How fast a shutter speed do you need for human "action" shots?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    I have been fiddling around with forcing one parameter, and letting the
    camera make up for it with the rest. What is a good shutter speed for
    sports-type shots, dancers, kids creating resonant modes on a slinky,
    that sort of thing?

    --
    "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
    crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
    TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
    bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
     
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 18, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Ciszek

    otter Guest

    On Sep 18, 9:15 am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    > I have been fiddling around with forcing one parameter, and letting the
    > camera make up for it with the rest.  What is a good shutter speed for
    > sports-type shots, dancers, kids creating resonant modes on a slinky,
    > that sort of thing?
    >


    You will need to experiment to see what you like.

    For volleyball, 1/1000 will freeze the ball and body. But I actually
    like the motion blur you get with the hands and ball at 1/200 or
    1/100.
     
    otter, Sep 18, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/18/2012 10:15 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    > I have been fiddling around with forcing one parameter, and letting the
    > camera make up for it with the rest. What is a good shutter speed for
    > sports-type shots, dancers, kids creating resonant modes on a slinky,
    > that sort of thing?
    >


    It depends:
    1/2500 should be fast enough. Slower, ff you want a touch of blur,
    There is no set formula.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 18, 2012
    #3
  4. (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    > I have been fiddling around with forcing one parameter, and letting the
    > camera make up for it with the rest. What is a good shutter speed for
    > sports-type shots, dancers, kids creating resonant modes on a slinky,
    > that sort of thing?


    Varies a lot. You'll almost certainly need 1/250. If you've got
    someone running *across* the frame fairly close, you'll need a LOT more
    if you want to freeze them.

    Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
    in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
    sometimes, for exmaple. And panning with the subject, to leave the
    background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
    sometimes.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 18, 2012
    #4
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
    >in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
    >sometimes, for exmaple.


    You mean, like this?

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/

    >And panning with the subject, to leave the
    >background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
    >sometimes.


    That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
    awesome if you succeeded.

    --
    "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
    crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
    TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
    bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
     
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 19, 2012
    #5
  6. (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    > In article <>,
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
    >>in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
    >>sometimes, for exmaple.

    >
    > You mean, like this?
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/


    Yep, that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
    indication of the motion.

    >>And panning with the subject, to leave the
    >>background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
    >>sometimes.

    >
    > That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
    > awesome if you succeeded.


    It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
    digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
    that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
    simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
    length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
    smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.

    These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
    are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
    for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
    and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.

    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 19, 2012
    #6
  7. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    > On 2012-09-18 19:13:04 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:
    >
    >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
    >>
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
    >>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
    >>>> sometimes, for exmaple.
    >>>
    >>> You mean, like this?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/

    >
    > Yep,
    >>>

    >> that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
    >> indication of the motion.
    >>
    >>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the
    >>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
    >>>> sometimes.
    >>>
    >>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
    >>> awesome if you succeeded.

    >>
    >> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
    >> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
    >> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
    >> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
    >> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
    >> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.
    >>
    >> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
    >> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
    >> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
    >> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.

    >
    > Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and
    > one @1/800 sec.
    > < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >


    That's an absolutely classic pan. The fact that he was probably going
    faster than my test subjects helps give you a much more streaked
    background.

    > < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >


    That's actually a great example of just how static a really frozen shot
    can look.

    I had this discussion down in Nashville about helicopter blades at one
    point; same thing, if you really freeze it, it looks kind of wrong, and
    if you blur it so much you don't see the blades at all it looks REALLY
    wrong.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 19, 2012
    #7
  8. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:29:30 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 2012-09-18 19:13:04 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> In article <>,

    >
    > >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur

    >
    > >>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful

    >
    > >>>> sometimes, for exmaple.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> You mean, like this?

