You do all that in under a minute? … and how long to pack it all away again?

IMO if you can see the flash it's a fail as most people know full well the sun does not shine out of the ground

PP – In which case don't forget to pack your reflectors, flash stands and white umbrella diffusers.

Oh god not again.

Nice shots peterpoddy. Looks like dangerous dave in the 2nd?

IMO if you can see the flash it's a fail as most people know full well the sun does not shine out of the ground

Yeah, on the top one there I couldn't get the flash any further away due to undergrowth. I had one guess at the flash setting before the line of riders came through and that was that. I really like that pic though, and it's only the bracken in fron of the flash that gives the game away really. 🙂
The second one was a lucky shot. I was actually trying to get the riders as they went through the puddle (See below), but handily on lower power the flash can pop off at the same speed as the camera, resulting in my favourite shot of the day, TBH.

Next on the list is a diffuser to soften the light a bit. 🙂

This is what I was shooting. His face is better lit, on the one above he was too close to the flash, so one side of his face is darker. There was very little scope for flash placement here.

If you want the light higher, ball bungie it to an upturned bike or nearby tree. They make great light stands.

As per

Next on the list is a diffuser to soften the light a bit

or you could use that funny "sun" thing we sometimes get with that big sky diffuser :o)

or you could use that funny "sun" thing we sometimes get with that big sky diffuser :o)

😀
Simon that's a good point and I'm glad you raised it…..
I've been taking some good loooong looks at your pics for quite a while now (I like them, & I'm trying to learn something….) and I've noticed there's a big difference between our 'styles' if you like.

Most of your shots are in wide open countryside, because that's where you ride. The majority of my shots are in dense woodland. You simply have more light to play with.
Most of your shots involve the scenery in some way, and you don't often shoot fast action, or try and get some blur in your pics.

A lot of the time I'm trying to shoot action, from fairly close up, in woodland.
I've put a few threads on here about photography this year and ummed and ahhed about how best to get the shots I was after, and it always came down to the fact I was uing my lens wide open (f2.8) to get the light in there, and as such I was loosing sharpness. In the end I decided to give a remote flash a go and so far I'm very pleased with the results.
I don't like shots that look too 'false' (Think the Gore adverts in the current mags – Euch!) and I don't photoshop them afterwards. Those above are straight off the camera. It really was very dark under those trees…..

Nice shots peterpoddy. Looks like dangerous dave in the 2nd?

Cheers, and yes that's Solamanda. I just love the look on his face 🙂

You do all that in under a minute? … and how long to pack it all away again?

Camera and flash set up and in a Camelbak HAWG. Take off pack, pull them out, turn on flash which is already set up on trigger and screwed to a mini tripod that can also be lashed to a tree. Camera is always turned on and roughly at the correct setting in manual. The flash is a Vivitar 285HV and fully manual with only one knob to turn. (I'll have to try it's basic auto modes at some point.)
What I need is a stunt monkey who will ride the same section over and over again whilst I faff to the max and move the flash all over the place to see what results I can get, but I don't have that luxury! 🙂

and I don't photoshop them afterwards.

your loss, it's cramping your style to forgo the manipulation that was commonplace in the film era. Any exposure is a compromise and if you want fidelity, let it be to the original scene and not to some engineering decision.

and you don't often shoot fast action

nothing to see here 🙂

Shame you didn't have a flash so we could see his face 😀

Peterpoddy, if you haven't already you should sign up for the next Seb Rogers course. I got a lot out of it when I went earlier in April.

Shame you didn't have a flash so we could see his face

her face! How many flashes will do 5 frames a second ?

What I need is a stunt monkey who will ride the same section over and over again whilst I faff to the max and move the flash all over the place to see what results I can get, but I don't have that luxury!

I find Swinley is good for this as you can set up a shot and flashes and have loads of riders keep coming through all day. Obviously easy to keep changing the settings etc. My mates do get a bit annoyed with the "just one more time" trick though 🙂

Without flash there wouldn't be many magazine covers.

5 frames a second. Try going for one really good one!

her face! How many flashes will do 5 frames a second ?

