Watkins Glen Minus the NASCAR Nation

[John Thawley]

Well, much to our chagrin, we worked the past week among the great unwashed. :) Just kidding... though, NASCAR's presence at Watkins Glen provides you with a quick glimpse at what has become the WWF of racing. Crowds... I think NASCAR has more media reps than Grand Am has fans. Having only a poultry Grand Am hard card around my neck, it was a week of , "no, you can't park here... no, you can't sit there.. " and so on. But, the good news... I was out of there by Friday night.

So, here's a glimpse of what showed up in my viewfinder as I muddled my way among the NASCAR Nation.

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/IMG_1256.jpg

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/IMG_1463.jpg

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/IMG_1352.jpg

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/IMG_1214.jpg

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/IMG_0977.jpg

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/IMG_0274A.jpg

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/IMG_1638A.jpg

WARNING!! This image is soft. It is posted for content only. It does not represent any sort of technical value whatsoever. DO NOT attempt to use this type of image without professional supervision as it may tend to offend the those with lesser appreciation for the finer things in life! [JT[
http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/507/IMG_1895.jpg

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/IMG_1589.jpg

[Todd Corzett]

#1 is a nice pack of cars, and I like the shot... but I'd rather see more of the cars to the left than the fence on the right (shift the whole image to the left a little). I like #2 (even if it's tilted :p ) - the guard rail is my favorite part - The cars seem a little bland though. #3 I love the heat waves... A little "centered", shift the frame to the right a little more (give the #01 some room to drive). I'd like to see more room in front of the car in #4, and if I'm getting really picky I'd like the front "CompUSA" to be sharp. Very nice contrast though, makes the car really pop. #5 has nicer trees than #4, good shot. I like the location from #6, but wish there was something more going on in the background (like more cars). #7 is a nice approach to the celebration, but I'd have rather seen their faces (I know there may be some logistical reasons, but still). It works very well for what is is, but lacks some of the celebration without any of the faces. #8 does nothing for me... her eyes are not sharp, nothing is sharp (or maybe I need to change my glasses)... almost looks like motion blur? #9, just kinda bland... doesn't do anything for me either. There is a lot of "dead space" to the left of the image. Maybe shift the composition to the right more, and use the shallow DOF. Does there also appears to be a bit of motion blur (the "Spirit of Daytona" catches my attention)?

-Todd...

PS - So when do we get to see the NASCAR shots?

[John Thawley]

Todd... it makes more sense to protect the right side of a start shot at the Glen (though this was a restart)... pit lane rises up with a lot of junk appearing in the upper left corner. Also hard to track the width of the pack. So... kind of knit picking. But... whatever.

Sorry the cars are "bland".... their DPs. LOL

You're dead wrong on #4. On a side pan, I would see your point. With a 3/4 pan I want the car in the foreground... not the background. Much more tension with the car closer to the viewer.

The girl is a Playmate... and it was shot in the pits afterdark.... perhaps you'll take a look at the exif data. 200mm hand held at 1/60th. f/4 was probably a bit too shallow. She does "plenty" for me. LOL

The shot of Labonte is in the pit stall as he went to jump in the car... again, after dark. Aperture was wide open... so the DOF may have been a bit too shallow. The eye looked right to me... which is what I want in this shot.

Thanks for the comments.

JT

[Chris Clark]

The girl is a Playmate... and it was shot in the pits afterdark.... perhaps you'll take a look at the exif data. 200mm hand held at 1/60th. f/4 was probably a bit too shallow. She does "plenty" for me. LOL

JT

Me too. Freckles.:p

I agree with Todd, she could have been a tad sharper, but it was a night, I've never shot at night so I can't really appreciate the challenges involved. I do likethe DOF though. I love portraits with very shallow DOF, always have.

The heat in number 3 is fantastic, it makes the shot for me. Numbers 4 and 5 appear very similar with the exception of the color of the background, number 3 looks darker to me, but somehow the car looks brighter to me than no. 5.... whats with that? Were the pics taken at the same time, or was 4 later in the day w/ a flash involved maybe? I dunno what it is but the contrast and saturation of #4 really appeal to me.

And I agree w/you John, I like the car in the foreground in number 4 as well.

I hear ya on the crowds. I imagine a NASCAR crowd is very similar to the MidOh Superbike crowd. It seemed like more people were there to drink than to watch the race.:confused: I saw a guy downing a Bud Lite @ 8:30 in the morning last Saturday. Gave new meaning to the phrase "Kegs and Eggs"......

[John Thawley]

Chris... as far as shooting in the dark, hand holding a 200mm at 1/60th is a trick at best. :)

The difference(s) in the two shots are several. Different location. Different day. Different time of day. :) The #5 car was three in the afternoon. The CompUSA car was about 7:45pm .... nearly twilight. No flash though.

The EXIF is showing flash "Yes" on all my images from the weekend. Not sure why... I've switched over to PhotoMechanic... so I need to figure out what is going on.

JT

[Todd Corzett]

Todd... it makes more sense to protect the right side of a start shot at the Glen (though this was a restart)... pit lane rises up with a lot of junk appearing in the upper left corner. Also hard to track the width of the pack. So... kind of knit picking. But... whatever.
I agree it's difficult, but I still think it would have been a better composition. Maybe shoot it wider (protecting both sides) and then crop it.

Sorry the cars are "bland".... their DPs. LOL
Yes, and you did a good job catching the lights and stuff. And you're right... the DPs are ugly from the rear (or the front, or the side, or the top...)

