Getting there?

KWJams

Senior Member
While at Sturgis a couple weeks ago we went to the Indian Motorcycle reveal block party. Normally I don't shoot stuff like this, but had my camera and a new to me 35mm f/1.8G lens on it. It seems to me, that I missed the mark in both shots by having either the DOF or the foreground too blurry. To make these types of shots turn out right, should I have been closer -- further away, or waited until a pro photographer showed up for the shot? What I was trying to capture was the new bike and the hoopla of the moment. Interested in your opinion and advice. Sturgis2013_0058.jpgSturgis2013_0060.jpg
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
This is a textbook example of how DoF can really change the message of a shot. Although very similar, you have two very different photos here, and I like the second one much better. Why?

The first is a shot of a motorcycle with a band in the background. Yawn. The second, is something much different. This is how the scene plays out in my head:

"Country rooooooads....take me hooooome. To the pla....."
"Whoa, check out that cool bike!"

Here's 2 guys up on stage in front of hundreds, if not thousands of people. They have to remember their marks, their notes, and the words to what they're singing. But look at them. They're both distracted by the bike.

Also, I'm insanely jealous. I've always wanted to go to Sturgis. My retirement plan revolves around one day selling everything I own, buying a custom bike, and just touring the country.
 

KWJams

Senior Member
Thanks, My pick is also the 2nd one for exactly what you described. "The Story" Even the band couldn't take their eyes off the new Indian.

I was just wondering is there somewhere in the middle where the story would be more interesting if taken by a pro. A place where the foreground or the background was not so blurry?

We have been going to the rally every year since the early 90's and never fail to have a great time.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
I was just wondering is there somewhere in the middle where the story would be more interesting if taken by a pro. A place where the foreground or the background was not so blurry?

It's kind of hard to say, really. I've done some concert photography, and it's a lot of fun. A 35mm isn't exactly the ideal lens in that situation (in my opinion). You want to get up close an personal with a 200-300mm so you can get a full frame shot of the band jamming on their guitars to show that raw emotion.

Coupled with a motorcycle reveal, it's difficult to put myself in your shoes to say what I would've done. Had the bike rolled out on stage, it would've been easier to capture. I think given the circumstances, you did an excellent job.
 

KWJams

Senior Member
Thanks,
​Agreed, the short lens wasn't the best choice not knowing how deep the throng of people would be in front of me. My wife snuck right up to the security barrier.
The crowd did eventually disperse enough that I was able to find a spot that I could get one of the bikes as well as the band.

The 35mm really placed limits on the composition was the important lesson I learned.
. Sturgis2013_0087.jpg
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
The 35mm really placed limits on the composition was the important lesson I learned.

I always carry 2 lenses with me:
* 24-70mm
* 70-200mm

That will cover about 95% of shooting situations. Throw in a wide-angle lens and maybe a 35 or 55mm prime, and you'll be able to nail just about anything that comes your way. But that's 4 lenses instead of just 2...for that last 5%. Doubling up on lenses for that last 5% isn't really ideal.

A good exercise is to scroll through your image library and look at the EXIF data. Find out what ranges you usually shoot at and pack your gear accordingly. I think having at least 1 "walking" lens and 1 telephoto is a must for anyone. If you're someone who likes to stop and shoot at bugs and flowers, take your macro along too. If you just got a new lens to play with, take it along and force yourself to use it. Sometimes physically moving in closer for shots is better than a telephoto.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
Just curious...why do you want that lens?

Don't get me wrong, it's great for what it is: a portrait lens. The portrait sweet spot is right around 80mm, so this is a lens that's likely to be found in many a pro's studio lineup. Outside of that, there isn't much use for it. Are you a portrait guy? Five large is an awful lot to drop on a single use lens.
 

KWJams

Senior Member
Because I am hoping that it will be the cheapest way to get to a fast -- low light lens.

I don't like using artificial light such as flash. The challenge to me is to make a capture in totally natural -ie- available light.

This shot from last summer was close. I was able to be pre-focused on a spot where the rider would jump into the light from the flood lights and still was slow enough to get wheel blur for a sense of motion. But it wasn't fast enough to capture him flying in the air towards me without muddy details.

I may be way off track and it may not be the best lens for what I am after. There was an article in a magazine a few years ago about the mighty 80mm for low light sports.


Nightmare2012_392.jpg
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
Eww. Yeah, that's a tough one: low-light action sports.

This is the Exposure Triangle's worst nightmare because you NEED the faster shutter speeds, you NEED to squeeze as much ISO as possible for clarity, and you NEED a wide enough aperture. There's not much room for a tradeoff.

A decent f/2.8 lens will be good enough, honestly. Of course an f/1.8 is better, but you're jacking up the price considerably just for the sake of having an additional f-stop.

Telephoto is a staple for any sports photographer, and I honestly can't think of the last time I used anything else for sports (except for MMA, because I'm a lot closer to the action, just above the cage).

I've been using a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for years, and it's an incredible lens for around $800 new. Even though I've grown into better cameras, I still rely on my D300s with that lens for sports because it's dead on balls accurate, reliable, and produces great photos, even at night.
 
Top