Lancer Register Forum banner

Track Photography

151K views 147 replies 71 participants last post by  babou88 
#1 ·
One of the most frequent questions I'm asked is how to take better track photographs. I'm always happy to try and help, but don't claim to be a photography expert and what I do has been learnt from trial and error over a few years, but I thought I'd combine some of the PMs and emails I've written into some sort of guide that will hopefully be useful. There are some very good photographers in the MLR and if anyone has any further advice, please feel free to chip in.

First of all, some basics......

Equipment
What makes taking pictures of cars on track difficult is the speed they move at, the limited time you have to take a picture and the distance they are away from you. These problems limit the amount of cameras that are suited to the job. Small, pocket cameras tend to have a very short zooms and are slow to react when asked to take the photograph meaning that often a car is distant in the picture or not in the picture at all. Plus cameras like this don't always give you the manual control you need and use poorer quality lenses and sensors that compromise the picture quality.

SLR cameras with a good lens are the ideal solution to the problems of track photography, but they can be very expensive. 'Prosumer' level cameras with fairly large, but fixed lenses fill the gap between compact cameras and SLR's and many of these can cope with most of the demands of track photography at a more modest cost.

My experience largely stems from Canon SLR cameras so this guide will focus on them, but a lot of this is general information.

There is now a great deal of SLR camera choice with camera bodies starting at reasonable prices and rising into the realms of the professional photographer only.

Every SLR camera shares a number of essential features such as almost no delay when taking a picture, a selection of manual modes and the ability to use different lenses, but there are features that can vary with some SLR's. These are the main issues to consider when looking for an SLR:
  • Auto focus modes. For track work you need an auto focus mode that can be set to track an object as it moves rather than just set an initial focus.
  • Metering. All SLR's have inbuilt light metering they use when determining various settings when you take a photo even in most of the manual modes. There are usually a number of metering modes to choose from. For car photography you normally need to use centre weighted or even spot metering so make sure these are supported.
  • Fast continuous shooting. Many track photos are taken using continuous shooting, where you hold the shutter release button and the camera takes as many pictures as it can one after the other as quickly as it can. The faster and higher amount of pictures the cameras will take the better. This can vary a lot between the cheapest and most expensive SLR's.
What many people fail to realise is it is the lens that is actually more important than the camera. The first thing to look for in a track lens is a long focal length. Most lenses are zoom lenses, meaning you can zoom in and out on a subject rather than having just a fixed focal length, which is what you need for track photography. All lenses are measured in millimetres and zoom lenses have two measurements, for example 70-200mm. In this case the 70 refers to the minimum zoom and 200 refers to the maximum zoom. For track use I would recommend a zoom lens with a maximum zoom of at least 200-300mm although ideally you probably need several lenses to cover all eventualities.

The second thing to look for in a lens is optical as well as overall quality. A lens with high optical quality will produce sharper and better looking pictures than one with poorer optical quality. A higher quality lens will also tend to have better and fast auto focusing facilities and some will even have image stabilisation facilities which I've found work very well.

Unfortunately, high quality lenses with large zooms cost £££'s, usually around £1,000 upwards. However, good results can still be obtained with lenses costing from £100 upwards and makes such as Sigma and Tamron often offer better value for money than the camera manufacturers own lenses, but the general rule of thumb is the more money you spend the better the results will be.

The third thing to consider in a lens is its speed or maximum aperture. I won't dwell too much on this as the fastest lenses are definitely the tool of professionals, sometimes costing into the tens of thousands of pounds. The speed of more reasonably priced zoom lenses doesn't change that much, but generally look for a lens with as low an f-number as possible. The f-number is usually quoted in the lens model number as something like f/4.5-5.6. In the case because this is a zoom lens, the f-number is quoted as between 4.5 and 5.6 with 4.5 at the shortest zoom and 5.6 at the maximum zoom.

Once you've got a suitable camera and lens, there are some other pieces of equipment that can also help improve your pictures:

Tripod or Monopod. Essential pieces of kit for making sure images are as sharp as possible. They are also useful for holding heavy SLR's and lenses if you're taking pictures from the same spot for a while as SLR's do get heavy if you're hand holding. Try and get a substantial tripod or monopod as it's a worthwhile investment.

