FMX Freestyle

V-Spec

V-Spec

V-Spec

Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Posts
3,698
Location
London
Went to the BMF yesterday and saw the Bolddog Lings display team, they were really really good, naturally I had to rattle few off with the 300mm..

2J6G5321.JPG



2J6G5264.JPG



2J6G5298.JPG



2J6G5315.JPG



2J6G5442.JPG
 
no unfortunatley, I was gonna put a short glass on, but the dust was terrible, my whole camera and bag and myself was just getting covered in it, all over the place.. a lens change would have meant untold sensor turmoil lol..
They were going pretty high though.
 
They're great captures but i really think you need to work on your processing. Did you do any at all? They're all fairly under-exposed for a start. Fair enough shooting into the sky is always hard (maybe spot metering on the rider would work? :confused: ) but there's a lot you can do if you take a few minutes.

I hope you dont mind but here's what i mean. I did (very quickly);
- Levels
- Bring out shadows
- Quick-masked levels (sky/rider)
- Levels/curves
- USM

edit2J6G5321.JPG


I over-sharpened it a bit, but i dont normally use USM anyway. I hope that's constructive. :)
 
That looks way too bright now. It was u/e before, but I think slightly more delicate pp would be better suited there.

The trouble is with that is you've got the rider wearing a dark outfit, which isn't easy to bring out. I think it'd take some careful pp to get it just right.
 
Oh sure, i was pretty 'blunt' with my processing, but as i said i only spent a few minutes on it. I dont think it's really that bright, i mean it looks like a nice day and he is pointing at the sky, so it's gonna be bright! :p There isnt anything blown out, apart from that small part of the bike.

I know i went overboard with the USM and that kinda makes it look quite unnatural, though. :)
 
Very nice shots.

I race with one of the team in moto-x :D

Wish i could have seen this show, looks good and the weather was nice too.
 
agree with Scam - they're a touch under exposed, but I think he went too far with the one he did. would benefit from being contrastey as well, I think. Great captures though - interesting subject
 
Thanks for the comments, you're all right when it comes to post processing, I don't REALLY do that much.. I'm of the older opinion shared by a lot of people that the more processing you do the worse off, as any form of post processing is destructive, at the end of the day looking at the shots, the first 2 appear darker because of the riders top (black and dark red) but the bike looks fine because of its bright design, the other 3 - i'd say that they're about right, because thats how it looked at the time, 3-4 and 5 are nothing like underexposed, the darkness is caused by him casting his own shadow.
I just don't like messing with images that much, a lot of people post photos on here where they've gone mad with selective colouring/levels/masks and the images look artificial and lurid..
I think Scam's example is way over the top, it looks like theres a 5000w light shining on him and its blown all the subtle detail out of the bike.

Thanks for the comments though, i'll bear them in mind in future :)
 
Didn't know they done freestyle MX on four strokes now.
Can't see them being as agile on a thumper.

Nice pics btw.
 
Last edited:
Katoom said:
Didn't know they done freestyle MX on four strokes now.
Can't see them being as agile on a thumper.
Click to expand...

They did actually mention that before they did their show, about how the 4 strokes have so much more power for acceleration up the ramps etc... but im no expert lol.
 
V-Spec said:
Thanks for the comments, you're all right when it comes to post processing, I don't REALLY do that much.. I'm of the older opinion shared by a lot of people that the more processing you do the worse off, as any form of post processing is destructive
Click to expand...
I'm intrigued as to why you say it's destructive? Almost everything i do in PS is with the aim of bringing out more detail to my shot; whether it be more shadow/highlights detail, more colour, or whatever. As in detail that is already there, just hidden due to under/over-exposure. I'm of the opinion that Photoshop and processing is the second half of taking a digital photo. For us with DSLRs anyway. Fair enough if it's a p&s which has been designed to process the images, and do some internal corrections to make it easier for people. But DSLRs arent perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

