john_boyd9 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>Hello All<br> I'm wondering if anyone have any thoughts on how this picture was taken?<br> http://media.digitalcameraworld.com/files/2012/12/Creative_photo_ideas_for_January_2013_DCM133.tenthings.getty_98325890.jpg<br> Heres the page, i'm pretty sure thats not vaseline on the filter. The pictures I have seen with vaseline on a filter don't look impressive at all.<br> http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/01/01/9-creative-photo-ideas-to-try-in-january/7/</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjoder Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>My guess is that the image in question is actually a combination of two. First, the photographer shot the scene with the camera still (maybe on a tripod). Then, the photographer shot the scene moving the camera up and down to blur the forest. Then it is a simple matter of combining the two images in an imaging editing program like Photoshop. It can be as easy as laying the sharp image on top of the blurred image and erasing away the sharply-focused forest to reveal the blurred forest underneath, leaving the sharply focused road, of course. Others might have other ideas. But, no, I don't think Vaseline was involved in this case.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>Looks like vertical panning. Gordon Bowbrick and Steve Gubin have some examples of this style, although I'm not sure whether it's in their photo.net portfolios.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>It could be done entirely in post from one still image. Perhaps an overlying layer was made with the road masked out, and the trees were given a vertical "motion blur."</p> <p>And... er... Are you the John Boyd that I know personally? If so, it's great to see you here!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyanatic Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 <p>My initial guess is exactly what Daniel Joder said -- the trees have the telltale look of a vertical pan, but the road is too in focus to have been part of the same shot. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 <p>I'd say it's definitely a composite of two shots.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parv Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 The second link in OP lists the steps for the image shown there (same as first link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 The second link shows a woodland abstract but does not say how that particular photo was taken just general information. "One way to do this [a woodland abstract] is to spread Vaseline on an old skylight filter to soften parts of a scene. However, a technique that allows you to keep your fingers covered with warm gloves is to set a slow shutter speed and pan the camera to create dramatic streaks." The ghosting on the trees at the far end of the road would seem to indicate up and down movement of the camera. The sharpness of the tire tracks would indicate that the photo is a composite. If not a composite then that leaves Vaseline or Photoshop. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 <p>Notice how the bottom of the trees are lighter, which is likely due to superposition of a relatively sharp road image on another in which the vertical pan technique was used to denaturalize the trees (perception as poles rather than trees). Perhaps a bit greater care in doing this apparent composite would make the transition a bit smoother. From a personal viewpoint (very subjective) I would render the trees different than real, but a bit more subtle and not so mechanical appearing. Perhaps a less rapid panning?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_boyd9 Posted February 1, 2014 Author Share Posted February 1, 2014 <p>thanks, i will try this on my 503cw and hope to get the same result. I really want to experiment with panning on my shots. Let me just make sure i understand this. So basically i have to take two photos. One with the panning and one without moving the camera and then combine the two on photoshop. Is that correct? And lets say i shoot at sunset, what would be the ideal shutter speed to be able to do some panning?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 <p>Post or comp IMO. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyanatic Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 <blockquote> <p>John Boyd: "<em>One with the panning and one without moving the camera and then combine the two on photoshop. Is that correct? And lets say i shoot at sunset, what would be the ideal shutter speed to be able to do some panning?"</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I don't consider myself an expert on this by any means, but my experience has been that 1.5 to 2 secs works best. Set the aperture to the exposure you desire based on the available light. I have combined vertical panning shots with other photos in PS Elements, but only ones where the merged photo was "stretched" in post to match the effect of the vertical pan shot. I've never made a composite where a sharp image was merged with a vertical pan image. (I did write a blog post on the vertical pan technique on my website that describes how I utilize it. I'm not plugging or trying to be egotistical here...I mention it only because it may, or may not, be of some help.) I don't know if he frequents these pages much, but based on what I've seen, Gordon B has a much more accomplished grasp of this technique than I do. I'd be interested to hear how he does it or what he recommends.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenkins Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 <p>I don't think this is a composite or a camera panning technique. Most likely he has used motion blur in Photoshop and then removed the effect via a mask where he doesn't want it applied, in this case the path.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 <p>^^^ certainly the easiest approach</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonjb Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 <p>Looking at the way in which the white of the snow at the base of the trees is dragged up and into the base of the trunks suggests to me that the blurred image was vertically panned in camera. If I am correct in that assumption then it follows that the image I am looking at has to be a composite. Possible one panned version and one still version of the same scene or a combination in post of two otherwise unrelated scenes.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 <p>Almost certainly not the motion blur filter. I would guess they rotated 180 and applied Stylize > Wind (Stagger or Blast, applied more than once if necessary) through a feathered selection (or, much better, but too long to explain, a masked duplicate/filtered layer). And then un-rotated 180, of course. : )</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenkins Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 <p><strong>Almost certainly not the motion blur filter.</strong><br /> <br /> So basically you are suggesting the same technique as mine Julie but more complicated than it needs to be?</p> <p>If somebody has a picture of some trees and a path, I'll show you it's motion blur that can achieve this?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 <p>Dueling filters! Let's do it! Today, at noon in the park? Or is "at dawn with seconds" classier?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 <p>Simon, Julie, there's still another possibility besides applying some form of motion blur in PS or panning the camera. This could be a composite of two frames taken in California -- one with, and one without application of earthquake. :-></p> <p>On the dueling thing: I always thought it would be fun to have a shootout. The two contestants synchronize their clocks, mount up 50mm lenses, set their shutter mode to single shot, and holster their cameras. They turn back to back, take 10 paces, turn, draw, and shoot. The first one (from the EXIF data) with a successful, acceptably exposed and focused shot with the opponent's forehead exactly in the center of the frame is the victor. Each may take no more than 6 shots.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenkins Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 <p><strong>Dueling filters!</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> Ok it's on, but remember you will be in 8 bit with your wind filter ;-)<strong><br /></strong></p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 <p>[<em>"you will be in 8 bit with your wind" -- he's read some of my posts in that *other* forum ...</em> ]</p> <p>*cough*<br> ... erm ... on further investigation I find that Wind ... sucks. But ... but ... [<em>trying to redeem myself</em>] the motion blur seems too ... blurry. Maybe they sharpened after blurring (!!) or just hit the contrast. Anyway, here is a (crummy snapshot taken just this rainy morning) "road with trees" as starter file and same after Motion Blur and then (heh, heh ... ) Motion Blur <em>and </em>Wind.<br> <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/filterwar_unfiltered.jpg">Starter File</a><br> <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/filterwar_motblur_masked.jpg">With Motion Blur</a><br> <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/filterwar_windandmotion.jpg">With Motion Blur AND Wind</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenkins Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 <p>I think a lot of it comes down to the image, Julia. Nice straight trees will produce straight lines, there are a lot of cross branches in your picture which will result in having to push the process further than you might want to, just to achieve the straight line effect.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 <p>Julie, I think your blur lines are too long. A bit less, and I think it might look pretty similar to the photo in the OP. But I think Simon has it: It depends on the type of tree, and of course we may never know what type of tree was in the original photo.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick_hortan Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 <p>I would more the road to a separate layer to place on top, rather than having the blurring ontop.<br />Doesn't flow as nicely as the OP.<br> With the wind picture id say its rather too thin, distorts the trees too much</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillian_todd1 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 <p>yes , iam agree with Bob Atkins</p> 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