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Yep,

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >> that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear

    >
    > >> indication of the motion.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the

    >
    > >>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice

    >
    > >>>> sometimes.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look

    >
    > >>> awesome if you succeeded.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where

    >
    > >> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine

    >
    > >> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer

    >
    > >> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal

    >
    > >> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning

    >
    > >> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>

    >
    > >> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008

    >
    > >> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,

    >
    > >> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and

    >
    > > one @1/800 sec.

    >
    > > < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >

    >
    >
    >
    > That's an absolutely classic pan. The fact that he was probably going
    >
    > faster than my test subjects helps give you a much more streaked
    >
    > background.
    >
    >
    >
    > > < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >

    >
    >
    >
    > That's actually a great example of just how static a really frozen shot
    >
    > can look.
    >
    >
    >
    > I had this discussion down in Nashville about helicopter blades at one
    >
    > point; same thing, if you really freeze it, it looks kind of wrong, and
    >
    > if you blur it so much you don't see the blades at all it looks REALLY
    >
    > wrong.
    >


    I remmeber back in the 70s discussions on the effects of vertical and horizontal shutters and how they can make wheels look oval at certain speeds.
    I've seen a few odd photos of fan blades or aircraft props that look strange do to a effect of the way the camera caught them.
     
    Whisky-dave, Sep 19, 2012
    #8
  9. Whisky-dave <> writes:

    > On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:29:30 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On 2012-09-18 19:13:04 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:

    >>
    >> >

    >>
    >> >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >> >>> In article <>,

    >>
    >> >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>>>

    >>
    >> >>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur

    >>
    >> >>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful

    >>
    >> >>>> sometimes, for exmaple.

    >>
    >> >>>

    >>
    >> >>> You mean, like this?

    >>
    >> >>>

    >>
    >> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/

    >>
    >> >

    >>
    >> > Yep,

    >>
    >> >>>

    >>
    >> >> that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear

    >>
    >> >> indication of the motion.

    >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >> >>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the

    >>
    >> >>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice

    >>
    >> >>>> sometimes.

    >>
    >> >>>

    >>
    >> >>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look

    >>
    >> >>> awesome if you succeeded.

    >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >> >> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where

    >>
    >> >> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine

    >>
    >> >> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer

    >>
    >> >> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal

    >>
    >> >> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning

    >>
    >> >> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.

    >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >> >> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>

    >>
    >> >> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008

    >>
    >> >> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,

    >>
    >> >> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.

    >>
    >> >

    >>
    >> > Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and

    >>
    >> > one @1/800 sec.

    >>
    >> > < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> That's an absolutely classic pan. The fact that he was probably going
    >>
    >> faster than my test subjects helps give you a much more streaked
    >>
    >> background.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> That's actually a great example of just how static a really frozen shot
    >>
    >> can look.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I had this discussion down in Nashville about helicopter blades at one
    >>
    >> point; same thing, if you really freeze it, it looks kind of wrong, and
    >>
    >> if you blur it so much you don't see the blades at all it looks REALLY
    >>
    >> wrong.
    >>

    >
    > I remmeber back in the 70s discussions on the effects of vertical and horizontal shutters and how they can make wheels look oval at certain speeds.


    Yes, large, slow, focal-plane shutters (this cartoon convention in fact
    originated with the Speed Graphic camera of 1912, which had a 1/1000
    second top speed on its focal-plane shutter, and a 4x5 inch focal
    plane). The shutter didn't move that fast, it just had a narrow slit,
    so the different parts of the car were exposed a significantly different
    times, giving rise to the canted wheel effect as the most noticeable
    artifact. This was picked up by cartoonists and is still in use today,
    even though our shutters now move so fast we can't actually produce the
    effect with modern cameras.

    > I've seen a few odd photos of fan blades or aircraft props that look
    > strange do to a effect of the way the camera caught them.


    That's electronic readouts, that do things like read two or more regions
    of the chip out in parallel.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 19, 2012
    #9
  10. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/18/2012 10:13 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > (Paul Ciszek) writes:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
    >>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
    >>> sometimes, for exmaple.

