Color Run 5k
JonaBeth Russell
Registered Users Posts: 1,065 Major grins
Hello Dgrinners! This is my first post in the sports forum, so I hope it meets the standard, as a lot of you are shooting spectacular stuff.
Here are a few favs from the Ypsilanti Color Run. This race was a blast!! People were so happy, and this color-throwing business is hilarious, especially with roughly 14,000 participants. The environment can be frightening, when considering the gear, but nothing a little gaff tape and a rain bag won't cure.
During the course of 3hrs, my wife and I clicked nearly 7,000 shutters between us. I made a small gallery that can be seen here: http://jonabethrussell.smugmug.com/WorkLIFE/The-Color-Run-5K/ (more to come later)
Thanks for viewing, hope you enjoy! Comments and constructives are ALWAYS welcomed and appreciated.
#1 - Zumba warmup
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Here are a few favs from the Ypsilanti Color Run. This race was a blast!! People were so happy, and this color-throwing business is hilarious, especially with roughly 14,000 participants. The environment can be frightening, when considering the gear, but nothing a little gaff tape and a rain bag won't cure.
During the course of 3hrs, my wife and I clicked nearly 7,000 shutters between us. I made a small gallery that can be seen here: http://jonabethrussell.smugmug.com/WorkLIFE/The-Color-Run-5K/ (more to come later)
Thanks for viewing, hope you enjoy! Comments and constructives are ALWAYS welcomed and appreciated.
#1 - Zumba warmup
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
0
Comments
I also hope your lungs are good.
This is an event I would not photograph. The risk reward ratio is not positive for me. That said you got some nice images.
Sam
I can say that, after two of these races, the gear is still fine. It's true, the particulates are super fine, but it can be a safe environment for the gear. I use a 7D w/ EF-S 18-135 f/3.5. The 7D has decent enough weather sealing on it's own, and the lens also has a nice rubber gasket at the mount. On top of that, I apply a strip of tape around the lens/camera connection. The camera then goes into a rain sleeve, which is taped around the lens hood. Once everything is taped and sealed up, the camera is not removed from the sleeve until the end of the event, after the sleeve has been blown off enough to open it up. So far, with this method, all has been well. However, for the next race, I'll be placing the sleeved camera inside a heavy rain jacket, just to double up on the protection.
My wife shoots these on a T3 with a Tamron 18-200, neither of which has ANY weather sealing or gaskets. The same protection measures are applied to the little T3 setup, and so far no problems there. I will admit that the Tamron is currently out for service, but not because of these races. It's been giving iris trouble since February, and finally gave up the ghost during the last race. It's been coming down the pike and I doubt the race dust had anything to do with it.
I suppose, after considering the risk to gear, it just doesn't really weigh too much on our minds, as all of our equipment is fully insured. In fact, so much that if I drop my camera off the side of the kayak (because we do a lot of outdoor shooting), as long as I can recover the unit, it's covered under the policy.
The lung thing is what scares me the most. Handkerchiefs and dust masks just don't really do enough, but they help. I cannot understand how the runners get a breath when they come through the cloud. Once the first 50-100 runners have passed a station, we have to back up a hundred feet or so to get out of the cloud, using it as a backdrop. On top of that, toward the end of the event, as the last few thousand runners come through, it's mayhem...people throwing the powder at one another, rolling it the piles of it on the ground, chasing each other all over the place, stopping in the middle of the crowd for a group shot, even though I'm not even looking at them.
I would agree...the risk reward is much lower than say, a wedding, but that's only the monetary end for us. We try to factor in the other benefits of shooting these events, which include unique portfolio content, increased marketability across varying genres, and the overall experience and skill building associated with shooting fast-paced environments.
Would we shoot another? Sure, if it's within our travel itinerary (we are full-time travelers). Will we continue to avidly seek out these events because we want to be the Color Run Mastershooter Uber Team? Nah. lol
What is the color stuff?
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
Thank you! The color stuff is food grade corn starch.
This article alone is enough to guarantee I'll never get within a 5k of a color run with my gear...
http://www.arkreations.com
Nikon D700 | D300 | D80 | SB-800(x2) | SB-600(x2)
Nikkor Lenses: 14-24 f/2.8 | 24-70 f/2.8 | 50 f/1.8 | 85 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8 VR II | 70-300 VR
Personaly I think that article and all the fear mongering over damage to equipment even when no where near the dust is a total and utter load of crap that doesn't stand up to real world experience.
I shot horses in windy, dust paddocks covering 25 events a year for 3 years and I never had any problems like that with my gear with dust. Being in OZ, it's dry and dusty 90% of the time and well worn areas like horse areanas in summer donb't get much dustier. The evidence was thick in my trailer and required a complete stripping and cleaning more times than not.
To propose that this constarch is some super fine, highly unusual, Photo equipment seeking killer thats finer than what blows around paddocks ( or motorcross & BMX tracks I also covered) is a load of twaddle.
For the lenses in the articles to get that infiltrated with dust, whoever had them was right in the thick of it. Of course they are going to tell a rental company " oh no, I was miles away" to avoid extra charges in cleaning or damage. Anyone really think they are going to say " yeah, I was covered in the crap"? and have to pay up for cleaning and any damage? Not likley!
The lens at the bottom of the article is an 8-16. How far do you really think the shooter was from the action with a mega wide lens like that? They sure as hell weren't likley to be doing panoramics from 100 meters away thats for sure! If you got that close to a horses arse in a dirt arena or the back wheel of a motocrosser on a dry track, I'm bloody sure the lens would look the same. If you are shooting from a distance with a 200, then it's going to take a lot more than one event to get a lens that crud filled.
To anyone with real world experience and half a brain, this is as obvious as the fearmongering over this colour run dust sensationalism.
Fine dust is fine dust. It dosen't blow around if it's like gravel. You never hear of shooters that cover other dusty events crapping on about how their gear got ruined in one job and there are plenty of people doing loads of those events for for years. To propose this flour is finer than any other dust out there or has some magic affinity for camera gear is just more internet fear mongering.
For the people so worried about breathing that stuff, don't ever go near a race track, particularly top fuel dragsters that literally hose you in methanol and nitro so that your eyes water uncontrolably and you can taste the sweet nitro in your mouth. And of course then there is the rubber smoke from the massive burnouts as well. Never heard shooters that cover those event's going on like pussys about what they are breathing even though I'd imagine it's far from healthy.
I'll gaurantee that regular dirt created dust is a lot more abrasive than this corn flour/ starch and would show up in mechanisims a lot sooner than this colour stuff as well as be visable on lens elements. Sure you see it after a while but it's a WHILE, even when you are getting clouds wafting by you every 3 minutes or so, your gear dosen't look anything like what they made out in those pics.
Has anyone here actually done one of these events and without getting covered in the crap themselves had their gear full of the stuff from afar? First hand experience here, not more internet parroted dramatics.
I'm not defending these runs either. They seem stupid to me and I don't even know if they do them here. What I am against is more interenet parroted crap that just dosen't stack up to reality.
Seems to me like another fairy tale some clown that never shot anything but studio portraits decided was a bad thing and others perpetuated their unfounded fear mongering because thats simply what some people with no real experience like to do to seem knowledgeable and important.
As someone that has spent a lot of time breating in loads of dust ( and only had to blow their nose to prove what they had been in all day) I say this special dust crap is just that, a load of rubbish.
For a lens to get that full of crap in a day, the shooter was was up close and showing signs of it rather than the " You can be 5 miles away and still have your gear ruined " fearmongering some want to portray.
When people who have actually shot these things from outside the firing area come along in multiples showing how their gear was infested with the stuff, I'll reconsider but untill such time, my own real world shooting esperience tells me this is just another load of internet gossip perpetuated by the gullible and those that like to get off on creating false myths.
I am going to take exception to your last post on the color run discussion.
While your perfectly within your rights to have and voice your opinion it would be nice if you could be more civil about it.
While we all can't be bad ass down under Aussie's wrestling crocs with our bare hands, I don't see us as "pussys", and would ask if you could tone this down a little.
Now as to dust is dust. Corn starch is not a magical powder, but it is fine, very fine. Corn starch can be between 0.1 and 0.3 microns. Face powder is between 0.1 to 50 um. coal dust is between 1 and 100 um. viruses .005 to 0.3 um.
This can and will work its way into most kinds of equipment and gear. Think about it, this dust is smaller than a large virus. What can't it get into.
I have shot horses and understand the dust, but this is much larger particles and not a voluminous as a color run. As for dust off a desert playa that too is fine and if there is enough wind you can end up with damaged gear.
Now as for health:
Inhalable Dust
Airborne particles which can enter the nose and mouth during normal breathing. Particles of 100 microns diameter or less.
Thoracic Dust
Particles that will pass through the nose and throat, reaching the lungs. Particles of 10 microns diameter and less. Referred to as PM10 in the USA.
Respirable Dust
Particles that will penetrate into the gas exchange region of the lungs. A hazardous particulate size less than 5 microns. Particle sizes of 2.5 micron (PM2.5) are often used in USA.
While the example of the 8-16 lens can represent the worst case it does show what happens when this dust comes into contact with a lens.
If your shooting for fun one can easily take the precautions of the OP and stay upwind and back a ways, but you may not have that choice if you commit to shooting the event for money. In most cases the photo company that has the contract will hire multiple shooters and assign each shooter to a specific location. Depending on the geography and circumstances you could easily end up in a bad position (dust wise). You could be doing great all race only to have a bunch of people unexpectedly throw up dust right in front / over you.
I don't believe I am engaging in "fear mongering" I am, along with some others, trying to point out what the risks are. While you may not have any problems, if you do it can easily be catastrophic.
