Nordhavn

"even given the low angle of the sun, she must be very, very near, given that almost her entire shadow is cast on the train coach (but none appears visible on the platform -- am I myopic, or is that a PS oversight"

She's not that near - the sun is low and casting a shadow diagonal from the model across what appears to be a step down to the platform (or the camera is exactly on the plain of the platform) so hiding the first part of the leg shadow. Correspondingly the left shadow is also the same.

the photo looks perfectly real to me,, right down to the passing window on the train. and since the lady probably wasn't a model, that is an really great catch, if she was a model,, then it is still a great idea.

 

anyway I like the movement and the color especially. good job.

The shadow on the left looks like a shadow of a column to the left of the camera, as there are streaks of color that project into it on the carriage. But the shadow does give the appearance of a break between carriages. The illusion fades a bit.

 

Assuming that the model is about 5' tall (1.6m), some of the lighter streaks on the carriage look to be about twice her size.

 

I'm guessing that this is a 1 second night-time exposure, suggesting that the train is moving about 10 ft/sec (6.8mph or 11kmh); not very fast. 2 seconds would indicates slower movement. The train could be arriving or departing. The model could be within 2 meters of the train. If the station is small enough, perhaps there are only a few bright lights that cast strong shadows.

 

My photographic experience is very limited. Is there any indication of image editing? Perhaps the area above the carriage, or is this the border?

If you look at the bend the shadow of the woman takes at the bottom of her legs, you'll see the strong verticle line is indeed a shadow as it behaves exactly the same way.

The woman's shadow places here within close proximity to the tracks. In

fact, if one measures the distance between the woman and her shadow and the sign and

its shadow, she is closer to the train than the sign. knowing the placement of these signs

one could determine her proximity to the train, which I would guess within 15 feet.

 

Second, with her scarf, loose pant legs and even the short hair, if this train were moving at

a very high rate of speed, there would be signs of movement on her person. (I was blown

off a ladder by a train at about 100mph while within 8ft of the tracks--as the train passed,

I was buffeted quite a bit but it was the backwash that packed the big punch)

 

So, if we are to believe this is one shot and not post processed, we are left with the fact

that the train must have been at a slower speed, one slow enough not to ruffle her clothes

or pull her scarf at her relative distance to the train. If we were to assume that the

distance the train would need to travel to get this amount of blur would be at least 20 feet,

then we could have a train moving at 20mph and a shutter speed of approx 1/15 sec.

which seems very doable in this low (angle) light.

My only surprise is that my math hasn't been ripped apart yet! I realized something was

wrong with my math above as I drove to the studio. My table for motion is set up in inches

not feet, so the shutter speed would be a bit longer than indicated above to achieve this

amount of motion. But still doable at between 1/2 and 1 second I would think.

It is not a reflection in the train window you are seeing. It is what looks like a double door and the landing on the other side of the train that you are seeing through two sets of windows which appear translucent on film because of the train's forward motion.

I think the photographer is in the shot. How about a polarizer filter?

Excellent observation about the lines over the shadows! It seems to be a curious thing to overlook when making a PS manipulation, though. I suspect this is due instead to a reflective object mounted to the train either at an angle (so that it reflects light at a different angle from other points on the train) or on a stem of some sort that holds it a few inches away from the train (so that it catches the light at a different time from other parts of the train). If so, I think the bottom white line (where the effect is most obvious) shows us exactly how far the train moved during this exposure.

it was also my hit on certain of the sharper

elements here--that they were in fact stationary on the other side of the train--seen thru the

train windows as they passed. Second, of course the lines of the train would travel thru the

shadows. These shadows are not opaque, there is a degree of ambient light in them from

the sky and so the shadows darken and lighten with the background. If there were no show

thru detail, I am sure there would be complaints about blocked up shadows!

well IF it is a montage,, then I think the lady, the platform, and the sign are real,, the train could also be real, but taken a different time, OR it could have been taken while the train was not moving,, and ps used to blur the train afterwards.

 

as far as meaning.. I don't believe in hidden meanings of pictures. This weeks POW looks like an image out of an advertisement or movie.

 

either way, I think what makes the picture so fun to look at this time is the scarf.. yes the train is red and the pants are red, but the scarf really adds that little bit of balance that makes it all work. it would have work well too with really red lipstick I bet.

oh.. she has lipstick too!

"If there were no show thru detail, I am sure there would be complaints about blocked up shadows!" Mona Chrome.

 

"Show thru detail"...? Hmmm... That's not how I'd call this. Here's a close up: I think it can't be seen "thru" the shadow - it's almost white... and see where it stops : middle of the shadow, middle of the lit area as well...