    >>
    >> You mean, like this?
    >>
    >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/

    >
    > Yep, that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
    > indication of the motion.
    >
    >>> And panning with the subject, to leave the
    >>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
    >>> sometimes.

    >>
    >> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
    >> awesome if you succeeded.

    >
    > It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
    > digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
    > that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
    > simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
    > length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
    > smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.
    >
    > These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
    > are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
    > for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
    > and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.
    >


    Here's one that I entered in the SI
    The face is almost sharp, but the figure has enough motion blur, that
    you can tell what's happening.

    <http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/133702219>

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 20, 2012
    #10
  11. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/19/2012 12:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-09-18 19:13:04 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:
    >
    >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
    >>
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
    >>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
    >>>> sometimes, for exmaple.
    >>>
    >>> You mean, like this?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/
    >>>

    >
    > Yep,
    >>>

    >> that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
    >> indication of the motion.
    >>
    >>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the
    >>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also
    >>>> nice
    >>>> sometimes.
    >>>
    >>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would
    >>> look
    >>> awesome if you succeeded.

    >>
    >> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
    >> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
    >> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
    >> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
    >> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
    >> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.
    >>
    >> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
    >> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
    >> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
    >> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.

    >
    > Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and
    > one @1/800 sec.
    > < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >
    > < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >
    >


    Nice capture on the pan. The freeze does nothing for me.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 20, 2012
    #11
  12. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/19/2012 6:29 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
    >


    <snip>

    >
    > That's an absolutely classic pan. The fact that he was probably going
    > faster than my test subjects helps give you a much more streaked
    > background.
    >
    >> < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >

    >
    > That's actually a great example of just how static a really frozen shot
    > can look.
    >
    > I had this discussion down in Nashville about helicopter blades at one
    > point; same thing, if you really freeze it, it looks kind of wrong, and
    > if you blur it so much you don't see the blades at all it looks REALLY
    > wrong.
    >

    Yet a frozen shot need not look static.

    <http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/public/21526966_dVBkNG#!i=1938395849&k=ZZBXTDp&lb=1&s=A>
    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 20, 2012
    #12
  13. Paul Ciszek

    Bryan Guest

    Bryan, Sep 20, 2012
    #13
  14. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:03:27 PM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Whisky-dave <> writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:29:30 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    >
    > >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > On 2012-09-18 19:13:04 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>> In article <>,

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leavingblur

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>> sometimes, for exmaple.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>> You mean, like this?

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > Yep,

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> indication of the motion.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>> sometimes.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>> awesome if you succeeded.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > one @1/800 sec.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> That's an absolutely classic pan. The fact that he was probably going

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> faster than my test subjects helps give you a much more streaked

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> background.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> That's actually a great example of just how static a really frozen shot

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> can look.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> I had this discussion down in Nashville about helicopter blades at one

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> point; same thing, if you really freeze it, it looks kind of wrong, and

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> if you blur it so much you don't see the blades at all it looks REALLY

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> wrong.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I remmeber back in the 70s discussions on the effects of vertical and horizontal shutters and how they can make wheels look oval at certain speeds..

    >
    >
    >
    > Yes, large, slow, focal-plane shutters (this cartoon convention in fact
    >
    > originated with the Speed Graphic camera of 1912, which had a 1/1000
    >
    > second top speed on its focal-plane shutter, and a 4x5 inch focal
    >
    > plane). The shutter didn't move that fast, it just had a narrow slit,
    >
    > so the different parts of the car were exposed a significantly different
    >
    > times, giving rise to the canted wheel effect as the most noticeable
    >
    > artifact. This was picked up by cartoonists and is still in use today,
    >
    > even though our shutters now move so fast we can't actually produce the
    >
    > effect with modern cameras.
    >
    >
    >
    > > I've seen a few odd photos of fan blades or aircraft props that look

    >
    > > strange do to a effect of the way the camera caught them.

