Requests!!

[LeVeL]

I have two panning questions:
1) I tried it for the first time last weekend and the number one problem in my photos is that only one part of the car is very clear. As a guideline for myself I tried to keep the middle focus point on the car, usually the numbers on the door and in most pics the numbers are clear, and the rest of the car is not. Technically this souldnt happen, since the front, back, and middle of the car are moving at the same speed (obv). The difference in focus isnt that big but its noticeable. My only guess is if the car isnt going in a perfectly straight line, the ends (front and back) are moving at a different speed from the middle (numbers on the door), if that makes any sense. Any ideas?
2) How do you go about panning a car thats going through a turn?


Edit: just thought of something else - is there a way to make the sky look "dramatic" without HDR?

[Shadowness]

1) The cause of that is probably something called 'Turning Focal Plane'
If I do a tutorial, I'll include this in it. (Its quite a lot to explain here, and I cant find the diagrams fro it wither yet )

2) Without blurring part of the car.....its not really possible (I think!)

3) You could try dodging and burning. See the tutorial I wrote in the tutorial section.

[Alok]

Originally Posted by Shadowness

So by that do you mean everything from setting up the camera, to tips on panning itself?

That would be quite a hard on to do I think, as im afraid to say, it mainly comes down to practice

But I could give it ago I suppose (or maybe Paddy can! )

No, not panning, but the post processing, I mean, in what direction should I go to keep the detail in the tyres, the smoke rich, the tarmac toned well and the car popping out. I've seen your pictures, and they are the sort of target I've set myself for, especially since I shoot for a mag right now and I need to improve.

Also, what do you do on a sunny day? it's my absolute nightmare when the tarmac is overexposed :S

[Alok]

Originally Posted by Shadowness

1) The cause of that is probably something called 'Turning Focal Plane'
If I do a tutorial, I'll include this in it. (Its quite a lot to explain here, and I cant find the diagrams fro it wither yet )

Someone's made your life easier

http://forums.finalgear.com/photogra...-2/#post462767

Originally Posted by Shadowness

2) Without blurring part of the car.....its not really possible (I think!)

Not really true, if you are really really far away, so that the relative turning focal angle is small enough, then it should work

[LeVeL]

Thanks! Turning focal plane is a b!tch. Unfortunately standing far away isnt an option right now as I dont have a telephoto lens. Although apparently shooting from the inside of a corner helps. I'll have to give it a try.
shadowness - I'll check out the burn/dodge tutorial, thanks

[Shadowness]

Originally Posted by Alok

No, not panning, but the post processing, I mean, in what direction should I go to keep the detail in the tyres, the smoke rich, the tarmac toned well and the car popping out. I've seen your pictures, and they are the sort of target I've set myself for, especially since I shoot for a mag right now and I need to improve.

Also, what do you do on a sunny day? it's my absolute nightmare when the tarmac is overexposed :S

Ah right, sorry, I thought you meant taking the photos.
As far as PP goes, thats very much down to personal preference. There are many techniques that have similar effects, so I wouldnt know where to begin. Of course I could tell you my normal routine, but Im sure you understand, that I wouldnt really be up for giving that away

Can you show an example of your overexposed tarmac? It might be caused by the camera setup, its not something I personally have a problem with. Do you use a circ-pol?

[LeVeL]

I've got another request/question:
I'm thinking of trying setting up shots, ie picking the subject, location, etc myself, as opposed to shooting whatever is available the way its available. My biggest concern is lighting - I have no more than a slight idea of what to look for and completely clueless when it comes to flashes/strobes. Care to shed some light on this?

[Zuhaib]

This is general, but, anyone has a good Lightroom guide, mainly working with RAW images. There are a lot of settings I dont know what they do, and why I should even tweak with them.

[Adunaphel]

^could you name a few? I'm certainly no expert on this, but i've fiddled a lot with Lightroom over the past few weeks, and i think i know my way around it a bit

[Cold Fussion]

Originally Posted by Zuhaib

This is general, but, anyone has a good Lightroom guide, mainly working with RAW images. There are a lot of settings I dont know what they do, and why I should even tweak with them.

Get photoshop. Camera raw is the same in lightroom as it is in photoshop and editing in photoshop is a lot simpler and more powerful.

Originally Posted by LeVeL

I've got another request/question:
I'm thinking of trying setting up shots, ie picking the subject, location, etc myself, as opposed to shooting whatever is available the way its available. My biggest concern is lighting - I have no more than a slight idea of what to look for and completely clueless when it comes to flashes/strobes. Care to shed some light on this?

Lighting is an art form in itself. Before you go out and buy lighting gear, practice with torches, lamps, umbrella's anything you can get your hands on and try and get some shots out of it. The gear is useless if you don't know how to use it and if you can can't learn to use whats on hand then there is no point investing in more expensive gear which will give you the same results.

[IceBone]

Image editing in Photoshop is a lot more powerful, where as photo editing is the same, since it's all done with ACR. Lightroom just has a nicer interface and catalogue support.

[Adunaphel]

Originally Posted by Cold Fussion

Get photoshop. Camera raw is the same in lightroom as it is in photoshop and editing in photoshop is a lot simpler and more powerful.

I disagree very strongly. For heavy editing photoshop is better, but for most postprocessing tasks lightroom is infinitely better and at least 3 times faster to get what you want. Not to mention that lightroom also allows for cataloguing your photos, and allows you to quickly switch between photos you want to edit.

EDIT: damn, beaten by Ice

[IceBone]

Kicking it up a notch, BAM!

[Cold Fussion]

I disagree. I find Lightroom slower and far more limiting then photoshop. But I've been using photoshop 6 years so i'm at one with it. But again, being able to control every aspect of the image makes me feel good, rather than being limited by what the sliders can adjust. But by far the biggest weakness in lightroom is the lack of masks, and even though photoshops masking is garbage, it still many times better than no masks.

[Adunaphel]

I don't use masks. I just do mild post-processing on my shots. I have no need to be "able to control every aspect of the image."

[IceBone]

I try to control every aspect of the image while taking the pic.

[Cold Fussion]

Originally Posted by Adunaphel

I don't use masks. I just do mild post-processing on my shots. I have no need to be "able to control every aspect of the image."

Not having masks is like being castrated. Even if you do mild pp, you may get an area on the image that looks like piss and with masks its 3 clicks and you have full control over that area independent of the rest. If you have no need to control every aspect of the image, then why bother shooting in raw?

Originally Posted by IceBone

I try to control every aspect of the image while taking the pic.

I remember a general saying that the battle plan is useless when the bullets start flying. On most photos you will do a little bit of pp, whether it is a just a contrast boost or whatever and too me, doing this in photoshop is easier IMO. I can even write an automated process to do it for me in photoshop if i'm feeling really lazy.

[Adunaphel]

I don't get those areas, because i try to get my shots right when i shoot them.

Photoshop: letting hacks get away with it since 1998

[IceBone]

I did say TRY to. Shooting in raw is just a precaution and the minimal control over the image you have in lightroom is all i need to fix up any goofs i make while taking the actual picture.

[Cold Fussion]

Yep its really fair to say photoshop is for hacks when you do your pp in lightroom

This argument is useless because whether you do your pp in lightroom or photoshop its fundamently the same thing. I prefer having the flexibility of photoshop and you guys prefer the convenience of lightroom.