JT @ Petit Le Mans

[John Thawley]

Here are a few shots from first glance... I've got a lot of sorting (read: deleting) to do... it was a long week and long days. Enjoy.

JT


#1 http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_28699.jpg

#2 http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_27629.jpg

#3 http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_27750.jpg

#4 http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_28249.jpg

#5 http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_21730.jpg

#6 http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_21585.jpg

#7 http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_19424.jpg

#8 http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_15945.jpg

[Zerin Dube]

JT, fantastic work as always, but especially love #1, #4, #5, and #7!

[Jacob Leveton]

1 - tighter crop woulda been even better, but a very dope shot
2 - lacks motion to me
3 - nice exposure
4 - interesting, but doesn't quite work for me.
5 - money!!
6 - again, not quite doin it for me. tighter crop / more blur / something to make it pop.....
7 - very crisp! good capture!
8 - more blur please.

Keep it up man!

[Todd Corzett]

Ok, you switched-up the order from POTN just to make me retype things didn't you :p

I really like the last shot... It may look "simple", but it is so much more than "just a tight shot of a car". Perfect example of using an off-center composition (notice, the car is a the bottom left side of the frame, even has a little more room to drive out-into), non-distracting and interesting backgrounds (the red dirt tells the whole story of Road Atlanta), and slower shutter speeds (notice the wheels aren't parked)... very nicely done!

I like the vertical shot of the esses (#1), again great composition... the DOF is also great. The light is just perfect as well, so warm... it highlights the yellow very nicely. #4 is great as well, lots of motion. I really like #6 as well, great panning job on that one... lots of motion in the wheels/background, yet a sharp car - not easy when they are moving away at 3/4.

Nothing less than expected, very well done! See you at Laguna!


1 - tighter crop woulda been even better, but a very dope shot
2 - lacks motion to me
3 - nice exposure
4 - interesting, but doesn't quite work for me.
5 - money!!
6 - again, not quite doin it for me. tighter crop / more blur / something to make it pop.....
7 - very crisp! good capture!
8 - more blur please.

#1 has the perfect composition, IMO. Nice balance between the left/right/bottom of the image and the No.7, and then a 3:2 ratio for the rest of the image. I wouldn't change a thing.

Not to be overly critical, but you don't like #4 (because of the blur)... but then you want more blur from the other images (#2, 6, 8)... I know it's a fine line to draw, but when is the blur too little/much? I agree that #2 could use a bit more motion, but... IMO, #6 has the perfect amount of motion (look at the wheels, not a spoke to be seen)... and #8 is a nearly head-on shot, yet still has some motion in the wheels (they are far from parked). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just trying to understand where you would draw the line between "not enough motion" and "too much motion".

-Todd...

[Jeff Kapic]

1,3,5,7 are the stand out shots for me. Good work all around.

[Daniel Buck]

I don't have any experience with sports/race photography, but to my eyes the first shot looks absolutely wonderful! The word "epic" comes to mind when looking at this shot. Nice raking light across the ground, great composition with the cars and the road. Very nice, I love it :-)

[Keith Schoeler]

Really like #1...with both cars in the pockets of light, great capture.

Good stuff JT.

[Rene Skrodzki]

All I can say is WOW, makes me wanna run out and delete my shots from last weekend at Mosport. Well maybe not but it certainly makes me wanna improve on how I do my shots for sure.

[Mike Veglia]

All are excellent "keepers" to my eye. 1 and 7 are my favorites, I like 8 the least because of the fence, but I would edit it to the "keep" file anyway. The light in 2 is fantastic. The motion, framing, and colors in 4 are great too. Very inspirational JT! Great job as always.

[Jamie Holladay]

#1 Is my favorite. I like the compostion alot. I like the sense of motion in #4 with the 31 being sharp and the rest of the car not, very nice. Great set!

[Chris Clark]

JT,

#1 - I love this shot. I look at it and just know "Petit LeMans".

#2 - The lighting is frickin' PHENOMENAL. Wonderful light.

#3 - Probably my favorite of the group. A car that people seldom see (One of our european visitors?, I don't recognize it as a regular) And I like how you got down low to shoot it.