V-Spec said:
I just don't like messing with images that much, a lot of people post photos on here where they've gone mad with selective colouring/levels/masks and the images look artificial and lurid..
I think Scam's example is way over the top, it looks like theres a 5000w light shining on him and its blown all the subtle detail out of the bike.
Click to expand...
Why spend thousands of pounds on a camera and not finish the job properly? Sorry if that sounds blunt, but i'm just saying what i think. You wouldnt get an old-school film photographer taking his shots, looking at the negs or whatever and going 'yeah thats good enough'. Loads of the tools in PS emulate tricks that film photographers have been using for years. And think about films too. A heck of a lot of a films budget is spent on post-production, even for dramas/documentaries without cgi/vfx. You wouldnt get a filmmaker shooting his film, cutting it together and then saying 'thats ready to go'. No way!

You mentioned about losing the detail in the bike too; here's mine and yours side-by-side. I think if anything i've brought out some of the detail :confused:

compare-bike.jpg


Sorry if that comes across a bit strong, and i know my example was a bit over-processed (most of that is just the sharpening really) but really i do think it is such a waste to take shots and not make any attempt to process them. I really dont mean to offend, i just feel it's worth saying.

Oh, and 5000w light? Um, i think the Sun is probably a fair bit brighter than that! :p
 
Seeing as your hellbent on being right - fair enough.. I literally resized the photos and just posted them up, I didn't intend them to be for any showcase or anything, they're only going on the forums.. the whole process took me literally 2 minutes...
 
V-Spec said:
Seeing as your hellbent on being right - fair enough.. I literally resized the photos and just posted them up, I didn't intend them to be for any showcase or anything, they're only going on the forums.. the whole process took me literally 2 minutes...
Click to expand...
*sigh*

I'm not hell-bent on being right, i'm just giving you my opinion. You posted these up for opinions, and i'm giving you mine. I did it in the nicest way possible, and am trying to be constructive. Those shots have potential, so do a lot that people post up here with the comment 'straight off the camera, no processing' and my thought is always why? It's not a finished piece of work, in my opinion.
 
V-Spec said:
...when it comes to post processing, I don't REALLY do that much.. I'm of the older opinion shared by a lot of people that the more processing you do the worse off
Click to expand...
Whilst I totally understand where you are coming from, it is true that virtually all photos will benifit from 'some' PP. If you shoot jpeg your camera is doing it for you (which means there is still some PP going on, just your camera is doing it for you and that IS destructive) but if you shoot RAW you are getting the un-processed data from the sensor so that will nearly always need a little attention in PP to get the polish back but its not destructive because you always have that RAW data to go back to.

For me, anything more than a quick levels/contrast/saturation tweak is annoying - but thats all your photos posted require, which is a good thing because it means they were taken well to start with. They do look slightly dull and underexposed as they are BUT thats not a bad thing because getting the polish back is very simple. That doesn't take away from the photos at all, in fact it adds to them, as Scam has shown.

You shouldn't be so defensive when someone is just trying to help out, especially in this situation as the advice is very valid.
 
I know they're underexposed by around 1/2 a stop apart from the last one, I did have a play around with some of them last night in PS and they look better now,
im not being defensive I appreciate all comments, it was simply Scam's imposing essay, quoting and comparing and proving, seemed a little "over the top".. when really the photos I posted weren't intended to be any kind of showcase or competition or getty images application, they're just a few I posted for the sake of it..

Thanks anyway..
 
V-Spec said:
I know they're underexposed by around 1/2 a stop apart from the last one, I did have a play around with some of them last night in PS and they look better now,
im not being defensive I appreciate all comments, it was simply Scam's imposing essay, quoting and comparing and proving, seemed a little "over the top".. when really the photos I posted weren't intended to be any kind of showcase or competition or getty images application, they're just a few I posted for the sake of it..

Thanks anyway..
Click to expand...
No worries.

Just be wary that most viewers will assume a photo anyone has posted is the best they could get it unless its mentioned that its straight out of the camera. We all take pride in our photos and even if its not for competition use you still want to show your favourite images off to their best. Its amazing how a small tweak can turn a so so image in to a stand out one! I've seen it countless times :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom