local drama

well, this is pretty embarassing after looking over chili's millville pix, but it's my first whack at a raw conversion + velvia vision (the new name for digital velvia). besides, chili is a pro!



so....any advice from the pro? i think one thing is....clear, or rather NOT clear, and that is my junky little sigma 70-300 struggles against better glass. maybe dropping it 3 feet onto a packed rock road and converting it from a twist zoom to a slide zoom degraded the sharpness, too! :laugh:

wp.

this dirt thing IS frustrating me a bit. it seems like that under most lighting, the dirt in my shots looks pale and washed out, and we all hate that, right? even at nocona, or in this case, buffalo, where there was plenty of water in the soil, the original file still didn't look like great dirt.

so, what happens? i can't figure out how to operate on the dirt by itself (this selective color thing just isn't clicking for me), so i jump straight to velvia vision and hope for the best. i get what i want from the bike/rider, which is vibrant looking plastic and gear colors, and live with whatever else i comes along with that. :bang: it does seem to me that the dominate color of my dirt is orange-ish (other shots, too), but as bad as it is, i did back off the saturation intensity for that very reason.

so....about my monitor...i'm painfully ignorant. :whoa: i hear about this monitor calibration thing, but i don't know what that means or how to do it. i have a newish hp laptop, and i just go with what looks good at the time, but i know it may not look the same on the other end. okie, can i bring it to your house for some instruction?? is it necessary to factor in the amount of beer you've had when doing the calibration?? :rotfl:

now, about the shooting itself....each time i go out, i pick a strategy and work on that so i can really corellate results with actions. this time out, i used only the big (SLOW) lens and shot only 1000fps or 1250. i've used the fixed focus point trick before, but that day i wanted to see if the lens could keep up because i had the feeling from before that it was slower than a '93 kx125 with a rag in the carburetor. i've also heard it said that 250-500 is the best speed for shooting moto, but not only are my results at those speeds fuzzy, but in looking at the exif data from things like the current transworld mx cover, for example, those guys are shooting much higher speeds. so...i tried it and i think the results are better. oh, and yes, i have started using center af and that's much better!

so many things to learn..... :yikes:

wp.

totally! i'm learning that while there are good rules of thumb, there are always exceptions that will help make a better photo. and...in certain situations the "rules" change.

that cover of twmx i mentioned is a good example. it was shot at 1/2000, but the tires are actually still slightly blurred! what really makes it a great action shot and gives it a sense of motion is the totally aggro position of the rider (jbs).

moral of the story: the slower the rider the slower the shutter speed! :rotfl:

wp.

crazy. i'll have to look on my notebook when i get home tonight, but here on my work screen, my dirt looks more orange than it does at home, and thump's dirt looks too pink.

:whoa:

wp.

one thing i think applies here is that the color of most of our dirt is a bit red-ish. not as much as cooperland, but still....they don't call it the red river for nothing! :laugh:

wp.