Ferrari Challenge/Cliente Monterey

[Bruce Ehrlich]

Another late arriving group of photos from the 2008 Ferrari Challenge/Cliente event at Monterey in August. It's always nice to be able to run your old Ferrari F1 car with factory support... I know it is not to everyone's taste, but being an old Kodachrome 25 guy I wanted to concentrate on more slow speed stuff in this batch.

[Todd Corzett]

I like slow stuff. The last couple are nice... for me, I really need something sharp that my eye can be drawn towards. Example: #2 vs #6... With #6 my eyes are drawn towards the sharp helmet, where as with #2 I'm left searching for the subject. Nicely done.

-Todd...

[Bruce Ehrlich]

Thanks. I understand your position, and i like the shots that have a point in focus also, however, I also like shots that are totally abstract, an abstract representation of motion if you will.

[John Thawley]

Sorry... I disagree. #1 through #6 aren't slow pans, abstract or otherwise... not to me anyway. There's just nothing there. Again, my opinion.. I could be wrong.

The last two are fine.. a bit over saturated.

[Bruce Ehrlich]

As I said, not to everyone's taste. I may be all wet, and my shots are, no doubt, not the best (I'll defer to the professionals), but to me slow speed blurred images are just a different, abstract form of interpretation. The other issue of course is that I am not a professional and I am not shooting for clients or publication where tack sharp images would be the requirement, although I take my share of those shots, I'm just an enthusiastic amateur photographer experimenting and trying to find a different way to see and depict the sport, and the speed and motion inherent in auto racing.

[Bill Jurasz]

I don't think anyone is saying that long shutter pans are not a good shot to take. I think they are saying that when you do so SOMETHING needs to remain focused and sharp. Otherwise there is nothing to draw your eye to. To my eye they do not depict the "speed and motion inherent in auto racing", they just look like poorly executed shots. The last three shots being the exception. Especially the last one, which is really good. By all means try to find something different. :) I just don't think many of these are it.

[Dany Flageole]

I like your #1 Bruce, to me it's something, somehting else but something, I like it.

[Bruce Ehrlich]

Thanks Dany. Happy to have a bit of a philosophical discussion. I knew before I posted the shots that they were likely to be controversial, in fact I have tried to refrain from posting these abstract pics in the past, however, I thought I would post these and broach the subject. For me, I will continue to beg to differ. I absolutely do not believe an image is a failure without a recognizable in focus point so long as the blur itself is sharp, if you get the distinction. Still, at the end of the day I have the luxury of not having to please anyone other than myself, and at the moment I am enjoying playing with these abstract, graphic, and occasionally, at least to my eyes, painterly images. http://community.automotivephoto.net/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

[John Thawley]

Thanks Dany. Happy to have a bit of a philosophical discussion. I knew before I posted the shots that they were likely to be controversial, in fact I have tried to refrain from posting these abstract pics in the past, however, I thought I would post these and broach the subject. For me, I will continue to beg to differ. I absolutely do not believe an image is a failure without a recognizable in focus point so long as the blur itself is sharp, if you get the distinction. Still, at the end of the day I have the luxury of not having to please anyone other than myself, and at the moment I am enjoying playing with these abstract, graphic, and occasionally, at least to my eyes, painterly images. http://community.automotivephoto.net/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

Well, if you are simply going to adopt a position of "I like them and that's all that matters," there really is no discussion, is there? Kind of a broad brushed statement that in reality say's... "no other opinion matters."

Art for the sake of art taunts this discussion endlessly... I put my 6-year old kid's "paintings" on the refrigerator door... is it art? Probably not. Is there a rationale? Yes... he's 6.

NOW.. if... that is IF you were doing something completely abstract, outside the box and never been done before... and something that required a commitment of time, energy and skill to execute, then yes... I would have to stop... consider... appreciate.... and then simply determine if I liked it or not.

However, in this case... and given the audience (whom you've chose to dismiss due to your starting premise of only pleasing yourself), what you are presenting takes no time, no commitment and certainly (give the point n' shoot technology of even the most complex Pro DSLR) no skill to execute, I think I'm certainly within my rights to dismiss even your self established benchmark that you've labeled "abstract."

These aren't abstract. They are simply out of focus, out of sync motorsports shots that resulted as blurs. I assure you there are 50 some shooters on this board... at varying levels of skill... that have deleted literally thousands of similar shots. And certainly not in the name of "art."

Not trying to put you down or belittle your photos. And, I hope you'll accept my comments as coming from someone who is very much open to NEW ideas and someone who encourages pushing the envelope. But these images simply don't measure up to the "abstract" your attempting to portray.... visually or philosophically.