    >
    >
    >
    > That's electronic readouts, that do things like read two or more regions
    >
    > of the chip out in parallel.
    >

    Not to sure what you mean by this, I've taken picures of electronic instruments that have digital readouts, some of these readouts/diplays are multiplexed so not all segments are lit at the same time, so sometimes you get thedisplay frozen showning the result.

    >
    > Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    Whisky-dave, Sep 20, 2012
    #14
  15. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/19/2012 10:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-09-19 18:03:06 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 9/19/2012 12:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    >
    >>> Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and
    >>> one @1/800 sec.
    >>> < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >
    >>> < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >
    >>>

    >>
    >> Nice capture on the pan. The freeze does nothing for me.

    >
    > Track position is everything when it comes to working good pans. The
    > "Corkscrew" at Laguna Seca presents problems since all good vantage
    > points look up into the initial left turn and dive downhill and the cars
    > (or bikes) go through the left, left, right turn aimed , ineffect
    > directly at the photographers. This works wonderfully for video, but not
    > so good for capturing a panning motion shot. So those shots imply the
    > action by position, and stance on the track.
    > Where you can position yourself at right angles to the direction of
    > travel, you will find the panning works very well.
    > Here are a bunch of shots taken at the "Corkscrew" and about 300 ft.
    > below it.
    > <
    > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/ZsHsiTueoW/Shared Images/Automotive/Laguna Seca Extras
    >


    Sorry, still like the first. The others are good if you are presenting a
    pictorial on auto racing.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 20, 2012
    #15
  16. Whisky-dave <> writes:

    > On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:03:27 PM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:


    >> That's electronic readouts, that do things like read two or more regions
    >> of the chip out in parallel.


    > Not to sure what you mean by this, I've taken picures of electronic
    > instruments that have digital readouts, some of these readouts/diplays
    > are multiplexed so not all segments are lit at the same time, so
    > sometimes you get the display frozen showning the result.


    I mean using electronic means in the sensor to control exposure
    duration, rather than a mechanical shutter.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 20, 2012
    #16
  17. PeterN <> writes:

    > On 9/18/2012 10:13 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
    >>
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
    >>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
    >>>> sometimes, for exmaple.
    >>>
    >>> You mean, like this?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/

    >>
    >> Yep, that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
    >> indication of the motion.
    >>
    >>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the
    >>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
    >>>> sometimes.
    >>>
    >>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
    >>> awesome if you succeeded.

    >>
    >> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
    >> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
    >> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
    >> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
    >> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
    >> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.
    >>
    >> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
    >> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
    >> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
    >> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.
    >>

    >
    > Here's one that I entered in the SI
    > The face is almost sharp, but the figure has enough motion blur, that
    > you can tell what's happening.
    >
    > <http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/133702219>


    That's past my blur threshold, but from reactions I've seen over the
    years from other people likely to be well within lots of people's.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 20, 2012
    #17
  18. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/20/2012 1:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-09-20 09:29:56 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 9/19/2012 10:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-09-19 18:03:06 -0700, PeterN <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 9/19/2012 12:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning, and
    >>>>> one @1/800 sec.
    >>>>> < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >
    >>>>> < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Nice capture on the pan. The freeze does nothing for me.
    >>>
    >>> Track position is everything when it comes to working good pans. The
    >>> "Corkscrew" at Laguna Seca presents problems since all good vantage
    >>> points look up into the initial left turn and dive downhill and the cars
    >>> (or bikes) go through the left, left, right turn aimed , ineffect
    >>> directly at the photographers. This works wonderfully for video, but not
    >>> so good for capturing a panning motion shot. So those shots imply the
    >>> action by position, and stance on the track.
    >>> Where you can position yourself at right angles to the direction of
    >>> travel, you will find the panning works very well.
    >>> Here are a bunch of shots taken at the "Corkscrew" and about 300 ft.
    >>> below it.
    >>> <
    >>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/ZsHsiTueoW/Shared Images/Automotive/Laguna Seca Extras
    >>>

    >
    >
    > Sorry,
    >>>

    >> still like the first. The others are good if you are presenting a
    >> pictorial on auto racing.

