When photographing in bright/harsh light....

I am new to photography and although I am short on experience, I am

very eager to grow and get better at my new craft. Some of you might

know from my postings that I have a passion for motorsport and in

having said so, I have questions regarding shooting a subject (F1 car

in my case) when the sunlight is bright and harsh. I recently

traveled to the Canadian Grand Prix and shot a lot of photos over my

4 day stint but noticed that the areas on the cars which were painted

white were really blown out and overexposed where as the others areas

(probably due to the darkness of the tarmac) were greatly

underexposed. I was told by a few friends not to employ a polarizer

because I would loose at least 2 stops.... but the lighting was so

blazing at times I did anyway and the photos were horrible. The thing

is in order to capture and convey the sense of speed I would slow

down my shutter speed and pan with the cars but I found myself

closing my aperature down so much that the images in my opinion

suffered because I was unable to isolate my subject. Any

suggestions?? When photographing football or baseball do you find

you experience similar problems? Any help or suggestions would be

greatly appreciated. Link to photos on this subject:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=414105

This may not be of much help, but I am also using the 10D, and have suffered from blown out whites, especially helmets. I don't know if you shoot RAW, but that is all I am doing now. Everything I have read on the net, and in books tells you to exspose for the highlights because if they are blown out, there is no data there that can be rescued. I have been dialing in up to -1 stop (no polarizer) and getting nice looking helmets, but very dark cars. I have been using the shadow/highlights adjustment in PSCS to fix this however. I am far from an expert doing this. I have only had my 10D since April.

There is an excellent article here on how to use this tool.

http://www.naturescapes.net/062004/gd0604.htm

Here is an example. The first shot is pretty much how it came out of the camera, with a little sharpening. The 2nd is after more sharpening, boosting the saturation, and using the shadow/highlight tool.

Tim Adams

Here is the 2nd shot.

First let me say thank you because it definitely helps. I am very new and am very interested in getting better. Secondly let me say that your example is a very beautiful photograph. -N

Awesome photos Tim!

As a Nikon user I can't add anything on exposure with Canon products, Tim is a better reference for that, as would be Witty Maruszewska, another Canon shooter.

 

I'm curious about a couple things in your question. First, you mentioned that you were stopping down the aperture and your images suffered because you couldn't isolate the subject. From your description it sounds like your panning technique is correct. Can you give us a link to an image you think suffers from this problem and some details on ISO setting, aperture and shutter?

 

Second, I'm curious about your polarizer experiences. A polarizer and/or a neutral density filter are pretty common for approach shots where you want short depth of field to isolate the car, but a slow enough shutter speed to have motion visible in the wheels. As above, a link and some details would help.

 

As for Tím's great shot, a discussion of why some people can afford expensive vintage racer cars, but can't seem to come up with the cash for a helmet paint job will have to wait for another discussion thread. ;-)

Here is a link to a photo where I used a polarizer... look at the colors.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2472474

Here is one without the polarizer. Note the colors are much better.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2454733

I think you have two distinct questions, exposure and conveying a sense of speed. I'll use film-based (k64) examples here from my days shooting F1 for Road & Track and Grand Prix International, and with scans of tearsheets (these scans are old and not the best but so what). With digital you need to use the histogram as your guide, and practice your exposures until you get them dialed-in to your liking. Just because a photo has some blown-out highlights doesn't mean the pic is no good. This shot of Gilles Villeneuve from Long Beach is slightly backlit and has some blown-out areas, but the harsh lighting actually adds to the pic in my opinion (hiding the stickers and highlighting the lip of the rims) <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/villb01.jpg"> Villeneuve </a>. Harsh light is better than lack of sun as you can use slow film or the lowest ISO on your camera. Rolf Stommelen at Riverside in typical desert sunshine <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/stomm.jpg"> Rolf </a>. Even people <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix2/chap1.jpg"> Colin Chapman </a>. I can't say whether your Canon needs some underexposure or not to protect the highlights, but my Nikon D1H needs about minus 1-stop in camera, which I then bring back to proper exposure in Nikon Capture (shooting raw of course). Test, test and test some more as cost isn't a factor. No need to go to a track to test, use the traffic in front of where you live or other city/highway traffic. A car's a car.

 

Conveying a sense of speed can be done many ways -- pans, pan-zooms and filters for example. A slow shutter-speed (say 1/125th) is part of the game, but to isolate the car better from the background you need to pan when the car is going fast, which usually is not in a corner. And panning through something adds a nice touch <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/ros.jpg"> Keke in Canada </a> or <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/lemanp3.jpg"> Le Mans </a>. Zooming when you pan adds another element to convey motion <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/jonesw1.jpg"> Alan Jones </a> and <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/renzoom3.jpg"> Renault </a>. All the preceding shots had small apertures but something else separating the subject from the background.

 

When all else fails, get weird. I took this shot of <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/fercat.jpg"> Pironi </a>, which then was published as journalism by a fine art-director <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/streak.jpg"> as published </a>, and bagged this for R&T and me <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/bss.jpg"> BSS 1983 </a>. Don't forget that cars and drivers are only part of the story. A view of where a race happens was almost always published like the overall shot in Detroit with the streakers, <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/lemansv2.jpg"> Le Mans </a> or <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/aust.jpg"> Austria </a>.