As I stated before the risk reward is not there for me.
Sam
Wow, There's a surprise!
Where was I " Uncivil"?
Is it just me you have a hard on for Sam or is it all Aussies? Every response you direct at me has some underhanded sarcasm and and racial slight.
Pretty funny actually
Nice Copy and paste although I notice you added your own embellishments to the facts cited.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html
You conveniently neglected to mention how fine dust from soil and other natural particles can be for comparison.
You also omitted that the size of the particles you are quoting is so fine that it is unlikley to ever settle and that such fine particles would be inhaled by a person 24/7. Maybe not in the density found in the cloud of one of these colour runs but certainly the exposure would be never ending.
I don't believe that health authorities would allow these events to take place if they thought there was any risk from inhaling this material nor would the events still be taking place in the Sue S of A if there were the chance of litigation over health and exposure issues.
I'll take the risk assessment of health Authorities as more reliable and trustworthy than your own thanks all the same.
Well I would expect a lens to look much the same no matter what sort of dust you covered it with. That was my specific point. If you were close enough to get dust on you that a horse or bike kicked up, your lens would look the same! Therefore the big deal about the colour run dust is just sensationalist.
So you are saying if you are shooting for fun you can take precautions to protect your gear but if you are shooting for money you can't?
Curious.
So by extrapolation you are saying that a person could not simply put their camera and lens in a cheap underwater bag if they are shooting for money?
And therein lies the problem. Just because the work does not suit one persons personal preferences does not mean that is reason to over exaggerate the risks or spread falsehoods about it.
I have still not seen any compelling evidence as to why these events offer any more risk than any other similar situation nor any first hand evidence to support the touted fears.
As such, I'll stick to my positions and opinions as stated.
http://petapixel.com/2012/07/09/us-soldier-shows-off-the-hardcore-dust-and-weather-sealing-of-his-2-pentax-slrs/
I think the OP took sensible precautions.
If I were taking photos at a wind swept beach, I would have a UV filter on the lens.
Whilst traveling in outback (yes I'm an Aussie too) the wind/dust storm was so bad we had to stop. Came across another car later that day who had been in the storm for longer and more severe ... one side was "shiny" - the other side had been dulled with wind blasting. Mind you, I wouldn't be taking photo for long in that!
Now Glort, if you are wrestling crocs ... you take the head and I'll take the tail!!!
www.acecootephotography.com
All of the points brought up have validity, which is usually what causes defensive behavior in an opposing party. It's true...these dust particles are INCREDIBLY finite. I used to work dusty horse stables / arenas as a youngster, and the corn starch IS a smaller particle -when compared to east Tennessee dirt. I know nothing of Australian dirt, but I will soon enough (I feel a visit coming in the not so distant future).
In reference to the article showcasing the ruined lens, I must insist that the user took ZERO precautions to protect the lens (i.e. no rain sleeve). As Glort pointed out, it's a wide angle lens and there's no way they were far from the dust cloud. Using an 18-135 on a 7D, after the first 50-100 runners came through, I had to back up a good 30 meters to escape the cloud. As more came through, my position changed.
Conversely, as Sam pointed out, there are times when backing up isn't enough. People grab handfuls of the powder and tote it with them to have color wars as they walk/trot/grab-ass through the streets. Guess where they decide is the most opportune location / moment to bomb their friends? Yep...right at the camera. They have no understanding that the shooter isn't even looking at them through the lens, but in their minds, they're 3ft away and you should be getting the shot. lol
Additionally, the inhalant part of this whole thing is the most cause for concern, for myself. I cringed as I saw babies in strollers, covered in this stuff. It's not a great idea, as you wouldn't bring an infant in a stroller to stand behind the burnout box at the local dragstrip, either. But then again, who says all parents share the same sentiment?
In the end, I believe it was fabulous coverage, my wife and I were delighted to be paid for the coverage, and the practice was more than any classroom exercise could ever provide.
To anyone considering paid action/adventure photo gigs: Do yourselves the favor of fully insuring your gear for professional use. It's pennies on the dollar, and you'll stop worrying so much about risk. These cameras and lenses are tools. No different from a hammer, saw, welder, etc. Sure, they're expensive and don't take too kindly to abuse, hence the insurance + protective measures.
Now there is a real world A+ testament to Pentax's weather sealing. If I were to look at equipping my self for prolonged stay in a dusty or wet environment I would definitely put Pentax on the top of my list.
Sam
After reading your posts I do believe you have a good understanding of the risks and are taking reasonable precautions. I also think that if the worst should happen you won't be online crying about it.
While it might not be the same decision as myself, you are making an informed decision and that is the ultimate point of this topic, to provide differing opinions so others will not make an uninformed decision they might really regret.
Sam
I think we covered both sides of the issue and any one reading this thread will have all the info they need to make their own evaluation, and your are certainly entitled to stick to your opinion.
Sam