cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Hard as that is to remember today, you're absolutely right. My first motor drive was my right thumb and i'm not sure if it was measured in seconds per shot or shots per second! Mamiya Sekor 1000 DTL and Pentax Spotmatic (screw-on lenses).

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Hard as that is to remember today, you're absolutely right. My first motor drive was my right thumb and i'm not sure if it was measured in seconds per shot or shots per second! Mamiya Sekor 1000 DTL and Pentax Spotmatic (screw-on lenses).

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

If the ball is only in motion for .5 seconds, your only hope is pray and spray. No calculations are going to help unless you have a computer like mind and cat like reflexes.

so lets hope that it doesn't take you as long as it did to film the event below. 69 years to get this pic

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23896-pitch-drop-caught-on-camera-after-69-year-wait/

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

I used to shoot a lot of sports. Here is what I learned - both from my experience and from very experienced sports shooters:
•For random action, frame rate can help a LOT. You know something is going to happen,but the exact moment is unknown. Since the reaction time from your eye to your brain to your finger is long enough to miss it, a 10+ fps camera can help.

For auto racing, I knew that the exit to a certain apex would cause the inside from tire to lift off the track. But waiting to SEE it, I would miss it. But ripping off a burst of 5-6 frames on the exit would often catch the right moment.

• However, for rhythmic action, swimming, pitching, gymnastics, for example, anticipation and timing will beat frame rate. When I shot swimming, I quickly learned that just mashing the button and hoping 8 or 10 fps would get the image was foolish. Watching and learning the pace/rhythm of the athlete would get the shot with a much higher (never perfect) percentage.

So there are some instances in which frame rate is THE way to go. There are others in which learning the sport, the rhythm, and the timing is a far superior technique. A real sports photographer knows which one to use.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

No argument on any of that. But there is one factor I deliberately left out of my calculations. Let's go back to Churchill Down. It's true I only have a five percent chance of getting the shot of that front nose on the line. But, if there are nineteen other photographers there with me, and if you grant that the odds of each of us triggering our cameras at the same moment are astronomical, there's a much better chance that one of is going to get the shot, and if I can go for twenty years, the odds are equally in my favor.

Another question that crossed my mind concerns the baseball example. When a bat hits a ball, the ball rapidly decelerates, as does the bat, the ball is compressed and the bat and ball are in contact for a finite length of time - yet another factor in the photographers favor.

Cliff, when that tire leaves the track, how long is it in the air? If it's even 0.1 seconds, you will probably get the shot. The fact is that a single instantaneous might be elusive, but any part of the action that lasted a finite length of time may be caught, particularly if there are multiple photographers shooting the same scene.

Finally, to those critics who criticize taking the time to make these calculations, I can only say that my knowing that I can capture the shot one percent of the time give me incentive to stick around for a while. After all, a full nine inning ball game is going to have at least 52 pitches thrown, and I can always look for the rare double-header.

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful input.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

As far as capturing horses crossing the line, Photo Finish cameras have been around for about 70 years (according to Wikopedia) the newer digital ones shoot at 10,000 frames second.

Capturing cars lifting wheels is easy - All you need to know is the subject. For motor racing that is the cars (the ones that have trouble keeping all 4 wheels on the ground), drivers (the ones that are not always quick), and the track (where cars are likely to do things).

#1 A very popular corner with photographers, good even from the spectator side of the fence. Here I am expecting a 90% keeper rate.

#2 Normally at this corner cars do not lift wheels, however in heavy rain water may flow across the track. This guy is aqua- planning. There were not 19 photographers shooting here that morning. I was the only one (I love it when it rains when shooting motor racing). I will stlll be expecting a high keeper rate.

What is harder is capturing "unplanned events".
The bottom line while you can maximum the chances you do not worry if you miss it. Besides some unplanned event may make you wish you had never seen, let alone photographed them.

#1 - Turn 2

(Download)

#2 - Turn 15

(Download)

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Official Photo Finish cameras are another story. The first such cameras with verifiable results used focal plane shutters with elongated slits. And you're right; modern cameras shoot thousands of frames per second.

One fact, of which I was not aware, is that the first horse to cross the wire might not be the winner. The winner is the first horse to cover the prescribed distance. Thus a horse on the outside of the gate has to run farther to cross the wire (which is perpendicular to the center of the track). While there have been many disputes over this rule, modern computers have shown that a horse from an outside gate may have indeed completed the official distance faster even if the camera shows a horse from an inside gate crossing the wire millimeters or even centimeters ahead. However, the article I read did state that this has not been a factor that resulted in any challenges since the rule was instituted.

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

Auto and horse racing are outside my purview, but I shot an awful lot of baseball - some college, but mostly high school. I never attempted the continuum of shots from pitchers hand to catcher you describe; there would have been no market for that sequence. And as I was shooting from on the field of play, the shot of the batter and ball and pitcher shown above would have been entirely too dangerous.

But I did try to get shots of the batter swinging with the ball in the frame. With film it wasn't practical due to a film budget, and with my first DSLR's, the D100 & D70, the lag time was just too great, and the ball was almost always past. But when I got the much quicker D200, it became practical! However, timing is everything, I had to frame the hitter and push the shutter release at the first indication of motion by the batter. Unfortunately, more often than not, this was just the batter relaxing as he decided to take the pitch - got lots and lots of shots of the ball going by with the bat motionless on the hitters shoulder.

But perseverance and practice and occasional luck eventually paid off and I got lots of good shots of the batter swinging at the ball. And, yes, once I did get that magic image of the instant when the ball meets the bat, but it looked fake, as if the ball had been glued to the bat!

I'm retired now, but I think I'll get me a D500 and get out to a ball field to see if that doesn't improve my success rate.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The shot of the batter that I like is when the ball is hit, just coming off the bat with some motion blur. This takes practice, patience and the batter actually swinging and hitting the ball. LOTS of patience and lots of useless shots. To me, a picture of the batter standing there is not that useful. Best of luck with that. I get these shots upon occasion.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

IMO - you are absolutely correct and your understanding is spot on.
Great post. ;)

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

You can also improve your odds by moving from California to anyplace else in the world where there are a minimum of 162 pitches per game. :roll:
:XD: :XD:

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Is that a rule? I wasn't aware of if. I based my number of the fact that, if the first pitch to any player results in an out, there are only three pitches per side (half inning) or six pitches per inning. If you go through nine innings of that, you go into extra innings. But if the game goes into the bottom of the ninth with each player out on the first pitch, 51 pitches would have been thrown. If the first batter in the bottom of the ninth hits a home run on the first pitch (the 52nd of the game), the game is over with a score of 1-0. Please help me correct my math. Thank you.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That is 110 pitches more than necessary. It only takes one pitch to make an out. It only takes one pitch in the bottom of the 9th inning to hit a home run and end the game. 52.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Why is everybody picking on me? What's another 110 pitches among friends? Let's go the other direction. That number will vary with the level of play. In Little League baseball, if the game is called prior to the completion of six innings, it is considered an official game if four innings have been completed (three and a half, if the home team leads). But I will not attempt to do the math. 22? :lol: :lol: