People on here have tried to offer you sound advice, but you've got your head so far up your own butt you won't listen. That kind of attitude will not help you progress. At the stage you are at in your 'career' you need to take all the help you can get. Start prancing around like you know it all, and word will soon get around, and the offers of accreditation will soon dry up.

Spend some time looking at Getty Images, Sutton Images, Jakob Ebrey sites, then you might have a clue what is popular with the motorsport fraternity. Until then, perhaps you can stop being an arrogant smart a**e and listen to some advice.

Forgive the rant, but you need to understand what it is you are getting in to. Enjoy these early days when there is little pressure on you to deliver. When (if) you hit the big time, you'll find out what it is really like, and you'll need to deliver what the ed wants.

Robin_D · 23 Apr 2008, 18:15 (Ref:2185077)

Quote:

Originally Posted by minimangler

How do you mean blocked you run? Stood in the gap!? That's pretty stupid.

Wasn't me (thankfully)!

Nope, when I mean block the run, I mean in the corner where you can see the startline, they were 2 - 3 deep and stood all over our only way down / up.

Samoan Attorney · 23 Apr 2008, 18:33 (Ref:2185085)

Hubble.............. for easing my blood pressure and saving me the time it would take to post on this nonsense.

I would endorse all that you say in your last post..................and would add more...........

OK off to pack for Monza.

John Brooks
www.sportscarpros.com

Piglet · 23 Apr 2008, 20:05 (Ref:2185184)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samoan Attorney

Hubble.............. for easing my blood pressure and saving me the time it would take to post on this nonsense.

I would endorse all that you say in your last post..................and would add more...........

OK off to pack for Monza.

John Brooks
www.sportscarpros.com

Yes, nicely put Hubble....I was going to add, try doing it weekend on weekend on top of a day job as their aint enough money in it to give up the day job AND at LM in 38 degree heat....(I really have no idea how you guys cope in that heat - I barely managed in the air conditioned media centre

)

...but what would I know about it....must stop being negative....MM, you didn't answer my question about whether you got paid?

Enjoy Monza John, we gave you a wave when you turned up on the Silverstone coverage...will be on the sofa for Monza as well, KK has to work and I've got paperwork to prepare for A1GP next week....will you be there?

Tim the Grey · 23 Apr 2008, 20:59 (Ref:2185246)

Hubble? Just what are you smoking?
A Canon 1D DOES have a perfectly normal, everyday, shutter, along with that mirror flipping up n down.

Go read Canon specs if you don;t believe me.

So, just who were you having a pop at over 'soft' shots? Me?
At least I didn't spend X thou on a 1d mkIII only to find the AF couldn't keep up.

Don't pick fights you won't win.

minimangler · 23 Apr 2008, 21:00 (Ref:2185249)

I am being paid this week in fact. To be honest, hubble, you clearly haven't looked at my gallery when you say "no becketts, no stowe" etc.

Use your EYES, photographer man.

Chapel http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/2436411476/
Stowe http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/242588...7604642709818/
Maggots http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/243390...7604642709818/
Stowe exit http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/242669...7604642709818/

You talk about vareity- have a glance through your galleries- it's hard to tell one from the next.

minimangler · 23 Apr 2008, 21:01 (Ref:2185252)

Oh, and Becketts.

http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/243309...7604642709818/

And I have two bodies, and two high end lenses for track use, plus two paddock lenses.

Robin_D · 23 Apr 2008, 21:05 (Ref:2185257)

Quote:

Originally Posted by minimangler

Oh, and Becketts.

http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/243309...7604642709818/

And I have two bodies, and two high end lenses for track use, plus two paddock lenses.

Psssst, that's Maggots.

minimangler · 23 Apr 2008, 21:08 (Ref:2185261)

Oh, sorry!

my bad.

Piglet · 23 Apr 2008, 21:08 (Ref:2185262)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin_D

Psssst, that's Maggots.