    >
    > OK! I moved the first one into the new folder, so the earlier link might
    > be broken
    > That was shot on a different section of the Laguna Seca track, coming
    > out of turn #3. Whereas the others were shot at the "Corkscrew" (turns
    > 8A & 8B) at turn #9 and below turn #9.
    >
    > I didn't put them up there to compete with each other. I shared them to
    > show that position is important when it comes to panning and shooting
    > vehicles at speed. In the first shot, and the shots below the
    > "Corkscrew" I was positioned directly across the track and I was able to
    > pan from right to left as the car sped past me.
    >
    > Those coming down the hill turns of the "Corkscrew" were headed straight
    > towards me so there no chance of even thinking of being able to pan, and
    > adding blur for those shots is out of the question. So they are different.
    >
    > This is a pan which was physically awkward to make of a Lagonda at the
    > bottom of the "Corkscrew". This was not an easy shot, I have also added
    > it to the folder of Laguna Seca shots:
    > < http://db.tt/rfb3IuAM >


    That is one dynamic image. the angular blurred lines add a nice sense
    of motion.



    >
    > What is difficult to show is, just how fast even the classic cars such
    > as that 1935 Scuderia Ferrari, Alfa Romeo run through the "Corkscrew"
    > which is one of the most demanding corners in auto racing, with an
    > 80-100 ft. immediate elevation drop off, going into left & right turns,
    > all done at high speed.
    > < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_3CUsHQ440 >
    > < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4fC7auHv0o >
    >
    >

    I see what you mean about the difficulty.


    The closest I came to that was watching kids do BMX on illegal tracks.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 20, 2012
    #18
  19. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/20/2012 1:13 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > PeterN <> writes:
    >
    >> On 9/18/2012 10:13 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Remember that freezing them isn't always the best photo. Leaving blur
    >>>>> in the moving arms and legs and getting the face sharp can be wonderful
    >>>>> sometimes, for exmaple.
    >>>>
    >>>> You mean, like this?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35853148@N05/7914449074/in/set-72157631369048820/lightbox/
    >>>
    >>> Yep, that kind of thing. Often much more interesting if you see a clear
    >>> indication of the motion.
    >>>
    >>>>> And panning with the subject, to leave the
    >>>>> background streaked but the key parts of the subject sharp, is also nice
    >>>>> sometimes.
    >>>>
    >>>> That sounds extremely difficult to do, though I can see why it would look
    >>>> awesome if you succeeded.
    >>>
    >>> It takes a critically-judged shutter speed. This is an area where
    >>> digital makes it tremendously easier -- often you have time to determine
    >>> that shutter speed by trial and error, whereas a film photographer
    >>> simply had to know in advance (and it depends on the distance and focal
    >>> length, angle to the lens view the subject is moving, etc.) And panning
    >>> smoothly with the subject also takes some practice.
    >>>
    >>> These of mine <http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2011/11050-pan/>
    >>> are not very good examples; they were practice shots. But note in *-008
    >>> for example that the face is quite sharp, the background is streaked,
    >>> and not just the wheels but the feet on the pedals are blurred.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Here's one that I entered in the SI
    >> The face is almost sharp, but the figure has enough motion blur, that
    >> you can tell what's happening.
    >>
    >> <http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/133702219>

    >
    > That's past my blur threshold, but from reactions I've seen over the
    > years from other people likely to be well within lots of people's.
    >


    While I would have liked a tad less blur, it would have been difficult
    to ask that guy to repeat. ;-)

