meatwagon Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Ok i know that a moving object and slow shutter speed did, but what i want to know is why only half is blurred, both alien bees were about the same distance and at full power, Is it because the sun in on his right side??? thanks for your hleo Jamie!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streetlevel Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Two things... because the amount of ambient light and the flash are pretty balanced, the amount of fully frozen motion will be limited by the shutter speed. If in doing the jump one foot was moving faster than the other (certainly possible to control the board in flight, which typically spins some) then the one that moved more, would blur more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_liao Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 The reason why it's only half blurred is because he drag the shutter from left to right. The flash was probably set on rear synce. It popped at the end of his pan to the right. I hope that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 <i>Is it because the sun in on his right side???</i><P> Yes, I think that's the explanation for what you're seeing. The areas showing the most blur are the ones with the strongest ambient illumination. In the other parts of the photo, that blurred motion is strongly underexposed relative to what is lit by the flash.<P> Front or rear curtain sync makes no difference in the amount of blur--it only affects whether the blur (captured by ambient light) falls in front of or behind the sharp image (captured by flash). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwagon Posted May 8, 2005 Author Share Posted May 8, 2005 the photo was shot at 1/50th at f/20 iso 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 Reshoot at f/20, 1/200 and the blur should go away - it'll also look like an evening shot lit only with flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_blazek Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 Hi, I will try to explain it to you. The exposure looks like the ambient was little under expose so the only problem should be "flash duration" of the flash. You dont need to shoot these kind of pictures at f20. Try to set the power of flash more down for fast duration. You can make it much better with another one or two flashes for cover the skater from different sides. But remember, the major think in these freezing shots is fast flash duration (1/1000 and faster). Take a look at those pictures which I did with two flashes ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipd Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 I would disagree that the ambient lighting exposure was underexposed much at all. Look at the exposure of the light stand itself. Also, look at the blur on the light stand. To me, it looks like the shot could have been taken without the flash and just a much shorter shutter speed. With the sun blasting onto the subject, there is enough light to stop the action with a higher shutter speed alone. Maybe a higher ISO setting (or film selection) would be necessary to round out the motion stopping vs depth of field control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_kimble Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 1/50,f20, ISO100 almost exactly "sunny 16? ISO 100, so shift 1/50 to 1/100(up a stop), then bump the f20 (f22 the closest full value) down a stop to f15.3. Don't know why he's using f20 unless its to get more DOF. I'd swithc to 400 film, 2 stops more shutter speed,now at 1/200. Then drop the f stop to f8, thats 2 more stops(almost), so we end up at 1/800. A little flash to fill in the shadows and no blurr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwagon Posted May 9, 2005 Author Share Posted May 9, 2005 I shot at f/20 because i wanted to use my flashes at full power, Secondly, going to 400 iso wont work cause my shutter sync is only 1/250 sec.. I think its because of the shade.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streetlevel Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Looks like there was not a need for full power - and they have a shorter flash duration at partial powers anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_blazek Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 I dont know what type of AB you are using. But it looks really strong if you using f20. Check the net for "flash duration" of your flashes at full power. It will be too long I think. Try to set power down to get fast light (1/2000 and faster) and you will see the difference. david Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipd Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Jamie, I'm positive that the blur is caused by ambient light, not the flash. In other words, the light from the flash unit illuminated the subject at one point in time, and there was also enough ambient light for it to be recorded over time and be seen as the blur. You need a much shorter shutter speed to eliminate the ambient light blur in this particular situation. If the primary goal is to stop the in-the-air action, I would suggest that you try for less ambient exposure and more exposure of the flash. This would definitely call for the fastest shutter sync that you can use (the 1/250th sec) and enough flash power to overcome the ambient light by at least two or three stops. Using the 1/250th shutter speed alone, keeping all the other settings the same, would give you a little over two stops reduction of the ambient light effect. In addition, the faster shutter speed would shorten the path of the blurred subject components and make the blur less prominent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwagon Posted May 9, 2005 Author Share Posted May 9, 2005 thanks you all for your comments, but like every question i see on photo.net, the person asking for a quick and simple answer usually never get one, instead they get essays on too much detail about other things, now if you read the question, nowhere in it does is say or sujest on how to improve my photo or how to get rid of the blur or if i should of shot at a different setting, The question was " what i want to know is why only half is blurred," soooooooo if anyone can tell me this that was be wundabar! Ps, im not hatting on your help, just sometimes pople over analise the question and it doesnt really help the person who is asking it., thanks again, Jamie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skipd Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 I think that, in reality, folks have been giving you the information you need to figure out the details of the photo. I will summarize my observations.... The blur you see is where the relative motion was the greatest, and was caused by the shutter speed being slower than the movement (that was lit by the sun). There is a lot of blurred motion everywhere in the photo. Look at the edges of the trees, the light stand, etc. The front surface of the jumper appears to be sharper than other parts of the photo because that surface was moving essentially directly towards the camera, rather than up/down or sideways, and that produced less relative movement in the photo. The flash only acted as a fill in your photo and wasn't strong enough to over-ride the ambient light. As a result, motion wasn't stopped at all by the flash. Is this helpful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwagon Posted May 9, 2005 Author Share Posted May 9, 2005 it kinda makes sense but i guess i should of told you that he is spinning, and in the photo he in mid rotation, his left hand was problably moving just as much as his right hand. so im still a bit confused, but i do see all your points, i think you may have something there about being closest to the middle of the lense.. maybe though. heres another shot from that day..<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Aha! That explains it! If he was spinning counter-clockwise (regular footed, frontside 180 I'm guessing), then his left foot likely remained relatively stationary in the air while the rest of his body and right foot continued to move forward and rotate towards the landing. I'd bet that the lack of motion of the left foot vs his right foot coupled with the fact that his left foot is more in the shade (less ambient light = less blur) is why there's a difference in blur between the two feet. To get rid of all the blur, shoot with a faster shutter speed/smaller aperture to cut out the ambient light and rely on the flash pulse to freeze the motion. To get rid of the background blur, but keep the subject blur, shoot from a tripod. Here's a shot I took yesterday visiting my parents house, exposure was 1/3 at f/4 with fill flash to freeze the motion. The camera was held still on a bench to keep the background sharp. Hope this helps! Sheldon<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_griffin2 Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 It was the spiritual aura of a ghost skater. Sorry, after all the in depth discussion I thought I'd bring a little levity to the party. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwagon Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 almost , goofy f/s 180 2nd shot was a b/s 180 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvp Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 <i>...like every question i see on photo.net, the person asking for a quick and simple answer usually never get one...</I><P> And here I thought the answers were well thought out and succinctly stated. But I digress. Back to the problem at hand.<P> <B>Original question: <i>what caused this blur?</i><P> Quick and simple answer: you messed up.</B><P> Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwagon Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 my point exactly, nerds like you over anilise every frickin detail and lose focus on basics of the question. I didnt screw up, who the heck said what i was goin for, i actually like it and so does the company i sold it to for $2000. I was just curious asked a simple question and a lot of people gave me their answer ( thank yous) and then a lot of people tried to tell me how to get rid of the blur, anyway, you dont have to take offence for being a photo geek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvp Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 No offence taken. Actually, I liked the blur to the point I couldn't figure out why you asked the question in the first place. It's a good photo. Don't be so hard on nerds. The richest guys on the planet are nerds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarten_van_viegen Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 now i'm curious which company paid $2000 for this photo! not a skatboardcompany i'm guessing. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meatwagon Posted July 19, 2005 Author Share Posted July 19, 2005 no one did, i lied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now