Trouble with motion

**Banskojoe** · 11-25-2021, 11:17 AM - **1 Like**

Better, but still learning.

Thanks again

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

pschlute · 11-25-2021, 01:18 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by Banskojoe

Better, but still learning.

Practice makes perfect ! Keep at it you are on the right track.

Something else you could try in addition is to do some panning shots. As the subject runs past you, track them with your camera as you take pictures in continuous shooting mode. You will inevitably get some blur on the subject, especially arms and legs, and even more blur on the background, but this can lead to a shot giving more impression of movement. The good thing is for these kind of shots you actually want to lower your shutter speed.

This is an image I took of a vintage open top car with passengers that was racing past me. This might be a bit extreme for some, but it certainly gives the impression of speed . I chose 1/6 second for this exposure.

**Des** · 11-25-2021, 03:53 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Banskojoe

Better, but still learning.

Yes, much better. 1/160th still isn't fast, but at 6400 ISO and f5.6 there wasn't much room to move. At 18mm the maximum aperture for that lens is f3.5. If you had shot wide open that would have allowed 1.3EV faster shutter speed (ie about 1/400th). But (there's always a catch) wide open at 18mm is one setting where the DA 18-135 (well, my copy anyway), isn't sharp even in the centre. So you are at the limit of what you can get in dull conditions without adding light.

I love Peter's (@pschlute) example. It's a good illustration of thinking outside the box. Panning requires a bit of practice and you need the subject to fill a reasonable portion of the frame for it to be effective.

**clackers** · 11-25-2021, 04:54 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Banskojoe

Better, but still learning.

Thanks again

Yeah, your lens is too slow for the job, Banskojoe! There are many days where the sun isn't out and shining.

1/160s is simply not fast enough for sports, and ISO 6400 is too high - you're getting both motion blur and noise grain.

The closer you can get to an f2.8 zoom, the better.

You can go less than f2.8 with a prime, but there are then only certain distances you can compose and shoot your grandchild from, it will be an unsatisfactory experience. You want to be able to get her head to toe in the shots as she approaches from the distance and take a sequence of shots, zooming out precisely between bursts.

As she gets nearer and you're now at your widest focal length, you can flip the camera from landscape to portrait orientation and get some more shots before she's too close.

This is what's possible when you 'get your ducks in a row':

Last edited by clackers; 11-25-2021 at 10:57 PM.

jgnfld · 11-26-2021, 06:14 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

Yeah, your lens is too slow for the job, Banskojoe! There are many days where the sun isn't out and shining.

1/160s is simply not fast enough for sports, and ISO 6400 is too high - you're getting both motion blur and noise grain.

The closer you can get to an f2.8 zoom, the better...

Yeah...For some reason I just cannot warm to my Sigma 17-50 f2.8's rendering of landscapes, in particular, and since that is my preferred use in that range, bought a 16-85. But I have kept the 17-50 for indoors, low light, people shots, city streets, and dark/night shots which render just fine for me but which are not my usual subjects.

**UncleVanya** · 11-28-2021, 08:33 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Banskojoe

Better, but still learning.

Thanks again

I think if you waited until they were closer and shot a little underexposed with a higher shutter speed it would be perfectly fine. The extra background elements here don’t add much and you lose the focus on the subject I think.

**Banskojoe** · 11-28-2021, 09:09 AM - **1 Like**

I appreciate the additional advice and input. That particular shot is one of usually a couple hundred at any given meet. I try to capture the whole team and make the shots available to the school for distribution. Not all parents (or grandparents) can make all the meets and we hope this helps a little.

**TwoUptons** · 11-28-2021, 09:12 AM

There's also the last-gen DA*16-50 f2.8... if you're looking for a gear upgrade...
It has a reputation for focus motor failures but can be converted to screwdrive.
Those are often available for a reasonable price, and they have a very nice rendering, I think.
Mine worked very well on my K-01, which was famous for having lousy autofocus.

Back in the film era, I shot a lot of sports with a 135mm f2.8 just for the faster aperture.
It was manual focus, but for cross country, that should be less of an issue, as you can pre-focus on a point before they pass.
If you can pick your location well ahead of time, you may be able to shoot farther off, getting a pack of runners, then refocus and recompose when they get close to get one or two...

And a manual focus 135mm f2.8 can be extremely inexpensive if you can work around fully manual exposure.
They are pricer with the "A" contacts needed for automated exposure...

-Eric

**UncleVanya** · 11-28-2021, 05:48 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Banskojoe

I appreciate the additional advice and input. That particular shot is one of usually a couple hundred at any given meet. I try to capture the whole team and make the shots available to the school for distribution. Not all parents (or grandparents) can make all the meets and we hope this helps a little.

That is a fair point and makes sense. I would say combine what you’re doing with some tighter shots of two or three runners at a time if you aren’t already doing so. The DA* 16-50 converted to screw drive is a nice faster lens but wide open it may not give enough depth of field for those shots.

**clackers** · 11-29-2021, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by jgnfld

Yeah...For some reason I just cannot warm to my Sigma 17-50 f2.8's rendering of landscapes, in particular, and since that is my preferred use in that range, bought a 16-85.

I wouldn't advise the OP to buy the 16-85 for sports, Jgnfld ... it doesn't open up wide enough!

For your landscapes, you might be shooting at f11 with long exposure times, she wants to hit 1/1000s or more for her runners.

jgnfld · 11-29-2021, 03:43 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

I wouldn't advise the OP to buy the 16-85 for sports, Jgnfld ... it doesn't open up wide enough!

For your landscapes, you might be shooting at f11 with long exposure times, she wants to hit 1/1000s or more for her runners.

Poor writing on my part, I guess. That was my point. So...yes.

11-26-2021, 06:14 AM - 1 Like	#35
jgnfld Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,789	Originally posted by clackers Yeah, your lens is too slow for the job, Banskojoe! There are many days where the sun isn't out and shining. 1/160s is simply not fast enough for sports, and ISO 6400 is too high - you're getting both motion blur and noise grain. The closer you can get to an f2.8 zoom, the better... Yeah...For some reason I just cannot warm to my Sigma 17-50 f2.8's rendering of landscapes, in particular, and since that is my preferred use in that range, bought a 16-85. But I have kept the 17-50 for indoors, low light, people shots, city streets, and dark/night shots which render just fine for me but which are not my usual subjects. Last edited by jgnfld; 11-28-2021 at 08:45 AM.

11-28-2021, 09:09 AM - 1 Like	#37
Banskojoe Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 181 Original Poster	More thanks I appreciate the additional advice and input. That particular shot is one of usually a couple hundred at any given meet. I try to capture the whole team and make the shots available to the school for distribution. Not all parents (or grandparents) can make all the meets and we hope this helps a little.

11-28-2021, 09:12 AM	#38
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,214	There's also the last-gen DA16-50 f2.8... if you're looking for a gear upgrade... It has a reputation for focus motor failures but can be converted to screwdrive. Those are often available for a reasonable price, and they have a very nice rendering, I think. Mine worked very well on my K-01, which was famous for having lousy autofocus. Back in the film era, I shot a lot of sports with a 135mm f2.8 just for the faster aperture. It was manual focus, but for cross country, that should be less of an issue, as you can pre-focus on a point before they pass. If you can pick your location well ahead of time, you may be able to shoot farther off, getting a pack of runners, then refocus and recompose when they get close to get one or two... And a manual focus 135mm f2.8 can be extremely inexpensive if you can work around fully manual exposure. They are pricer with the "A" contacts needed for automated exposure... -Eric Last edited by TwoUptons; 11-28-2021 at 09:16 AM. Reason: had more ideas...*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Depicting motion: Panning and motion blur	slackercruster	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	109	09-07-2021 09:59 AM
Rhythm, Motion, and all that jazz	robgski	General Talk	2	05-07-2021 01:08 PM
Abstract Motion Blur Abstract	cg57	Post Your Photos!	4	01-08-2020 02:24 AM
Trouble with motion blur	Crust	Pentax K-01	10	02-11-2013 04:02 PM
stopped motion with motion at a bar help	no694terry	Photographic Technique	9	10-20-2012 10:26 AM

11-25-2021, 01:18 PM - 3 Likes	#32
pschlute Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Surrey, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,202	Originally posted by Banskojoe Better, but still learning. Practice makes perfect ! Keep at it you are on the right track. Something else you could try in addition is to do some panning shots. As the subject runs past you, track them with your camera as you take pictures in continuous shooting mode. You will inevitably get some blur on the subject, especially arms and legs, and even more blur on the background, but this can lead to a shot giving more impression of movement. The good thing is for these kind of shots you actually want to lower your shutter speed. This is an image I took of a vintage open top car with passengers that was racing past me. This might be a bit extreme for some, but it certainly gives the impression of speed . I chose 1/6 second for this exposure.

11-25-2021, 03:53 PM - 1 Like	#33
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	Originally posted by Banskojoe Better, but still learning. Yes, much better. 1/160th still isn't fast, but at 6400 ISO and f5.6 there wasn't much room to move. At 18mm the maximum aperture for that lens is f3.5. If you had shot wide open that would have allowed 1.3EV faster shutter speed (ie about 1/400th). But (there's always a catch) wide open at 18mm is one setting where the DA 18-135 (well, my copy anyway), isn't sharp even in the centre. So you are at the limit of what you can get in dull conditions without adding light. I love Peter's (@pschlute) example. It's a good illustration of thinking outside the box. Panning requires a bit of practice and you need the subject to fill a reasonable portion of the frame for it to be effective.

11-25-2021, 04:54 PM - 2 Likes	#34
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Banskojoe Better, but still learning. Thanks again Yeah, your lens is too slow for the job, Banskojoe! There are many days where the sun isn't out and shining. 1/160s is simply not fast enough for sports, and ISO 6400 is too high - you're getting both motion blur and noise grain. The closer you can get to an f2.8 zoom, the better. You can go less than f2.8 with a prime, but there are then only certain distances you can compose and shoot your grandchild from, it will be an unsatisfactory experience. You want to be able to get her head to toe in the shots as she approaches from the distance and take a sequence of shots, zooming out precisely between bursts. As she gets nearer and you're now at your widest focal length, you can flip the camera from landscape to portrait orientation and get some more shots before she's too close. This is what's possible when you 'get your ducks in a row': Last edited by clackers; 11-25-2021 at 10:57 PM.

11-28-2021, 08:33 AM - 1 Like	#36
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	Originally posted by Banskojoe Better, but still learning. Thanks again I think if you waited until they were closer and shot a little underexposed with a higher shutter speed it would be perfectly fine. The extra background elements here don’t add much and you lose the focus on the subject I think.

11-28-2021, 05:48 PM - 1 Like	#39
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	Originally posted by Banskojoe I appreciate the additional advice and input. That particular shot is one of usually a couple hundred at any given meet. I try to capture the whole team and make the shots available to the school for distribution. Not all parents (or grandparents) can make all the meets and we hope this helps a little. That is a fair point and makes sense. I would say combine what you’re doing with some tighter shots of two or three runners at a time if you aren’t already doing so. The DA* 16-50 converted to screw drive is a nice faster lens but wide open it may not give enough depth of field for those shots.

11-29-2021, 03:21 PM	#40
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by jgnfld Yeah...For some reason I just cannot warm to my Sigma 17-50 f2.8's rendering of landscapes, in particular, and since that is my preferred use in that range, bought a 16-85. I wouldn't advise the OP to buy the 16-85 for sports, Jgnfld ... it doesn't open up wide enough! For your landscapes, you might be shooting at f11 with long exposure times, she wants to hit 1/1000s or more for her runners.

11-29-2021, 03:43 PM - 1 Like	#41
jgnfld Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,789	Originally posted by clackers I wouldn't advise the OP to buy the 16-85 for sports, Jgnfld ... it doesn't open up wide enough! For your landscapes, you might be shooting at f11 with long exposure times, she wants to hit 1/1000s or more for her runners. Poor writing on my part, I guess. That was my point. So...yes.