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 20, 2012
    #19
  20. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/20/2012 4:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-09-20 13:27:06 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 9/20/2012 1:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-09-20 09:29:56 -0700, PeterN <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 9/19/2012 10:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2012-09-19 18:03:06 -0700, PeterN <>
    >>>>> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 9/19/2012 12:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Here are two examples of my automotive motion shots, one panning,
    >>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>> one @1/800 sec.
    >>>>>>> < http://db.tt/jw8yChbw >
    >>>>>>> < http://db.tt/cqweMEc3 >
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Nice capture on the pan. The freeze does nothing for me.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Track position is everything when it comes to working good pans. The
    >>>>> "Corkscrew" at Laguna Seca presents problems since all good vantage
    >>>>> points look up into the initial left turn and dive downhill and the
    >>>>> cars
    >>>>> (or bikes) go through the left, left, right turn aimed , ineffect
    >>>>> directly at the photographers. This works wonderfully for video,
    >>>>> but not
    >>>>> so good for capturing a panning motion shot. So those shots imply the
    >>>>> action by position, and stance on the track.
    >>>>> Where you can position yourself at right angles to the direction of
    >>>>> travel, you will find the panning works very well.
    >>>>> Here are a bunch of shots taken at the "Corkscrew" and about 300 ft.
    >>>>> below it.
    >>>>> <
    >>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7bbj1se/ZsHsiTueoW/Shared Images/Automotive/Laguna Seca Extras
    >>>>>

    >
    >
    >
    > Sorry,
    >
    > still
    >>>>>
    >>>> like the first. The others are good if you are presenting a
    >>>> pictorial on auto racing.
    >>>
    >>> OK! I moved the first one into the new folder, so the earlier link might
    >>> be broken
    >>> That was shot on a different section of the Laguna Seca track, coming
    >>> out of turn #3. Whereas the others were shot at the "Corkscrew" (turns
    >>> 8A & 8B) at turn #9 and below turn #9.
    >>>
    >>> I didn't put them up there to compete with each other. I shared them to
    >>> show that position is important when it comes to panning and shooting
    >>> vehicles at speed. In the first shot, and the shots below the
    >>> "Corkscrew" I was positioned directly across the track and I was able to
    >>> pan from right to left as the car sped past me.
    >>>
    >>> Those coming down the hill turns of the "Corkscrew" were headed straight
    >>> towards me so there no chance of even thinking of being able to pan, and
    >>> adding blur for those shots is out of the question. So they are
    >>> different.
    >>>
    >>> This is a pan which was physically awkward to make of a Lagonda at the
    >>> bottom of the "Corkscrew". This was not an easy shot, I have also added
    >>> it to the folder of Laguna Seca shots:
    >>> < http://db.tt/rfb3IuAM >

    >>
    >> That is one dynamic image. the angular blurred lines add a nice sense
    >> of motion.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> What is difficult to show is, just how fast even the classic cars such
    >>> as that 1935 Scuderia Ferrari, Alfa Romeo run through the "Corkscrew"
    >>> which is one of the most demanding corners in auto racing, with an
    >>> 80-100 ft. immediate elevation drop off, going into left & right turns,
    >>> all done at high speed.
    >>> < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_3CUsHQ440 >
    >>> < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4fC7auHv0o >
    >>>
    >>>

    >> I see what you mean about the difficulty.
    >>
    >>
    >> The closest I came to that was watching kids do BMX on illegal tracks.

    >
    > This video is a graphic demonstration of just how treacherous "The
    > Corkscrew' can be.
    > < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtgB8W8WZHw&feature=related >
    >

    I think taking photos of the event will be easier on my heart.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 21, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. OlEnSh

    shutter speed rule for hand-held shots

    OlEnSh, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    10,684
    HRosita
    Sep 11, 2003
  2. mark popp

    Canon S30 Fast shutter mode... Why so fast?

    mark popp, Feb 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    620
    Linda_N
    Feb 8, 2004
  3. KT
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    424
    Joseph Meehan
    Dec 14, 2004
  4. Dawn

    D50 blurry action shots - need help!

    Dawn, Nov 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    626
    Tesco News
    Nov 21, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,001
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page