 

Remember that you can't tell what you're doing right or wrong unless you are consistent in what you do.

Jay.....It's nice to (sort of) meet you. As a reader of R&T during the period you worked for them a lot of the shots you presented above are like seeing old friends. It's great to have you here and have the benefit of your experience and expertise.

Norman....I'd have to agree that there's a marked difference between the two shots, but it may not be the fault of the polarizer. The example with the polarizer looks underexposed and it appears the sun was in front of you, rather than behind, so you would've lost most detail in the rear of the car with or without the polarizer. On the second, without polarizer, shot the illumination is much more even. The problem may not be a matter of the filter, but the angle of the sun from where you were shooting. I'd agree with Jay's statement above that "Just because a photo has some blown-out highlights doesn't mean the pic is no good." It does bother me when I have a blown out highlight, like on a white helmet, against a light background. Also, do you recall the ISO, f-stop and shutter speeds for these shots?

Thanks for the kind words Fred. It was a "golden-age" for F1 photography with R&T back then. With digital (at least D1H) it's the old underexpose rule to prevent those white/white nightmares. My biggest problem with digital is the lack of low ISO so you can use 1/30th in bright sunlight to do proper zooms. I finally had to get a Singh-Ray Vari-ND filter to get down to the SSS zone. Norm's pics show he's thinking about what he's doing, but I can tell from his zoom that the SS isn't slow enough, and I'd bet it's a twin-ring zoom which I feel can never equal the zooming speed (for better spray) of a one-touch zoom. I also believe that manual-focus and manual-exposure are necessary for creative control. Also two cars in a pic are much more interesting than one with front or rear shots as it adds depth.

If you can ever find this book (actually a museum exhibit catalog),

"Passion and Precision: The Photographer and Grand Prix Racing

1894-1984," kill for it <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/pass.jpg"> Cover </a>. Only about 400 were printed back in 1984. It contains outstanding photos covering those years, and contains interviews with the photographers about their work <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/forward.jpg"> Forward </a>. Here's R&T's art-director Bill Motta's interview as a PDF <a

href="http://www.jaypix.com/pdf/motta.pdf"> Bill Motta </a>. No interview with me, but then I had the cover and pics inside.

Are you shooting in AV? Try shooting in manual. I shoot most sports with an ambient

meter in manual mode, you'll get more consistant results and you don't have to worry

about your in-camera meter throwing your exsposure into a place that will blow out your

highlights.

 

If you don't have a light meter, try metering on a patch of grass. It will be a little under,

but if you're shooting RAW, that's not so bad.

 

Also, you might actually try stopping down a little farther(if you can). It takes more

practice and better technique, but you can learn to pan in the 1/10th range. It also helps if

you can be a little closer to your subject.

 

But if it's high noon in the south, you'll definitely want a ND filter. It won't mess with

things like a polarizer. However, the ND isn't going to make the light any less harsh. As Jay

said, you kind of have to work with it. Sometimes a harsh backlight can work pretty well.

 

If you still have trouble isolating your subject from the background, then try to use the

background to help the image. An intersting angle can work with the background.

Sometimes a wash of sky or greenery or even crowd can work.<div></div>

All I can say is thanks for jumping in and lending your experience! I grew up reading R&T as a kid going to bed every night dreaming about being behind the wheel of an F1 car and your photos gave me the visual content to get the feel of F1 without the television coverage which we are afforded today. In a small way I guess it also fueled (no pun intended) my passion to shoot motorsport so THANK YOU!

Thank you for the help. Sorry I showed photos from two very different vantage points. I will have to find and post another (if I still have one) from that perspective without the polarizer in place for comparison. Although I think I deleted the bulk of them because they were IMHO lousy. With regards to the settings used for each capture, I post all of these in custom fields I made under the details tab for each photo with the idea that it can help others and in this case help others see where I might be able to improve my process.

Thank you for the advice and great examples I really appreciate it. Also I have to ask a very novice question. I think a ND filter is used to cut light without altering color but I have never used one nor know what to get. Can you help me out here? I see everyone mentioning it but have no experience with them.

Jay, you mention zooming while panning. I have no experience with trying this but really like the effect. Would you be kind enough to explain the technique so I could practice it a bit? ie. Do you zoom in or out from your subject, shutter speed, is a tripod or mono necessary? What aperature settings in general would you recomend... ? etc. The example I have was done in Photoshop but I really would like to try to learn this if at all possible in camera myself. Thanks

I'd agree about the ISO problem with digital. I purchased a Nikon D70 in April and, while I love most things about it, the fact that the lowest ISO setting is 200 is bothersome and will require an investment in ND filters. While I have had some success with wide and close panning shots with the D70, lately I've begun to reach for my F100 loaded with Fuji Velvia once I get my safety shots.

 

On manual focus and manual metering I use both at the moment for some of my work, though I'm in need of an upgrade to my meter as it doesn't do incident readings. The manual focus was not completely a matter of choice as I have a 300mm and a 500mm mirror lens that are both manual focus. Neither one couples to the meter on the D70, so I resort to the Sunny 16 rule and check the results of a test shot on the screen of the D70. Yes, I know the 500mm mirror is not as sharp as glass optics, but it fits my current budget and there's always the Unsharp Mask in Photoshop. ;-)

Thanks for the book suggestion and I'd love to have a copy. It does seem like it'll be a hard title to find, though. I looked through the foreword and recognized several of the names (Alexander, Biro, the Cahier's, Klemantaski and Schlegelmilch) as well as your own. Lately I've been looking at Bernard Cahier's work from the 50s and 60s and went to the BRIC event at Road America with some notes on angles and compositions to try. I didn't achieve what I wanted to, but I've got a few more races this year to work on them.

You're welcome, and sorry I didn't notice that you had all the information I was asking for in the Details page of your shots. Now I've gone back and looked at a few of them and I think E.J.'s suggestion about neutral density (ND) filters would help. It would allow you to shoot at the same or slightly slower shutter speeds, but more wide open to blur the background. On your Ralph Schumacher - Lockup shot an ND filter with a 1 f stop filter factor would mean that shot could?ve been done at f5.6 at 1/350th, or roughly f4 at 1/200th; same or better motion in the wheels and more blur to the background. B&H Photo has a good explanation of ND filters on their site and you can find one at

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=7961&is=REG

Nice shots and good advice on the angles and backgrounds. I visited your web site and I'm curious: where and when were the Porsche and Audi R8 shots done?

Fred, never ever, ever never apologize for using a mirror lens. My Villeneuve shot and the Rolf Stommelen shots are both with the Nikkor 500mm Reflex version one, and it does the job just fine. There's always the mirror bashers, and I've been bashed for thirty years by those who don't make the effort to live with it's limitations. In the digital age it's even more useful as the high ISOs with dig make fast shutter-speeds easy for a mirror lens, although at 750mm FOV on the D1H it's almost too much lens. But if you're not using the Nikkor Reflex, you should get one. This shot is from the beginning of a roll hence the light-leak, but it's still a sharp Reflex <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix2/csl1.jpg"> Peter Gregg CSL </a> example. I really only have scanning test shots available so forgive the flaws.

 

You won't find Passion and Precision probably, although one used seller on Amazon says they have a mint copy for sixty bucks. Ford paid for the catalog so it's high-quality, larger-format, paper. I have ten copies as the museum tore a corner of one of my 20x24 full-frame prints and eased my pain that way (the tear was under the frame anyway so who cared). Now I have scanned into PDFs all the relevant interviews and overviews, and if you'd like a CDR clone of the PDFs let me know. That includes Cahier and his son Paul. You might not recognize Jeff Zwart's name, but just about every car commercial on TV is shot by Jeff, and he's probably the most sucessful car photographer in the US these days. Stills are beneath him nowadays. Phil Hill would drive the sports-car races before the GPs, and then take snaps during the GP, so really more of historic value by including him in the book.

 

E.J., nice, sharp, clean shots. I can study shots like yours for hours. Too bad TV sucks if you want to study the vehicles. I normally look at a race once on TV, but I'll look at the same stills for decades. I answer Norm's zoom question in another thread in this forum.

 

Now since it's 3:32am and I'm dead, I'll let Rainer Schlegelmilch show you what I look liked on the job (from his book "Formula 1 Fascination"). I'm the blond-haired guy in the blue t-shirt with the girl's hand on my shoulder in the first frame: <a href="http://www.jaypix.com/pix/lbgpme1.jpg"> I'm the only one who didn't get the shot </a>.

Thanks, and it's good to know someone else out there has used one for racing shots. I do have the Nikkor Reflex, which I picked up on eBay and was one of my better purchases. The 750mm effective focal length on the D70 doesn?t bother me and I've been experimenting lately with ways to use that extreme visual compression. In the attached photo is one of those experiments, albeit a rather dark one, to use that compression to express close competition. And I have a copy of Rainer Schlegelmilch's "Formula 1 Fascination" and have seen that series of shots. I can understand that you might have been too, umm, stunned to lift your camera at that moment. ;-)<div></div>

Fred, I wasn't too stunned to shoot. I brought the girl (Tracy) and planned the whole thing so a French photo buddy of mine (Pat Behar) could earn a little extra dough selling a pic to Grand Prix International. I effectively started the whole sports "Show us your . . . " craze that's lasted to this day. That was from the 1980 Long Beach GP about one minute before the formation lap. I took Tracy out into the middle of the track at the first-turn (a hairpin), waved my arms to the crowd, got behind her (and I have a perfect shot of me doing this published in a French rag, France Routier) and took her top off. The crowd and the fifty or so photogs at the outside of the turn went nuts (including Rainer). Machine-gunning motordrives, and my French bud was prepared and sold his shot to GPI. I didn't know any other members of the press before the incident, but from then on everyone was my buddy because they all made money off of the incident. You really wouldn't have believed how happy and relaxed the race