If you want to shoot like that then would you not be better with a D5000, D90, D300s or D3S – then you can just shoot proper video?

pp – and I don't photoshop them afterwards.

sfb – your loss, it's cramping your style to forgo the manipulation that was commonplace in the film era. Any exposure is a compromise and if you want fidelity, let it be to the original scene and not to some engineering decision.

I so much agree with sfb here it hurts. 🙂
In the blink of an eye we can see so much more colour and range than a camera can capture in a single frame. Ignoring post-processing of the digital image is like a film photographer never entering a darkroom.

Can't agree with sfb on principle, so I'll agree with HTTP404 agreeing with simon 😀

then you can just shoot proper video?

I've never cottoned onto video, even when I had a bridge camera that would do it – and for that matter the current video capabilities added to DSLRs are severly compromised – contrast detection focussing (if any), black viewfinder (mirror locked up), so effectively it's not an SLR any longer. Also, in that sequence I'm zooming as the subject gets closer which would have knocked the focus out.

Can't agree with sfb on principle, so I'll agree with HTTP404 agreeing with simon

recently I've been getting similar comments almost every day, I must be losing my knack…

Nah, you've still got it.

your loss, it's cramping your style to forgo the manipulation that was commonplace in the film era.

The reason I don't is mainly because I don't have the time. And I don't have the software….yet. Might see if I can get Elements sometime, but that's as much as I can afford.
There's also 2 reasons I'm slightly wary of it –
A lot of people overuse it and their pics start to look very 'false' or 'wrong' to me. I don't want to fall into that trap.
I want to learn how to get the best out of the camera, and how to use it first, rather then learn how to use some software. So far I'm pretty happy with my pics. I see some on here that everyone thinks are great, and I just see the photoshopping, and prefer mine. 🙂

How many flashes will do 5 frames a second ?

Mine will do 3 at least, on lower power, which is as fast as my camera. I've not used it at full power yet.

Peterpoddy, if you haven't already you should sign up for the next Seb Rogers course. I got a lot out of it when I went earlier in April.

I'd love to. Can't afford it right now though, but I might look into it for next year. 🙂

Might see if I can get Elements sometime, but that's as much as I can afford.

Try CaptureNX if you are a Nikon user. Way better than Elements for RAW development IMHO.

PP – You need a Gimp. Once you get a routine workflow going it will be fine.

nothing to see here
[/QUOTE]

SFB – I didn't say NEVER. I said not often. 🙂
And I've had a good trawl through your pics many times and I'm struggling to remember one where you've panned the camera to get a blurred background and a sharp rider…. Not criticising, just pointing it out. [ego massaging mode] Your pics are one of the main reasons I got into this, inspiration if you like. 🙂

But you shoot different stuff to me, in a different environment. It was when I realised that that I also realised I needed different kit. Again, I don't think you use a flash, do you? Call it me branching out a bit, finding my style…. 🙂

HTTP – Link no worky!

Graham, no, I've got a Canon 400D

I want to learn how to get the best out of the camera, and how to use it first, rather then learn how to use some software.

If you shoot JPG and you want to get the best results then you must "learn how to use some software" that is built-into your camera – by setting white balance, curves, saturation, contrast, colour mode etc before taking the shot.

If you shoot RAW then you can make those decisions after the fact, with a much bigger screen, a mouse and a cup of coffee. 🙂

If you shoot RAW then you can make those decisions after the fact, with a much bigger screen, a mouse and a cup of coffee

Yeah, I think that's gotta be the next step for me realistically. Will Photoshop Elements be any use to me for that? I've had a quick look for advice on the web, but you mainly get people who (think they?) know it all using too many big long winded explanations for a simpleton like me. 🙂

Sorry, can't offer much advice for Canon RAW I'm afraid, but Gimp, Elements and Picasa can all handle RAW conversion I think.

