Photography - Track and race day hints and tips req.

[Beemer]

As I mentioned earlier the bigger lens that I bought to get started is a EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM that I thought I would be able to add an extender to at a later date if I felt so inclined (EF1.4X II or 2X). Is this not an option?

Steer clear of teleconverters, even the so-called good quality ones are crap. I used to cover motorcycling for Kiwi Rider and The Evening Post's Autopost, and car rallying too, and I bought a Nikon one to use on my F5. The quality was hugely affected and it didn't work well with the autofocus either. I had much better success with a 300m lens and a fixed spot, although the 24-120mm lens I bought later was excellent.

Here are some shots I took at Wanganui in 2001. They were shot on film orginally but copied onto a disk later. The panning ones are essential to get a sense of speed and movement in the shots. I like ones looking up the start/finish straight and it's good to get several bikes in the shot as they fight for the lead on the corners too.

The most important thing to do is practice. With digital it's a lot cheaper, but when I was covering the Rally of NZ using film, I would shoot about 22 or more rolls of 36 exposure film. Of those, I would be happy with about 100 photos. Any out of focus were dumped and only the best shots passed on to the drivers. They get offered so many shots from so many people (same with riders) that they are only interested in the best.

[FzerozeroT]

Stand further back and zoom in a bit more, that way you don't get dizzy paning over such a long distance (Learnt the hard way).

Sometimes zooming out a bit further can make it easier to track the bike in the frame, then afterwards you can aways crop the photo a litte to place the bike where you want, with a Ubermegapixel camera you can dump a few pixels and still get a great shot.

don't wait for people to tell you what you are doing wrong! you need to trawl through all the F-stop, apature (Depth of field) and rest of it first so when they do try and help you they can tell you accurately what is going wrong without having to dumb it down.

Wife has got a Nikon D80 with an 18-200 and a 60mm macro, after using that and then going back to my Canon SLR wannabe I feel like why bother with a point and shoot, should have bought a real SLR at the start

[Cynic]

When you try panning things that are moving quite quickly, if you can look through the viewfinder with one eye and keep the other eye on your target,you can zoom in on your target a bit more. It is a we bit easier to follow the movement and you won't get taken by surprise so much when it gets to your pre-focussed point for taking the frame. I know the pic isn't a bike but it was moving quick enough at the time

[Fooman]

the lens is a 70-200 (F2.8L IS)

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but with any sort of image stabilization system, check that it is the correct mode for panning, if you are going to be doing some shots following the bike. There is normally type 1 stabilization (up/down and left/right) or type 2 (up/down only) - use the later for panning.

Cheers,
FM

[Her_C4]

Thanks heaps for all the helpful responses and tips - really appreciate it

Just a point of clarification though for what it is worth:

My sole interest in photography is not motorsports and it was never my intention to get into track photography (or any other kind) for the purpose of spamming of the Kiwibiker site with the fruits of my labour. I have been on and around the tracks for over four years and am aware that riders are very well catered to by a number of experienced and very competent (professional level) photographers already.

My intentions (with the caveat that these may change over time ) is that apart from a select one or two riders (or three or four) and maybe the odd shot taken in the pits - the bulk of the shots will be for my own interest and development.

Steer clear of teleconverters, even the so-called good quality ones are crap. I used to cover motorcycling for Kiwi Rider and The Evening Post's Autopost, and car rallying too, and I bought a Nikon one to use on my F5. The quality was hugely affected and it didn't work well with the autofocus either. I had much better success with a 300m lens and a fixed spot, although the 24-120mm lens I bought later was excellent.

Here are some shots I took at Wanganui in 2001. They were shot on film orginally but copied onto a disk later. The panning ones are essential to get a sense of speed and movement in the shots. I like ones looking up the start/finish straight and it's good to get several bikes in the shot as they fight for the lead on the corners too.

The most important thing to do is practice. With digital it's a lot cheaper, but when I was covering the Rally of NZ using film, I would shoot about 22 or more rolls of 36 exposure film. Of those, I would be happy with about 100 photos. Any out of focus were dumped and only the best shots passed on to the drivers. They get offered so many shots from so many people (same with riders) that they are only interested in the best.

Nice photo's Beemer... I am thinking it will take me some time to get anything of any real quality - but I do intend to get there eventually!

I am hearing different things about the teleconverters (depending on the original lens quality etc) but I am guessing that those that have used them would know better than a salesperson...

Stand further back and zoom in a bit more, that way you don't get dizzy paning over such a long distance (Learnt the hard way).

Sometimes zooming out a bit further can make it easier to track the bike in the frame, then afterwards you can aways crop the photo a litte to place the bike where you want, with a Ubermegapixel camera you can dump a few pixels and still get a great shot.

don't wait for people to tell you what you are doing wrong! you need to trawl through all the F-stop, apature (Depth of field) and rest of it first so when they do try and help you they can tell you accurately what is going wrong without having to dumb it down.

Yep - been doing that since I got the camera... I am a 'tactile' learner, and figure out quite a lot by myself first to help me actually identify the sensible questions for the experts.

I have yet to get into the editing programs although I have had a bit of play... I guess that I was kinda hoping that (eventually) there would be more of the 'right' shots and less of a need to alter / enhance them.