Robin_D · 23 Apr 2008, 21:18 (Ref:2185272)

Just some advice that knowing everything so quickly can result in you being complacent. If I did that as a marshal (as your dad can tell you) I would probably end up putting myself and others in danger. You asked for advice in this thread and then ***** when guys and gals give you advice that you think you already know.

Get yourself booked for a couple of weddings and pictures of dogs. It's going to be a long tough ride, but listen to all the advice you can get. Don't just throw it off. Keep the good advice and leave the rest.

Hubble · 23 Apr 2008, 21:21 (Ref:2185275)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

Hubble? Just what are you smoking?
A Canon 1D DOES have a perfectly normal, everyday, shutter, along with that mirror flipping up n down.

Go read Canon specs if you don;t believe me.

So, just who were you having a pop at over 'soft' shots? Me?
At least I didn't spend X thou on a 1d mkIII only to find the AF couldn't keep up.

Don't pick fights you won't win.

Gave up smoking years ago......but thanks for your concern

Quote from Canon EOS Magazine, page 42, October - December issue 2007
"The EOS 1D is unique among EOS cameras in that it uses a 'digital shutter' - exposures are made by turning the sensor on and off"

Those nice people at Canon Professional Services have a copy sent to me every 3 months or so......

Now, who is it that's picking a fight he can't win?

I didn't spend X thou on a 1DmkIII....I've got a 1DmkIIn

Yes it does have a nice mirror that flips up and down. but then I never said that it didn't. One thing I will hold my hand up to - I mixed up the CCD and CMOS in my statement - it's CMOS that can't do this yet.....

Tim the Grey · 23 Apr 2008, 21:25 (Ref:2185281)

Which is something I've been telling him, but hell, he's a teenager, and as we ALL know, we all knew everything at that age?

ME, I just try to correct the more outlandish misinformation... I'm NOT a working Pro, and have no pretensions in that direction.

Remember Jack Nicklaus' dictum. "An amateur practices till he gets it right. A pro practices till he doesn't get it wrong."

Tim the Grey · 23 Apr 2008, 21:27 (Ref:2185284)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...mkii/page4.asp

The defence rests.

TTFN.

Hubble · 23 Apr 2008, 21:27 (Ref:2185285)

Quote:

Originally Posted by minimangler

I am being paid this week in fact. To be honest, hubble, you clearly haven't looked at my gallery when you say "no becketts, no stowe" etc.

Use your eyes photographer man

You talk about vareity- have a glance through your galleries- it's hard to tell one from the next.

Then I stand corrected....but looking at them, you wouldn't know that. It's what I'm referring to as being imaginitive - it's just a car on a track - could be just about any corner of any track

On the last point.....what gallery was that....since I don't have a website?

minimangler · 23 Apr 2008, 21:31 (Ref:2185288)

How many times do i have to say i listened? but i think maybe you took too many jobs on, hubble. Let's be honest, if you're sprinting everywhere, something's wrong- i got from woodcote to copse via the paddock during the formation lap for fia gt.

And changed lenses in the process.

minimangler · 23 Apr 2008, 21:34 (Ref:2185291)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hubble

Then I stand corrected....but looking at them, you wouldn't know that. It's what I'm referring to as being imaginitive - it's just a car on a track - could be just about any corner of any track

On the last point.....what gallery was that....since I don't have a website?

Have i not seen galleries of yours of bsb before?

or was that someone else?

Robin_D · 23 Apr 2008, 21:39 (Ref:2185298)

You may have listened but you seem to have come across in a very arrogant way, which reads that you 'knew that anyway.'

If it was my advice you are saying that to then it would be the last I'd give you. I mean you are making a name for yourself but unfortunately it is in a bad way.

minimangler · 23 Apr 2008, 21:41 (Ref:2185299)

I do not intend to come across as arrogant, and if i do i apologise.

PS: Hubble: is this low enough?

http://flickr.com/photos/jymp/2437547448/