Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Last edited by Angio Graham; 06-10-13 at 12:46 AM.
Slow the shutter down to imply motion (maybe 1/250), then meter the background to about 1/3 stop under exposed and set ISO/aperture/ND filters to that, then throw a flash high on a stand about 15 feet to your 2 o'clock to kill the harsh light. Bonus points for shooting with the sun in the frame and overpowering it with flash.
As these sit, I'd recommend opening LR4, pulling exposure down, further pulling highlights down, then push shadows about 3 stops.
Oh, and wrong forum.
Dude in the Helen's kit appreciated the camera lol
It was all such a blur. I still get goosebumps.
Don't know if you watched Firefly or not, but...
Yeah, but based on where this photographer is coming from, baby steps
Here's one of mine at 1/80...
WR- that's a tight shot. Just picked up a Rebel T3i to play with- do you have any recommendations for practical crash course advice( FAQ, forum, etc.)?
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php (I'm WR over there too -- I learned about 3/4 of what I know about photography from that site). There are good tutorials and FAQs there. LMK if there's something you're trying to find over there and can't find it.
Great book: Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. I checked it out from the library and came out knowing all the basics very very well. The rest was learned by trying, screwing up, then researching what I did wrong and how to correct it (usually skill, sometimes tools). This shares a lot like bike racing, now that I list it all out...
congrats on the DSLR!
Thanks! That's just was I was looking for. Just reg'd up for the forum, and I'll check out the book as well.
It does seem like most(all of mine, anyway) hobbies have a pretty similar learning curve, as well as a similar initial buy-in cost and ramp rate...
This is my quick edit of one of the images:
OP - Like WR said, expose for the background. You can bring up dark spots using software but if you blow something out, it's gone.
Good stuff. I went off to do my own edit before I saw yours and ended up with about the same thing I tried to add the flash effect with a brush in LR. My thought is that with a speedlight 15 feet off at about 2 o'clock (to the right), the flashed rider is going to be about 8 feet from the speedlight. Given the low sun (morning or evening), I think the sun can be overpowered by a decent speedlight, but maybe composition is tougher as you come around closer to the light to get the sun in the frame.. There are lots of ways to do it, of course.
It was much harder to learn then than it is today. I'd take a picture then a week or two later, I'd get it back to see how it looked. With DSLRs, you can take a picture, look at it, adjust, take another picture, adjust.... So much easier.
And I only bought a DSLR last year and finally gave up on my last film camera (I still have it though).
I've played with a brush a little, still figuring that one out a bit. I don't have any lights myself, but use them quite a bit when working for the photographer. (I assist and second shoot weddings). Right now I have a 7D and a 50mm prime 1.8. You can do a good amount with that, but I definitely need some lights.
Fredmiranda is a decent forum as well, very good for sale section there.
Ok, I won't use your crappy pictures any more
Photo editing annoys me - photographs should be accurate representations of the real thing. If there was blinding sun in the background the photo should show that. The worst I've seen was on here from some Texan who wanted to make everything related to Lance glow... wonder if he still does that.
It's a matter of personal preference, of course, but I don't like your edit much, WR. It turns an action shot into a sort of 'cycling portrait'. There is a place for that, but it isn't what that shot is about, for me. In this case, replicating the studio (particularly when done in the digital darkroom), creates an image that loses its original intent. Having spent decades with emulsions of various sorts, and having shot hundreds of frames of grey walls learning sensitometry (zone system and the ilk), I'm someone who likes to have as much of the final image in the initial 'capture' as possible, avoiding radical manipulation. Some of that preference is from having spent several years as addicted to underwater photography as I am now am to cycling, burning countless rolls of Kodachrome and Velvia. The competitions I liked were based on the unedited slides, taken right there on that day: a unique challenge. For some folks it's what they can do with an image after they take it, and for some of us, it's in the taking itself. For me, an image with the desired lighting in the capture is superior to an identical final product achieved via manipulation. In any event, it's very much a "different strokes for different folks' thing. I did love what you did with that photo of your bike awhile back- awesome work.
Yeah, I get it. I was setting up the edit to look a bit like the flashed setup I was describing. I don't edit my own photos like that -- just trying to morph it into some of the more modern race photos I'm seeing. I'm not actually suggesting that should have been the edit though, nor am I suggesting that this any more than a hobby for me (although I have earned several thousand dollars with sports photography in the last year).
Here is an original with a flash overpowering the sun, as I was talking about (not my pic). I'm not taking the time to find a sample with perfect composition, but this is one way to do it (and is, as you say more of a cycling portrait). Certainly more than a billion ways to skin this cat.