You're dead wrong on #4. On a side pan, I would see your point. With a 3/4 pan I want the car in the foreground... not the background. Much more tension with the car closer to the viewer.
To each their own... there are no set rules when shooting this stuff, but when I look at the shot my eyes are drawn towards the front of the car (a good thing), but are stopped from going farther forward because the frame ends. My eyes then recycle to the rear of the car, and start thinking "why is this empty pace back here". Just the way I look at it. I see your point as well.

The girl is a Playmate... and it was shot in the pits afterdark.... perhaps you'll take a look at the exif data. 200mm hand held at 1/60th. f/4 was probably a bit too shallow. She does "plenty" for me. LOL
An attractive (blurry) girl, yes. But with nothing sharp I couldn't care who she was. Since you requested I look at the EXIF, I can see you were only shooting at ISO400. Yes, 200mm at 1/60th and f/4 is a tough shot. IMO, you should have bumped-up the ISO, and the shutter speeds. Still just a blurry shot to me.

The shot of Labonte is in the pit stall as he went to jump in the car... again, after dark. Aperture was wide open... so the DOF may have been a bit too shallow. The eye looked right to me... which is what I want in this shot.
I agree with the eye... very nice, sharp (this is all that I'd ask of the bunny photo) and it is what my attention is drawn towards. I just think the composition is lacking a bit... too centered for my tastes.

-Todd...

[John Thawley]

I agree with the eye... very nice, sharp (this is all that I'd ask of the bunny photo) and it is what my attention is drawn towards. I just think the composition is lacking a bit... too centered for my tastes.

-Todd...

Todd: I'm under the guy's feet for God's sake. Too centered for your taste?:confused: I'm lucky the guy didn't kick me in the balls! :mad:

With all due respect, critque is fine.... but give me a break. This wasn't a studio session.

[Jim Sykes]

I think the point Todd is trying to make on several of the photos is that, regardless of the circumstances and how tough it was for the shot, they dont always make for the best ones. In other words, sure, shooting at night with long lens and slow shutter is hard, but if it comes out blurry, just cause it was a hard shot does not make it "worthy." Likewise with the last shot, it may have been awkward to get, but that doesnt make it any more "postable" than an easy one. The bottom line is what is the final result, no one looking at or critiquing the shot really has any care about what it took to get it, just what it actually looks like.

As to whether or not he is absolutely right on his critiques, I'm not going to comment, however, I know where he is coming from and, you know I love you JT, I would have considered the playmate shot simply missed. The last one works for me though. A little more off center would be better, but this still works.

I agree with Todd on 4 as well. I know where you are coming from, but that is not a set and fast rule that must be adhered to all the time, it depends on the photo. If there is background to be worthy of, then bring in the background, if not, then it can work the other way as well.

Thats just opinion though and it depends on the shot as to which way I think works, your milage may vary of course though.

[John Thawley]

I would have considered the playmate shot simply missed. Yeah... but she's hot! :D


I agree with Todd on 4 as well. I know where you are coming from, but that is not a set and fast rule that must be adhered to all the time, it depends on the photo. If there is background to be worthy of, then bring in the background, if not, then it can work the other way as well.

Oddly... the majority of my shots from that location have the car to the back of the frame... they BUG the living daylights out of me. They just look like you were standing too far back and don't do a thing for me.

The hardest part of getting pan shots this weekend was finding a clean spot in the background. Also, they ran the short coures because of NASCAR... so the entire "boot" section was off the table.

JT

[Todd Corzett]

Todd: I'm under the guy's feet for God's sake. Too centered for your taste?:confused: I'm lucky the guy didn't kick me in the balls! :mad:

With all due respect, critque is fine.... but give me a break. This wasn't a studio session.
Point is well taken. I checked-out the EXIF and saw that it was shot at 38mm, so "I'm lucky the guy didn't kick me in the balls" is well put. However, I couldn't tell this from the image... without looking at the EXIF... that it wasn't just another 70-200mm shot from the other side of a pit box. For 99 of 100 images I will not go as far to look at the EXIF information... and if I have to look at the EXIF to think it's a good shot, well... it's not.

I'm not trying to be harsh here, but just looking at the image as it was presented in your first post. No where did it tell me anything to how it was taken, or anything along those lines. It wasn't until this (:mad:) response that I knew you were so close to him.

Now, I would also say that this is the perfect example of how captions can REALLY help an image. If you would have described the shot a little, like you did with the "kick me in the balls" remark, it may have been taken in a totally different way. I see the images as they were presented... and gave my critique on them. Sorry if it was not desired.

-Todd...

[Jim Sykes]

Yeah... but she's hot! :D


True, true, true. Didnt say you couldnt use it for something ;)



Oddly... the majority of my shots from that location have the car to the back of the frame... they BUG the living daylights out of me. They just look like you were standing too far back and don't do a thing for me.

The hardest part of getting pan shots this weekend was finding a clean spot in the background. Also, they ran the short coures because of NASCAR... so the entire "boot" section was off the table.

JT

Not saying it would have definately worked here either, as I said, I wasnt really judging this particular shot necessarily, I was just saying its not a hard and fast rule though and there are times for both, just like anything else.

[Andrew Wheeler]

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/IMG_1638A.jpg

Love this John.

Andrew :)

[Dennis Murray]

I agree with Andrew....I really like the reverse angle "Winner" shot. You've used it before and it worked then also (although then it was with an ALMS shot and their were more than 4 photographers in it).