#4 - I love super slow 3/4 pans. They just do it for me. That being said: I would really like to see the front of the car a little sharper and the rear more blurred. Looks like your focus point was on the door. But thats just my preference. Different strokes and all that.....:)

#5 and #6 - Good shots. I like them.

#7 Great shot. I love the heat as well.

#8 I really like this shot. Nice, tight crop, really sharp, and the colors are great. The blue and the red really stand out.

Great job, as usual!:)

-chris

[Tim Adams]

Boy I love #1 and #2. The curve of the track from one corner to the other in the frame is great, and the light in #2 as mentioned before, is awesome. I can't wait for the chance for late afternoon stuff at Road America next year.

[Jacob Leveton]

Not to be overly critical, but you don't like #4 (because of the blur)... but then you want more blur from the other images (#2, 6, 8)... I know it's a fine line to draw, but when is the blur too little/much? I agree that #2 could use a bit more motion, but... IMO, #6 has the perfect amount of motion (look at the wheels, not a spoke to be seen)... and #8 is a nearly head-on shot, yet still has some motion in the wheels (they are far from parked). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just trying to understand where you would draw the line between "not enough motion" and "too much motion".


I think 4 woulda been better if the front end of the car was in focus. When I look at a shot, it either 'hits' me or it doesn't. even if the settings are the same between 2 frames, 1 might feel like 'too much' blur, while the other doesn't feel like enough. that's just the way things go.

[Todd Corzett]

I think 4 woulda been better if the front end of the car was in focus. When I look at a shot, it either 'hits' me or it doesn't. even if the settings are the same between 2 frames, 1 might feel like 'too much' blur, while the other doesn't feel like enough. that's just the way things go.
Good response, so often it's very subjective (the whole "hits me" thing)... but technical things (like having the front sharper) are good examples. Cool deal.

-Todd...

[John Thawley]

Good response, so often it's very subjective (the whole "hits me" thing)... but technical things (like having the front sharper) are good examples. Cool deal.

-Todd...


However,

Here are two shots basically from the same time frame with pretty much the same settings. One has the front sharper... and determined as the "preferred" option.

The second has the side number plate in focus and has since been deemed "lesser" for not being sharp in the front.

So while one is elevated to the stats of superior for its sharp front end, the other has been dismissed for not having that attribute.

I respectfully disagree... the nose sharp in this case is NOT the better of the two shots. While I like both, the Porsche is clearly more energetic... and exciting.

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_28231.jpg

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/500/Thaw_28249.jpg

Jacob:

Where I take issue with your comment(s) is I feel you failed to think them through. More blur in a head-on shot? More blur in a 3/4 going away shot? I'll bite. How do you accomplish that?

Also, with the vertical shot of Road Atlanta's infamous esses; you say "A tight crop would be even better." Why?

To eliminate the esses?
To crop out the trailing car?
To not show three curves of a the track in one frame?
Or are you simply saying you just want to see a tight shot of the yellow prototype Porsche?

So... I ask, WHY would/should I crop it tighter?

JT

[Todd Corzett]

So while one is elevated to the stats of superior for its sharp front end, the other has been dismissed for not having that attribute.
Personally, I like the Porsche shot more... is it because of the area that is sharp? Nope! IMO, as long as something is sharp... then it works for me. As for which I would hang it on my wall... so many more things overshadown the location of sharpness in a photo that it's not even funny.

-Todd...

[Chris Clark]

Personally, I like the Porsche shot more... is it because of the area that is sharp? Nope! IMO, as long as something is sharp... then it works for me. As for which I would hang it on my wall... so many more things overshadown the location of sharpness in a photo that it's not even funny.

-Todd...


I agree.

As a side by side comparison of the two shots: The Porsche shot is by far more exciting for me. Now, would that be the case if the second shot also had the Porsche instead of a different car? I don't know. I would have to see it.

My comment about the Porsche picture was geared more towards personal preference. I like the Porsche shot.
I think I would like it even more if the front was sharp vs. the number on the door. I guess it's that whole "warp-speed" Star Wars thing..... It looks as if the car is bursting out of something. just personal preference.

I honestly would be pretty damn proud of myself to have taken either shot.:)

[Steve Alvine]

The Porsche shot works for me more for its color. I do like the door being sharp but the florescent paint is what pulls my eye.

[Shane Parker]

I really like the s-curve photo JT; great depth and framing imo!