Blurred or sense of speed

nilagin

nilagin

Daniel-san
Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,804
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
www.tpfgallery.com/gallery2/members/nilagin/Goodwood+FOS+053.jpg.html
I took this photo at the Goodwood Festival of Speed last year. Although it's nice to see a blurred background with a sharp image of the car, sometimes it helps if the car image isn't sharp what do you think.

How do I get this photo to appear in the thread without the link. I did try but nothing happened apart from the little red x
 
right click the image and select "copy image address"

should give u "http://www.tpfgallery.com/gallery2/d/13287-2/Goodwood+FOS+053.jpg" wich u can wrap in img tags.
 
works for me, shame about the damned tree!
 
I dunno, I kinda like the trees, makes it look a bit more 'bandit' if ya know what I mean, like it was shot covertly?

I like the blur and it does work but it's hard to tell if it would work better with some of the subject being sharp or not.
 
nilagin said:
Can you explain what happened here.
Click to expand...

In what respect dude?

I was tempted to provide a sarcy reply but that wouldn't help anybody lol ;)

Do you mean 'why has the shot turned out like this?' or 'why isn't this in focus?' etc.

If it's either of those questions it's either down to shutter speed or the camera focusing on the trees rather than the car. HTH?
 
Gandhi said:
In what respect dude?
Click to expand...
What I meant was why does the photo look as though the car has been cut up in the photo and badly stistched together again. Where the tree is obstructing the car the lines of the car do not continue properly.
 
all i can guess is that the movement of the camera in the panning has somewhat thinned the appearence of the tree, leading to a step in the image where the tree is,


can i shrug as well!?
 
whitewash said:
all i can guess is that the movement of the camera in the panning has somewhat thinned the appearence of the tree, leading to a step in the image where the tree is,


can i shrug as well!?
Click to expand...
I think this may call for a group shrug :whistle2: :D
 
Joe T said:
IMO you can have blurred bits of car, but you need one part of the car (preferably an importnat 'focal' point) that is ultrasharp.
Click to expand...

Yup.
You need to have a part of the photo that is sharp.
 
Can you explain what happened here
Click to expand...

I suspect it's parralax error caused by you not panning round the nodal point of the lens.

Normally you wouldn't see it like this but it's to do with the relationship of angles between you, the trees and the car changing during the exposure.
 
orangepeel said:
Is that maybe not caused by refraction of the light round the tree?

/me shrugs
Click to expand...

That'd have to be one solid tree to bend light!
:D
 
CT said:
Oooh fascinating! Any more info - camera, shutter speed,flash? :ponders:
Click to expand...
The camera is a Nikon coolpix 5200 I had it on sport setting, and as far as I knew did nothing different to the Lancia Stratus photo at the start of the thread.
I do seem to have a knack for strange anomilies with my photography.
 
There are lots of strange examples of deformities in shots -usually due to moving subjects moving across the field of view and coinciding with the moving slit between the shutter blinds at faster shutter speed with a focal plane shutter. In other words they stay within the slit throughout it's travel and become elongated. Modern focal plane shutters tend to travel upwards now rather than across, so you'd have to be photographing a rocket launch or something similar to get the same effect.:)

The Nikon Coolpix 5200 doesn't have a focal plane shutter so we can rule that out anyway.

I'm at a loss to be honest. Daz has probably offered the best explanation, but I can't understand why the sections of image are out of alignment vertically. Also the word Pirelli on the front wing is partly duplicated in the left segment and the centre segment.

I can't say I've seen one of these deformity shots before without an obvious, or at least a reasonable explanation.
 
It's a bit sad but I love stuff like this. There nothing like something really unexpected in a shot to get us all doing some good head scratching.

Having had another good look I'm more convinced that it is parralax error.

I think the vertical shift is just because the pan wasn't absolutley lateral. I'm not saying it was bad pan as with out the trees in the mid distance it would have been totally normal.

The way I see it is like this. Imagine that your right eye represents the start of the exposure and your left eye is the finish, with the distance between the two being the travel of the camera through the pan. Oh and also tilt your head over a few degrees to match the slight rise too.

Obviously if you look through each eye independantly you'll see the relationship between objects and placings change. Because of the placing of the trees between the camera and subject it's almost like seperate eyes taking the picture. Or to be a little more accurate, 3 different exposures from 3 slightly different locations all on the one frame.
 
dazzajl said:
Obviously if you look through each eye independantly you'll see the relationship between objects and placings change. Because of the placing of the trees between the camera and subject it's almost like seperate eyes taking the picture. Or to be a little more accurate, 3 different exposures from 3 slightly different locations all on the one frame.
Click to expand...
Sounds a good explanation to me, here is the previous shot in the sequence,
http://www.tpfgallery.com/gallery2/members/nilagin/Goodwood+FOS+058.jpg.html
out of focus and blurred, but it does seem to make your explanation right.
Cheers:thumb:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Wow, a glitch in the Matrix caught on camera, its got to be worth a fortune surely? :suspect1:

:D
Click to expand...
What more than the 57p club?:whistle2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top