Respectfully,

JT

[Bruce Ehrlich]

It was certainly not my intention to dismiss the opinions of those who are willing to take the time to comment on the work posted here, and if that is what was communicated in my earlier posts I apologize. I specifically posted these shots to gauge whether there was any feeling amongst, the far more talented photographers than I, who are part of this community that there might be some merit in the approach. I understand and accept that you don’t feel there is, and I’m happy to accept your position. I do, however, remain intrigued with slow speed shots, although I’ll probably refrain from posting those efforts in the future.

With all that being said, comparing my shots to the refrigerator art of your no doubt talented six year old, and your statement that no skill or work was involved in capturing these images would seem to belie your contention that you are not trying to belittle my photos. I am more than open to constructive criticism, that’s why I post here, however, I’m not sure we’ve moved beyond that point in the present case. Again, to the extent that my earlier posts may have invited such comparisons I apologize. Now I think it is probably time to leave this discussion behind and move on to other things.

Bruce

[Todd Corzett]

I really do think there are some nice images that can come out of the "very blurry" techniques. Often times it is quite difficult to get a "blurry" but not "total miss" even though something isn't sharp. Some of my favorite shots are these sorts of things:


http://www.unitonestudios.com/portfolios/05_YIR/images/irl-2005-sp-tc-0371.JPG

http://www.unitonestudios.com/portfolios/06_YIR/images/06YIR_06.JPG


Both of these images made my "Year in Review" (15 images that represent the events that I shot that year). Now that being said, only one or two shots like this were taken all year... not a whole series of them in a single post online. Much like many of the comments that I received with my post on all wide shots from Laguna Seca... many people thought they were 'boring', 'repetitive', or 'non-exciting'... however if I would have posted a single image in a gallery full of other stuff the wide angle shot most often gets praise. Maybe it's just a bit much to have nearly every shot in a gallery using a similar (yet 'different') technique?

Another thing to be said for these sorts of 'all blurry' images is that they are often really cool with the proper context or environment. I love shots like these when the background REALLY show motion... unfortunately the bland dirt backgrounds at Laguna are not the best for this. If you ever read F1 magazine they often have some really cool super slow shutter speed shots... and they are always something I enjoy.

Now I find that if you can get one (semi-interesting) thing nice and sharp, you can take a 'cool image' and turn it into (IMO) an awesome image:


http://www.unitonestudios.com/gallery/motorsports/2004/AMA/testing_4/images/040315_20475.jpg


But, that image is one that is far from just another 'blurry image'... To get that one image I threw-out about a hundred images similar to the first two images (everything blurry). And since then have thrown away hundreds of more images trying to duplicate it. This is what I believe JT was getting at... there is a big difference (call it skill, call it technique, or dumb luck) between just getting a blurry shot and getting the shot that one may envision before they press the shutter. IMO, when I picture in my head trying to get an image at really slow shutter speeds I always want to have at least something (most often the driver's helmet) sharp... and any shot that happens where nothing is sharp is not what I wanted... not that it doesn't make for a cool image.

-Todd...

[John Thawley]

It was certainly not my intention to dismiss the opinions of those who are willing to take the time to comment on the work posted here, and if that is what was communicated in my earlier posts I apologize. I specifically posted these shots to gauge whether there was any feeling amongst, the far more talented photographers than I, who are part of this community that there might be some merit in the approach. I understand and accept that you don’t feel there is, and I’m happy to accept your position. I do, however, remain intrigued with slow speed shots, although I’ll probably refrain from posting those efforts in the future.

With all that being said, comparing my shots to the refrigerator art of your no doubt talented six year old, and your statement that no skill or work was involved in capturing these images would seem to belie your contention that you are not trying to belittle my photos. I am more than open to constructive criticism, that’s why I post here, however, I’m not sure we’ve moved beyond that point in the present case. Again, to the extent that my earlier posts may have invited such comparisons I apologize. Now I think it is probably time to leave this discussion behind and move on to other things.

Bruce
My apologies... my intent wasn't to compare your work to my 6 year-old, only the naivete of living in a world of pleasing ONLY ourselves.

Regarding the skill and work involved... the comment was not meant to be dismissive... though it was a comparative in the sense of asking "what did you do to accomplish the result?" I call it the Napoleon concept. (as in the battle of Waterloo) ... show up and see what happens. By your description, you've put the shutter on a slow speed... casually panned... and this is what happened. The problem with that is.... pretty much anyone on this board can walk up to the track, put the shutter on a slow speed, casually pan... and this is what happens.

Probably the ideal work to review here is Bob Chapman. Now he will REALLY drop the shutter speed... find a location of unique interest, pan with the intensity of an assassin... and more often than not... this is STILL what happens. But... he deletes them.... and every 300 frames or so, mines a nugget that he will then post process with tedious detail and present it for the world and his peers and leave them in awe. I can assure you that the guy is one exacto knife blade short of cutting off an ear pursuing "the look."

All of that said, if you truly are intrigued by slow shutter shooting... don't stop shooting... don't stop posting... but don't stop listening either.

There is a "method" to the madness of slow shutter shooting.

JT

[John Thawley]

These are 1/15 of second... I'm sure we can get Chapman to post some at 1/5 - LOL

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Sebring_2007_9362.jpg
http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Sebring_2007_9537.jpg
http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/507/IMG_0085.jpg
http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=119982&g2_serialNumber=1
http://gallery.johnthawley.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=117345&g2_serialNumber=1

[Bruce Ehrlich]

In response to the last comments there is no doubt truth about posting too much of the same concept whether good or bad, and I would also agree about the backgrounds at Laguna. I've been much more pleased with the slow shots I've taken at Portland and Elkhart Lake. In general, I sure would like to able to spend more time at "green" racetracks. As to Bob Chapman, love his work, and I aspire to just getting close... The nighttime porsche/ferris wheel shot he posted this year from Daytona was absolutely spectacular. I also really love Paul-Henri Cahier's work. I'll definitely keep shooting (slow and otherwise) and I remain open to everyone's suggestions.

Bruce

[John Thawley]

I'll definitely keep shooting (slow and otherwise) and I remain open to everyone's suggestions.

Bruce

Great! Thanks.

Cahier puts out some fantastic stuff.... though I think he too can be guilty of peddling "the emperor's new clothes." Be sure to keep a reference to the "classics" of Jesse Alexander, Louis Klementaski, Nigel Snowdon... and such. Also Tom Burnside's work is inspirational. For me the compositions and technical aspects of their photos are extremely rich... and shot in a simpler (technology) time. Contemporary work of Rick Dole and Regis Lefebure makes for lofty goals as well.

JT

[Aaron Kupferman]

Great references! For the search challenged or lazy, here are links to the sites of the photographers John mentioned.

Jesse Alexander (http://www.jessealexander.com/)
Tom Burnside (http://www.tomburnside.com/)
Richard Dole (http://www.dolephoto.com/)
Louis Klemantaski (http://www.klemcoll.com/)
Regis Lefebure (http://www.regislefeburephoto.com/)
Nigel Snowdon (http://www.wheelsonwalls.com/feature-gallery/nigel-snowdon/) (Couldn't find an official site)

Any more that I should add to this list John?

[John Thawley]

Great references! For the search challenged or lazy, here are links to the sites of the photographers John mentioned.

Jesse Alexander (http://www.jessealexander.com/)
Tom Burnside (http://www.tomburnside.com/)
Richard Dole (http://www.dolephoto.com/)
Louis Klemantaski (http://www.klemcoll.com/)
Regis Lefebure (http://www.regislefeburephoto.com/)
Nigel Snowdon (http://www.wheelsonwalls.com/feature-gallery/nigel-snowdon/) (Couldn't find an official site)

Any more that I should add to this list John?

You could just go to Wheels On Walls @ www.wheelsonwalls.com - :)

[Aaron Kupferman]

You could just go to Wheels On Walls @ www.wheelsonwalls.com - :)

True, you do have the rundown on there. :)

[Bruce Ehrlich]

Could not agree more about your list. I grew up on Jesse and the elder Cahier, in fact Jesse Alexander's Jim Clark portrait has been on my wall staring down at me for years. A couple of years ago my wife gave me an absolutely wonderful Klementaski for Christmas (Chinetti's Ferrari Barchetta being prepared for Le Mans in 1950, wonderfully evocative of the time). I really like Regis Lefebure's work also, I love his photo of the Nurburgring Track with no cars in the shot, just track, mountains and a spectacular sky. I also like Bernard Asset's work from the days of Grand Prix International magazine, lot's of innovative stuff. And yes, Wheels on Walls is what got me to APN in the first place, very much enjoyed JT's work.

I just wish I could get to more races so that I could shoot more...

Bruce

[Jason T. Barker]

I believe these shots depict how a race fan visualizes the cars after about day 4 of camping and drinking at a Le Mans event....or hour 2 of a NASCAR race.