When you try panning things that are moving quite quickly, if you can look through the viewfinder with one eye and keep the other eye on your target,you can zoom in on your target a bit more. It is a we bit easier to follow the movement and you won't get taken by surprise so much when it gets to your pre-focussed point for taking the frame. I know the pic isn't a bike but it was moving quick enough at the time

Oooo - now that will take quite a bit of effort given that (as my mother used to say...) "I must be blind in one eye and can't see out the other..." ha ha ha

Good point though and I will practice that at the roundabout...

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but with any sort of image stabilization system, check that it is the correct mode for panning, if you are going to be doing some shots following the bike. There is normally type 1 stabilization (up/down and left/right) or type 2 (up/down only) - use the later for panning.

Cheers,
FM

Yes thanks I do indeed have two mode set up, although I understood that Mode 1 was for any situation where a fast shutter setting and/or flash could not be used, and Mode 2 was for panning??

[Fooman]

I understood that Mode 1 was for any situation where a fast shutter setting and/or flash could not be used, and Mode 2 was for panning??

Yup, thats right, mode 1 is image stabilization on full, mode 2 is disabled along the horizontal axis and off is off. Which may be good for bike photos, see about halfway down the following page:

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200

Cheers,
FM

[Her_C4]

Yup, thats right, mode 1 is image stabilization on full, mode 2 is disabled along the horizontal axis and off is off. Which may be good for bike photos, see about halfway down the following page:

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200

Cheers,
FM

Great link - thanks heaps.

I am keen to read anything I can get my hand on at the moment, and generalised searches (when you are not sure exactly what you are looking for) can be a tedious timewaster.

[jimbo600]

I think converters get bad press sometimes. Sure they suck up heaps of light and can only be used when there's plenty available but I accept the loss of sharpness. Sometimes its all you have to pull the image in. Below is an Eagle I photographed (I was going to say shot, but folk would get the wrong idea) in Germany. Had a Canon 600mm with a 1.4x converter on. Its sharp enough to make a nice 30" high print.

[Her_C4]

I think converters get bad press sometimes. Sure they suck up heaps of light and can only be used when there's plenty available but I accept the loss of sharpness. Sometimes its all you have to pull the image in. Below is an Eagle I photographed (I was going to say shot, but folk would get the wrong idea) in Germany. Had a Canon 600mm with a 1.4x converter on. Its sharp enough to make a nice 30" high print.

Yes I have been talking to a number of different people and everyone seems to have some quite diverse opinions on the teleconverters. At the end of the day I guess like everything, it comes down to personal choice and if you choose to use one then you accept that you will experience some degradation in the overall quality of the result.

Luckily, I don't need to worry about that juuuuuust yet - learning a smidgeon of what the camera is capable of and upskilling the user to facilitate even ONE reasonable shot with all this fantastic gear is my priority right now

[jimbo600]

Well if you want to meet up one Sunday and practice photographing dudes on bikes or anything let me know.

Also dprevew www.dpreview.com is a very good site for all things digital photography. Has some great tutorials etc.

[Her_C4]

Well if you want to meet up one Sunday and practice photographing dudes on bikes or anything let me know.

Also dprevew www.dpreview.com is a very good site for all things digital photography. Has some great tutorials etc.

That would be FANtastic Jimbo - thank you so much ... I will send PM

[Kendog]

Well if you want to meet up one Sunday and practice photographing dudes on bikes or anything let me know.

Also dprevew www.dpreview.com is a very good site for all things digital photography. Has some great tutorials etc.

That would be FANtastic Jimbo - thank you so much ... I will send PM

I would be keen to come along to this, if that's ok.

[Beemer]

I think converters get bad press sometimes. Sure they suck up heaps of light and can only be used when there's plenty available but I accept the loss of sharpness. Sometimes its all you have to pull the image in. Below is an Eagle I photographed (I was going to say shot, but folk would get the wrong idea) in Germany. Had a Canon 600mm with a 1.4x converter on. Its sharp enough to make a nice 30" high print.

Fantastic shot. What you say is true - in reasonable light conditions they can produce acceptable shots and yours is proof of that. A lot of my work was done during rallies and they are often in fairly dark forests, etc so the teleconverter was pretty crap for that. If you have a good quality lens with a wide aperture, they can be useful.

As for panning - trust me, when I first started out, I had heaps of shots with the back or front end of a car in them rather than the whole vehicle! It does take practice and I can still stuff it up at times. One thing you have to work on is keeping the horizon level. Most people tend to lift the camera as they pan and it looks like the road is on a hill in the resulting photos.

[skelstar]

One thing you have to work on is keeping the horizon level.

Yeah I found the same thing. Think it helps to keep your non-viewfinder eye open.

Sitting on the inside of the sweeper, or turn one were great places to do the panning shots from at Manfeild.

[Number One]

I think converters get bad press sometimes. Sure they suck up heaps of light and can only be used when there's plenty available but I accept the loss of sharpness. Sometimes its all you have to pull the image in. Below is an Eagle I photographed (I was going to say shot, but folk would get the wrong idea) in Germany. Had a Canon 600mm with a 1.4x converter on. Its sharp enough to make a nice 30" high print.

Seriously though - fab pic! Just stunning and gets better when you blow it up and can see the sharp details. Fine specimen of bird and photographic skill.