@PeterPoddy Lightroom 3 beta is available to the public for free, and the demo version will work until the commercial release date in April, so get yourself tooled up now, for free.
IMHO Lightroom is THE digital photo utility. Photoshop is good, but LR actually lets you work like a photographer, dodging and burning and adjusting tone, contrast and colour information in a very intuitive way.
I struggled to like digital photography (even though it's my job) until I invested in LR, and now I can complete several hundred+ shot assignments in a week, and not feel like I've had my brains hoiked out.

IMHO, if you're struggling to arrest motion with your vivitar strobe at a normal working distance and a shutter speed to balance the exposure under tree cover, you probably don't need to lose a stop by putting a diffusion brolly in the way. They're well lit already, mate!
Just my 2 cents.

Oh, and cameras?

I'd have a G10/11 for practicality AND a Ricoh GRD because it's a design classic and I like prime lenses. I know, that's not helpful…

Elements is good for most stuff but I find it cumbersome for raw conversion. I prefer RawTherapee for conversion (it's free).

if you're struggling to arrest motion with your vivitar strobe

No, I'm pretty damned happy with the pics as they are, TBH. I don't want to stop the motion as such (I like some blur) I was just struggling to pick out faces before, and with sharpness. The flash is spot on I reckon. Thanks for the tips though, I'll have a look at Lightroom. 🙂

I really miss my Minox GL35.

I'd love a simple light viewfinder digital camera with manual focus and aperture so long as it had an immediate shutter and low light sensitivity. I wouldn't need an LCD screen or other faff. It would have to produce RAW so I could attend to anything after download.

I'm using an Olympus Mu at the moment. For some reason my Fuji GX680 doesn't come on many rides with me.

GIMP – http://www.gimp.org/downloads/

2nd Lightroom. Amazing bit of software.

Sell, steal, do anything you can to get on that course. I learnt so much that weekend.

Looks like you're mates with Dom and Jamie judging by your Flickr stream. Done a few photo shoots with those guys last year. Would be happy to do another one soon and maybe help out with some tips I learnt from the course.

Not criticising, just pointing it out. [ego massaging mode] Your pics are one of the main reasons I got into this, inspiration if you like

why thank you Peter! But I'm so conceited it doesn't do well to admit this kind of thing. However, I'm all in favour of encouraging people to experiment with photography – each individual brings a new way of looking!

slight panning 2 weeks ago:
– but you're right, I don't do it much unless the light conditions demand.

Again, I don't think you use a flash, do you?

I hate it, because I'm trying to show what I see, and I never see lights shining from a) the camera b) the bushes. I agree it's useful for filling in shadows, but I never have the presence of mind to think of it.

I hate it, because I'm trying to show what I see..

Sadly the dynamic range of our eyes is waaaaay better than the sensors in our cameras, so your camera may not be able to record what you see without using a flash.

Could do with some fill in flash in that shot.

I would have thought the use of flash for MTB photography can remove a lot of mood and atmosphere from the photo. Granted, you'll get that covershot photo look if that's what you're after. However, sometimes the detail is in what you don't see. And that's art.

I hate it, because I'm trying to show what I see

Yep, me too. Hence the flash… I can see people's faces when I watch them and IMO that's the essence of the pic. Get the face well lit and you set the mood. Shots like this –

I really like it, but the front of the rider is dark, lacking detail. That's what I was struggling with….I rckon if I'd have had a bit of flash to fill the face and front of the rider in, from camera left, that would have beeen the perfect shot. 🙂 Next time…..

For Canon RAW conversion, the software supplied with the camera (Canon DPP) is far better than any 3rd party effort. With DPP you also get rudimentary editing facilities such as curves, contrast, saturation, noise reduction, sharpening, cloning etc. It can often be enough to sort a picture out. If not, Elements should be more than enough – I have yet to find a reason to ditch Elements in favour of the full blown Photoshop, on the basis that if Elements isn't enough, the picture is probably shit in the first place.

I rckon if I'd have had a bit of flash to fill the face and front of the rider in, from camera left, that would have beeen the perfect shot.

Maybe, but it is bloody anti-social. I suspect I'm not the only one who'd applaud the sight of a photographer being beaten to death with their flash at the 24s. 😉