Since it repeats in a similar pattern on the vertical shadow on the left, I wonder if it could be a

blinking light on the train or a some specular highlight caused by a secondary light source it

is reflecting--like car windshields passing--I guess it just doesn't look that fake to me and

would be an odd thing to fake--even placing a shadow over a background would not look

like this.

I was just about to say the same thing and Mona beat me to it. Perhaps there's a running light on the train there, or else there's a reflective surface that is reflecting light from a source other than the one casting the shadow (probably just the sky). What puzzles me is: Does this broken white line indicate that the train moved only six to eight inches during the exposure? That doesn't seem enough for the blur.

 

Instead of discussing the photo we seem to be having a joint amateur science lesson.

"...would be an odd thing to fake--even placing a shadow over a background would not look like this."

 

I agree iyt would be odd to fake. But an accident may explain this. Look at the following. I took the line, copied it, and pasted it back where it was probably supposed to be.... And now it fits perfectly - well, it fits on the right side at least...:-)

To be more precise, it now fits on the shadow at right AND LEFT, but no longer with the legs of the woman... My conclusion: the woman was moved and the line was forgotten - left behind, because it was on another layer.

It could be blinking light, maybe a broken blinking light.

Here's my explanation in a little more detail. Imagine a reflector mounted on a stem that holds it a few inches away from the train. With the light coming at a sharp angle from the left, the reflector enters the shadow before the area of the train behind it does, so it blinks out while the part of the train around it is still reflecting light toward the camera. Then it briefly comes into and leaves the light between the woman's legs (this is your cue, Sylvie and Knicki?!?) while the area of the train behind it is still in shadow, and finally comes back into the light ahead of the area behind it.

 

What I don't like about this theory is that it seems dangerous to have something sticking out from the train like that (even if the train bends under down there). But I do believe a reflector mounted at an angle to the train would leave a similar trace.

YES, the photograph was Photoshoped, god damn it!

 

1. I had to take out the jacket near the base of the Nordhavn sign

 

2. I had to take out the weeds at the very bottom of the photo

 

3. I had to compensate for the "slant", I was shooting in angle.

 

For those manipulations I can be held responsible and thus "guilty". But I stand by those manipulations, I think they�re justified.

Very interesting, thanks a lot. Just one question: which one was the picture used to produce this POW ?

The POW was taken with a Canon 20D, 70-200, Manfrotto tripod; remote control. For some of the other ones that I've posted I've used the 10-22EFS.

 

The pictures were shot between 5.30 and 6.30 PM Copenhagen time on the 23 of September. In order to be able to shot at 1/2s I had to use all the ND filters that Iﾒve had back then. Only problem is, once youﾒve got three ND filters on top of the lens, the focusing goes bananas and itﾒs so dark that manual focus is rarely a solution; especially for 20D. Most of the 160 pictures that Iﾒve shot were simply unusable: either the focus was bad or the character has ﾓmovedﾔ a little or the train was in the wrong position or someone just entered the picture. Believe it or not the train doesnﾒt create a significant wind; especially since (in the ﾓfrontalﾔ shots) the character was sitting far enough from the railway so that it didnﾒt matter that much.

 

The biggest enemy for such long exposure times is of course the normal wind, 10% of Denmarkﾒs electric energy comes from wind mills so the wind IS an issue here most of the time: it can make a Manfrotto 724B vibrate especially when I forget the zoom mounting ring at home! :-| The wind will also make the ﾓnewspaperﾔ flap... itﾒs a matter of luck to catch a calm moment and the train in the right position and no one else there. Fortunately at that hour the commuter trains come every 3 minutes or so.

 

Stopping down a lens to F:16 or F:20 is also a very bad idea: ALL the dusty ﾓdetailsﾔ from the optical path will painfully come up as details on the image. :-|

At first i thought that perhaps girls in Copenhagen don't use their handbags anymore. All came together after the rest of the story was told. Lots of effort went into this shoot but some frames are keepers. Regards,

Well done Ciprian. About the results, don't touch anything, don't change anything, the photo is formidable. If there were PS postproduction or not, it doesn't matter, if not then someone come here and tell me that there aren't "touched" good shots in PN. Equity? OK, in equal conditions someone should take a shot of this quality. At all, chapeau for you because this job is extraordinary.

I suspect at least part of the manipulated/unmanipulated questioning that arose was because it was easier for many of us to imagine creating this image in PS than actually going through all the work you did!

 

You wrote: "Stopping down a lens to F:16 or F:20 is also a very bad idea: ALL the dusty ?details? from the optical path will painfully come up as details on the image. :-|" Many of the photos you posted DO show what looks to me like dust on the sensor (note the upper right corners in particular). If you haven't already done so, cleaning your sensor might clear up some of this trouble.