Battery holder and grip. I find that adding a battery holder/grip under the camera vastly improves the stability of the camera in your hands which in turn leads to much sharper pictures.

Lens hood. A plastic hood fitted to the front of the lens to help stop nasty sun flares spoiling your picture.

Camera and lens rain cover. We live in the UK, will get used a lot.

Composition
The key to any good photograph is its composition and it's something that constantly needs to be thought about. Even if you've got the best camera and lens in the world, you're never going to take the best picture if you don't consider what you want happening in the picture unless you are very lucky.

First of all begin by deciding on the type of picture you want to take be it a head on super sharp picture, a dramatic cornering picture, a dynamic side on panning picture or even something more artistic.

Once decided, consider the other factors that will enhance the picture such as where to stand to capture the most lean in a corner or where cars are likely to lift a wheel or kick up a loose surface.

It's also worth considering what is in the background. A nice back drop can make all the difference and some tracks are much better than others in this respect. Tracks like Cadwell Park, Oulton Park and Spa in Belgium are all well known for the picturesque photographs taken there.

One popular technique to improve the composition of a picture to make it look a bit more dramatic and stand out from how a normal picture would look is to lean the camera slightly one way or the other. It's not an effect everyone likes, but as long as it's not used too much (easy to do) with too much angle it can enhance a picture. It's worth experimenting with all the same.

Once you've decided on the picture to take, just concentrate on that one shot. Don't worry about trying to capture a car at various points as it moves through a corner and onto a straight for example. You'll find you will not do any of your pictures justice that way. Concentrate on one shot at a time and when you feel you've taken enough pictures of cars with that shot, then move on to next and consider the composition of that one.
 
See less See more
#28 ·
POAH said:
not that great for fast moving action shots though lol
What ... a forged engine? :D

Have seen some reports dissing the Mk III's ability to catch the action in certain situations. Rest assured that I would be looking hard and long at a body and its alternatives before parting with £2.5k for it!

Not that that is going to happen anytime soon ...
 
#31 · (Edited)
DaveG said:
I can't comment on the merits of Nikon as I've never used them. Can't think that there would be much difference if any though. Most people just seem to stick with what they know and already invested in.
I'll think you find that anyone dissing Canon and vice versa have simply never tried the models properly or not at all and because they went the other route it gives them the automatic right to slate a model they've never even tried. A few choice comments on this thread are a perfect example.

'Not like canon who have got more pixels and dont even have the lenses to use all of those pixels' oh lordy lordy :lol:

Now we'll hear protests about how they tried it (be it Canon or Nikon) in Jessops and it just didn't cut the mustard compared to their 'own' brand. :D

edited to add:

Absolutely brilliant article by the way.
 
#32 ·
People feel the need to justify their decision and feel good about it, just look at the rest of this site for plenty of examples :D.

Personally I stuck with Canon because it's the brand I got used to. There are not many products where a direct choice between such exclusive technology exists and you find users of one technology have very little experience of the other.
 
#35 ·
Sharp pics

One thing worth mentioning is that the wider the aperture (the smaller the 'f' number) the sharper the picture will be but at cost of a more shallow depth of field. A higher 'f' number will bring a lot more of the image into focus (a higher depth of field) but you will have a less sharper picture as a result. This is what is known as lens diffraction - anything above f11 is normally enough to see the difference.

F2.8 pin sharp but only on a shallow point of the image.
F13 not as sharp but a lot more of the image (depth) is in focus.
 
#36 ·
Re: Sharp pics

GlobalGB said:
One thing worth mentioning is that the wider the aperture (the smaller the 'f' number) the sharper the picture will be but at cost of a more shallow depth of field. A higher 'f' number will bring a lot more of the image into focus (a higher depth of field) but you will have a less sharper picture as a result.
Focal length gives another twist to the equation as I understand it.

Shorter focal length = greater depth of field
Longer focal length = more limited depth of field

So pin sharp subject with as much of the background as possible blurred = large aperture + long focal length

Whole image as sharp as possible = small aperture + short focal length

If you have a telephoto lens, this is worth bearing in mind. Move further away from the subject and zoom in to limit depth of field :)
 
#67 ·
Focal length gives another twist to the equation as I understand it.

