Help! What's going on here?

Z6I

Can someone tell me why the dark trail is following this rider? I have several shots in this situation that have the same issue.
This is SOOC.
ISO 160
S-priority
1/250th
f/11
SB700 fired on camera

Thanks for your help!

BradfordBenn

Can you include a picture or a link to the picture?

Z6I

BradfordBenn wrote: »

Can you include a picture or a link to the picture?

Can you not see the photo? I can on my end.

donek

almost looks like a hair or fuzz on the sensor.

Z6I

Thanks, I've blown it off and will see. I've shot against a white board and don't see anything.
Funny, I didn't see it on photos before or after the few shots that it really showed on. Same lens etc.

Thanks for the help!

rwells

Based on what I see, and your EXIF info, the trail is ambient blur, strange looking I'll admit, but ambient blur just the same.

Looking at the ambient light on the rider, and then seeing that your only trying/able to fill (especially at f/11 with an SB700), your flash is not even at the ambient level, much less 2~3 stops above it. So, your not able to "freeze" the motion with your flash. Now you have to take into account that you are trying to freeze your subjects movement completely with a 1/250 sec exposure on the ambient.

It's just not happening without blur.

Hope that helps...

Icebear

I dunno Randy. That wouldn't be my guess.
When you shot your white board, did you shoot it at f/11? Course now that youv'e blown it off, we may never know. In any event, if you can't replicate it, get on down the road.

rwells

Icebear wrote: »

I dunno Randy. That wouldn't be my guess.
When you shot your white board, did you shoot it at f/11? Course now that youv'e blown it off, we may never know. In any event, if you can't replicate it, get on down the road.

Care to elaborate John?

You can't freeze action with flash, if your flash is below ambient level. (with regard to this scenario)

You can't freeze this type action at this distance with 1/250 sec ambient exposure, unless your very successful at panning.


I'm all

Icebear

rwells wrote: »

Care to elaborate John?

I'm all

First and easiest, if there HAD been a hair or eyelash on the sensor, it might not have shown up on a "white-board" shot if the aperture was wider open. The shot we're looking at was shot at f/11. Large debris tends to not be so persistent on the sensor anyway. Gravity always wins eventually.

What I think you're really after Randy is why I wouldn't have guessed the streak to be a result of blur. I've looked and looked at the image, and can't find the element that would have made a blurred bit like that. I know what you're talking about, have seen it in plenty of photos, but can't see it here. That's all. Shouldn't there have been more blurred stuff? And the streak is sooo long.

Z6I

Here's some additional fuel on the fire-
I'm thinking, but still not sure, that it was hair or debris due to the fact that in this photo it does not appear to come off of the athlete.


I shot yesterday and there was not any evidence of this happening though they were static situations, not action.
Thanks for the input.

DeVerm

I think the wind blew a hair of Robert (if his hair is long enough) in front of the lens... or a hair that is/was clinging on the camera strap etc.

I have long hair and have had many of these with the wind behind me (looks exactly like this photo). Now and then I also find a loose hair that is being held in a clip of the camera strap

but the second photo is so similar... must have been between lens and sensor I think.

ciao!
Nick.

Z6I

DeVerm wrote: »

I think the wind blew a hair of Robert (if his hair is long enough) in front of the lens... or a hair that is/was clinging on the camera strap etc.

I have long hair and have had many of these with the wind behind me (looks exactly like this photo). Now and then I also find a loose hair that is being held in a clip of the camera strap

but the second photo is so similar... must have been between lens and sensor I think.

ciao!
Nick.

Pretty funny-there is not a hair on my head!

Icebear

I'm guessing you had not changed the lens between those two shots. It's possible that the last time you changed lenses a hair got in there. If it's long enough, it could be caught in the lens mount. When you remove the lens, poof, it's gone.

DeVerm

Z6I wrote: »

Pretty funny-there is not a hair on my head!

:lol

Nick

DeVerm

Icebear wrote: »

I'm guessing you had not changed the lens between those two shots. It's possible that the last time you changed lenses a hair got in there. If it's long enough, it could be caught in the lens mount. When you remove the lens, poof, it's gone.

Exactly... the images are a match with those that got my hair in the way and I think it'll look the same when a hair is between the lens mount.

Why don't we try it?

ciao!
Nick.

zoomer

Definitely something on the lens....not blur.

Z6I

OK, I found it. There was a hair (looked like my dog's) that was stuck to something just above the sensor. It must have been able to move at times because I hadn't seen it in shots for a while. It appeared again yesterday and I was able to grab it with tweezers without damaging anything.

Icebear

Hooray.