Photography.

[charleselan]

Following on from René's attachment of excellent photographs taken at the very wet Belgian Grand Prix last Sunday, it got me thinking about using photographic equipment in such adverse conditions.

I am not sure if everyone knows this or not but most cameras and lens' that are available to the general public, and from all brands are not really waterproof. Those used by professionals, which tend to be considerably more expensive to purchase than the commercially produced items, are very much used in all conditions and are claimed to be waterproof when used in the rain and snow. Obviously they are not intended to be used underwater as there are specialist equipment that fit that requirement.

I attended many a race meeting in conditions like at Spa last weekend, and worse including very wet and cold stages in forests during rally events like the RAC Rally. For the majority of my time photographing motor sport I used Olympus 35mm film camera bodies that were not necessarily "professional" in design but were excellent and never allowed any water ingress. However I usually used to protect the camera and lens by covering them with a polythene bag. I would cut open the sealed end which made a tube and then would hold it in place by placing an elastic band around the lens which still allowed focusing and zooming.

Obviously the rear of the camera body would not be covered as one needed access to the view finder and shutter button etc, but one could then draw the poly bag back over when not in use thus keeping the camera and lens dry.

In the late 1980's I began using the new electronic Canon EOS cameras and these were only consumer editions and obviously one needed to be very careful using these in wet conditions. A short while later I invested in a fully professional Canon kit with an EOS 1 body and power winder along with two telephoto and zoom lens. It was interesting to note that some Pro's used the purpose made "Camera Capes" which were not cheap to buy, however guys like Jeff Bloxham the Autosport National photographer always used a Chamois leather draped over the camera and lens, which many other guys also used to have at their disposal. After seeing that i always carried a chamois leather in my bag and it always worked well.

[René]

Great stuff and knowlegde there, JC.

Keeping your equipment dry in wet conditions is always a challenge. A wet camera ruined some of the best pictures I made of Gilles Villeneuve at Zolder. Such a shame.

Last sunday was the first time I used my Sony Cybershot camera at the races. I bought it two years ago but due to the pandemic I had no chance to use it for this purpose earlier. The camera did get a little bit wet but I have not noticed any issues with it. I have actually not checked if it's waterproof but it does look very sealed. It did the job!

Here are the damaged photos I made at Zolder (posted before in the Villeneuve thread).  It's a weird 'effect' but I have no other explanation then water damage because it did rain quite a lot that day. (the picture on the left bottom is Zandvoort by the way. The other three are at Zolder).

[charleselan]

Very, very unfortunate René. It would appear to me a case of rain getting either into the lens or between the lens and camera shutter, definitely not water on the film. A great shame and loss for you due to the special nature of the subject, however there are some who might even try to pass that off as art.

[charleselan]

Over the course of the past few weeks I have begun a serious attempt at digitising my vast collection of motor sport photographs, believe me it is a big task. Having seen some well respected photographers (not necessarily motor sport) on YouTube using alternative methods to using a Photo Scanner I began collecting the relevant equipment to do the job.

In simple terms what you are about to do is actually photograph the colour transparency or negative with a DSLR camera, you also need one with a full size sensor or something close or similar to get the best results. I am using my Canon 60D which is a pretty good high quality enthusiast camera and falls into the category mentioned previously. Fitted with the standard Prime 50mm lens coupled to the camera body with a suitable macro extension tube.

For the later I found an excellent set of three different length extension tubes advertised on Amazon that were specifically for Canon DSLR cameras and also and importantly  allowed all of the functions of the camera to work as normal.

Along with this one needs a Light Pad, an A4 sized version is ideal and can be purchased at remarkably reasonable prices. You then need something to mount the camera on so that it can face downwards onto the Light Pad and transparency/negative. For this I treated myself to a new Tripod which had an arm that extended out from the centre column via an adjustable ball joint, one can also use a Copy Stand. I then set up the Light Pad on a table and near the edge so that the camera mounted to the Tripod could focus down onto the transparency or negative. It is preferable to to mask around the transparency so that excess light is excluded from the camera, black card can be used or something similar. For negatives I purchased a specialist holder made by Lumography which was also recommended by someone on YouTube.

It is essential to make sure that the camera is square and level to the transparency/negative and for this I simply used and Spirit level App on my iPhone. Obviously one has to fiddle around getting the right set up with the full transparency or negative filling the frame of the DSLR, basically finding the correct extension tube length. I use the auto focus of the camera to get a sharp image although some YouTube folk say not to but manually focus, I am more than happy with what i get with AF. Set the aperture to around f5.6 or f8 and I use the 12 second timer on the camera to cut out any possible camera shake when pressing the shutter button. One could also use an electronic cable shutter release but at this time I dot not have one for the Canon 60D.

I have now completed more than 1000 slide copies using this method and I have to say the results are outstanding and far better than one can get from a photo scanner, unless you pay huge sums of money for a Drum Scanner. I set my camera to take an image in both high quality jpeg and the very best RAW file the camera will allow. To be honest I was shocked at the results of the jpeg image, as they were so good, however the RAW image allows a huge amount of adjustment and of course a RAW image never deteriorates no matter how many times the file is copied, unlike a jpeg which looses a little every time it is copied.

I will post some images later in the members area so that you can see what am now getting.

Oh! One final thing using this method is so much faster than a scanner.

[René]

That sounds exciting and looking very much foward to a new selection of your work!

Moving away from the scanner is a good decision and actually one I made myself a while ago. Of course I'm not a professional photographer like you but as you know I like sharing my photos on here and I discovered there are much simpler ways of digitizing photos by using my iPhone! And the results are often better than the scanner we have at the office.

With photo prints I just take a picture of the print and enhance it in Photoshop where necessary. You only have to watch out for light reflections. And for photo slides I use an iPhone app that works just fine. You place the slide on the screen of an iPad with a white screen turned on and then you take a picture using the app. As you say, only a professional Drum scanner would have better results but that's not worth the investment.

[Carl]

John and René,
                        Your dedication to the awesome images you have captured is truly remarkable.  As soon as I could operate a simple camera, I took one along on family trips and once braved traffic to cross a busy street in New York in 1964 for the best angle of the Empire State Building. The result was well worth the risk, but when I later realized the scope and expense of available camera technology, I put my simple Kodak in a drawer, where archeologists may one day find it.

                       The complication for me today is the changing technology of music reproduction. Beginning with 45rpm singles and albums on record players, a wonderful system needlessly replaced by ponderous eight track tapes, then cassettes and the current CDs, with vinyl cast once more as a Siren singing an irresistable song, pops and crackles reevaluated.  

                      When I see the wonderful clarity of photographs posted by both of you, I thank goodness for your devotion and what it provides the rest of us around the table.

Cheers, Carl

[charleselan]

Carl, 

In many ways photography and music are following similar paths in that enthusiasts are now returning to the traditional analogue systems and the market is beginning to realise that.

Music albums are now once more being released in vinyl format and film photography is likewise gaining a larger audience. The beauty of both these formats is that they have a purity about them that digital does not have, also both are able to capture exactly what was either seen or heard. As we know all digital music systems are compressed where as the vinyl record has exactly was recorded at the time.

The same applies in photography, the only difference being that if one takes a digital photo in RAW format then that is the nearest thing to an actual negative or transparency. However when ever I see a photo taken with a digital camera it never quite has the feel of one taken with a film camera, no amount of playing around with the image can quite get what one has with a 35mm or large format film. Maybe that is just me, but it is what I see.

Some might say that digitising all these things was just a matter of convenience, and no doubt an opportunity for the commercial sector to gain a big pay day.

John

[René]

Dec 25, 2021 19:41:00 GMT Carl said:

John and René,
                        Your dedication to the awesome images you have captured is truly remarkable....

Thanks a lot Carl even if this is way too much credit for me! I do like taking photos at race meetings and I'm glad I can finally share them with fellow enthusiast. But I'm just an amateur compared to JC.

[charleselan]

Dec 26, 2021 16:16:16 GMT René said:

Dec 25, 2021 19:41:00 GMT Carl said:

John and René,
                        Your dedication to the awesome images you have captured is truly remarkable....

Thanks a lot Carl even if this is way too much credit for me! I do like taking photos at race meetings and I'm glad I can finally share them with fellow enthusiast. But I'm just an amateur compared to JC.

René,

Your photographs are excellent, I love seeing them. You have absolutely no idea how much of an advantage it is to get Press Passes and the access it allows you. Also getting professional equipment can make a huge difference, particularly with lens' and what they afford you particularly in bad lighting conditions. The difference between an f2.8 lens and one that of say f5.6 is immense in bad light.

With a Press Pass you can get closer to the action, at your own risk of course. Another factor is knowing your circuit and environment; I always liked to have a mental feel for what picture I was trying to create. Sometimes it worked out perfectly and others maybe not so much, most of the time I was fortunate with my planning.

John

[Carl]

Another professional photographer snapped this wonderful picture, which John recently posted, illustrating an access sometimes enjoyed by photographers that must have been also scary!

                                                                         

[charleselan]

The comment of Carl's above about the proximity of the photographer raises an interesting reflexion. Over the years one sees motor sport photographers in some pretty "exposed" positions particularly in the 1950's and 1960's and with drivers like Jim Clark actually playing up to the sharp shooter. Jim like pulling faces and making rude gestures to the guys he was a close acquaintance.

From the 1970's onwards things became a little more sane but one occasionally saw photographers standing in some pretty interesting positions. I have mentioned before that at the old Silverstone the press were allowed to go out onto the inside of a corner right up to a red painted line which was a little inside of the actual curb. I have to say that one felt a bit exposed in that position as there was zero protection should a car get out of control or collide with another.

However there were some other places on other circuits that on reflection made you think a bit. There was one place I liked to visit and that was just after Surtees Corner at Brands Hatch. This is a great corner and offers all sorts of opportunities for photographers both on the inside of the bend and the outside from many different vantage points. At one time a spectator could take some excellent shots from the inside of Surtees and that as the scene of some of my earliest car racing attempts, even with a simple little range finder 35mm camera and with standard 50mm lens.

As I mention earlier it was on the outside and exit from the corner where the corner rises up over a brow that one could get some spectacular action. The real challenge was the fact that you had to access this spot by working through some trees and undergrowth and down a slight bank to stand right behind the barrier with just a small grass run off area from the tracks edge. The cars were on full gas blasting out of the corner and over the brow and you could quite literally se the whites of the drivers eyes. I went to that location on many occasion once I had found the spot, but think now that i must have been crazy as it was hellishly exposed.