Shorter focal length = greater depth of field
Longer focal length = more limited depth of field

So pin sharp subject with as much of the background as possible blurred = large aperture + long focal length

Whole image as sharp as possible = small aperture + short focal length

If you have a telephoto lens, this is worth bearing in mind. Move further away from the subject and zoom in to limit depth of field :)
i'm a bit of a photo-enthusiast too... might actually join the club if there are photo ops until i end up getting an evo :)

just want to pick up on the point above though, as it's a common misconception. FWIW i'm a Canon man so i know more about that system than the Nikon, so please forgive the use of canon cameras in these examples

focal length does NOT alter depth of field. it has a negligible effect - so if you move further away and zoom in, the depth of field will be the same

factors affecting alters depth of field are:

a) aperture (physical, not merely f/stop)

b) magnification of subject

i'll skip aperture as it seems thats covered already

Calculating Depth of Field

magnification - i.e. the size of the subject relative to the camera

it's probs best to crunch with numbers to show how this works:

1. assume you have a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera (eg Canon 5D) , shooting at F/4

the subject distance is 20m away from camera

depth of field (calculated using http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) is 2.41m

2. if you change focal length, you will also change the framing of the subject

i.e. all you will do is zoom in

so in order to keep the same framing, you need to step back

so imagine the same scenario, but with a 200mm lens, and the subject distance will move proportionally the same amount - i.e. double

to from 20m to 40m

again crunch the numbers - subject distance 40mm, lens 200mm, f/stop f/4, canon 5D - depth of field is 2.38m

the difference - 3mm, is sod all.

3. you can do it again - this time 400mm lens, and 40m away. depth of field is 2.38m

i hope this shows that DoF isn't affected by focal length - if you keep the same framing, it doesn't change

Magnification and Depth of Field

If you magnify the image in the viewfinder - i.e. move closer to it, or zoom in from the same distance away from the subject, the depth of field will become smaller

so if you're after "arty" shots with minimal depth of field, you have to:

a) buy a faster lens (i.e. one with a larger aperture - f/2.8 compared to f/4 for example)

b) move closer to the subject and / or zoom in further. This will also change the framing of the shot

Sensor Size

Smaller sensors are said to have a "magnification effect", or "cropping effect" on the image

Example - a Canon 5D has a full frame sensor. This is the same as a film 35mm sensor. A Canon 20/30/40D and Canon 350/400/450D has a smaller sensor, which gives a 1.6x "multiplifier" to the lens you're using

A 100mm lens on a Canon 20/30/40D therefore has the same field of view as a 160mm lens on a Canon 5D

Therefore in order to keep the same framing, you would need to step back 1.6x the distance if you were shooting with a 40D compared to a 5D

Therefore for sports, the multiplifer is often beneficial as it means you get an equivalent field of view of using a longer lens, and longer lenses are more expensive than buying a cropped camera!

Larger sensors provide smaller depth of field

FWIW, given the same framing, a larger sensor will have a smaller depth of field. This is linked to the effective aperture (note - NOT f/stop, but physical aperture) of the lens.

So a 5D shot at 160mm with the same framing as a 40D shot at 100mm at the same f/stop will have less depth of field than the 40D.

Longer lenses provide more "background blur"

As seen above, depth of field is the same if the framing of the subject is kept constant

However, lenses with longer focal lengths will blur the background more than short lenses

This is again related to the absolute physical size of the aperture

More info here http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html

So what's the ideal lens?

There isn't one really, but if you want maximum background blur to achieve subject isolation, then you need a full frame camera, a lens with a wide aperture, and a long lens

Like a 5D with a 600mm F/4 ;-)

In real terms, this ain't going to happen - ******' expensive for a start, and the 5D isn't best suited to shooting sports anyway because of its slower shutter burst speed

Hope this adds a bit of info on the subject. I don't really shoot motorsport / cars but i think i may start to if i can get involved in the club... last offering of motorsport pics was at silverstone for the GT weekend

Most of the best shots come from positioning, and at silverstone i had naff all access so just ended up taking snapshots from the stands

http://www.homelands.me.uk/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=20
 
#38 ·
Frenzy said:
You see what i want to say ?
Yes ... you can also blur the background further and catch some motion blur in the wheels by selecting a slower shutter speed and panning the camera :)

Takes a little more practise to get that right though.
 
#40 ·
Frenzy said:
Yes !! :)

Sorry , i'm french and i don't well know the english technical photography vocabulary... :blah:
Aucun problème mon ami.

Votre anglais est bien meilleur que mon Français de toute façon ;)
 
#42 ·
Good tips and descriptions here - hadn't read this thread before.

Really pleased you mention panning though.

It seems to me that the vast majority (in fact, maybe all) of the 'pro' photos I have been offered from motorsport events do not include any panning at all. Seems that the trackside photographers just set a fast shutter speed and rip off a set of photos at different corners. No skill seems to be involved. Just take the pics, sell them to the punter.

Often appears to be the case that the 'amateur' photographers (not intended as an insult) put in more effort to get better shots, and then (nicely) share those for free.

Whinge over.

Thanks to all those camera-wielding enthusiasts out there.
 
#43 ·
That's not a whinge, I'd say it's a relevant observation. Anyone can snap away with an SLR and a 1/1000 sec or quicker shutter speed but the cars will just look like (and may as well have been) parked. I admire those that have good panning skills - had a real steep learning curve at Brands last Fri as I'm a static car shooter as a rule but I at least understood the mechanics behind it and strove for the more interesting shot.

I can't speak from personal experience of pro track shooters as I haven't seen much of their work but it would be a pity if they provided less than satisfactory results.

I look forward to hitting more MLR events this year and getting my panning skills tip-top!! :smthumbup
 
#47 ·
Panning does take a little practise :D

Basic points for a panning shot with plenty of motion blur on a DSLR (just for those who stumble across this thread in the future) ...

  • Use shutter priority (TV) mode
  • Slow the shutter speed down to > 1/125 sec (vary dependent upon speed of car and amount of blur required. Some of the cars above were only moving at 40mph-ish, but a shutter speed of 1/60 sec gives plenty of motion blur even at that speed without making it too difficult to keep the subject in focus.
  • Try to position yourself so that you are at a relatively constant distance from the subject as you pan.
  • Follow the car smoothly, and shoot continuously (servo mode). Not all of the shots will be usable, but you should find a fair number of keepers that way :)
 
#48 ·
Most panning shots go wrong when you stop panning as soon as you've released the shutter; It's best to "follow through" (no rude comments now), even after you've released. You'll get a much smoother blur.

Try the timing method: Follow the car coming toward the lens, then start a count: 1, 2, 3, click, 2, 3, just like dancing ;): follow, click, follow.
Takes a bit of practice, but worth the effort.


Gary
 
#54 ·
Hi guys over the last coulpe of years i have been attending the MLR meets and posting up loads of shots ,just had a look at Flickr seems a great idea:smthumbup.i have also been reading what methods are used to obtain certain shots and i cannot agree more its loads of practice what is needed ,also dont worry if you **** up cos thats the fun of it :Dsome of my bad shots are other peoples idea of fantastic pics :lol:.........Steve
 
#58 · (Edited)






3 from a little track in Japan called Tsukuba :), all handheld,monopods are a 50/50 choice really, some swear by them, some dont! I thought Id need 1 but Ive never used it yet, more comfortable doing track shots handheld. Only time Id use a support would be for feature shots or a VERY long exposure as I can just about manage to do 1 second exposures handheld
 
#59 ·
3 from a little track in Japan called Tsukuba, all handheld,monopods are a 50/50 choice really, some swear by them, some dont! I thought Id need 1 but Ive never used it yet, more comfortable doing shots handheld
Hi Ed :)

It isn't obvious from Simon's shots how *dark* it was at Marham! The rather moody shot below will give you some idea. I was really impressed with his results considering the conditions.

Think he said that he also emptied an 8GB card a couple of times on the day though :eek: Playing with a wide range of settings across that many images sounds like a good plan when the light is really crap.

It's good to see the professionals at work :D
 

Attachments

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top