How was this achieved...

rhubarb

rhubarb

Messages
177
Name
Giles
Edit My Images
Yes
Just hunting around the web this afternoon (you can tell it's almost christmas seems like no ones doing any work) and I found this image on the Subaru Rally Site which really appeals to me:

869588615.jpg


There's no EXIF with it, how was it shot? Almost looks photoshopped but I presume it isn't
 
Not a fast shutter speed at all.
If anything, a slow shutter speed.
What happens, the flash is fired, and the flash captures the still image, but the shutter is still open, so the picture continues to expose.
 
I would have expected more blurring of the wheels, in particular the BF Goodrich sign if the shutter speed was slow. There doesn't appear to be any, unlike the front of the car - MOTUL sticker on front bumper, but not DENSO sticker on front wing.
 
it looks as it the car is coming from the right to the left, hugging the LH kerb. I'd imagine they'd be going fairly quickly, so I would think that wheel blur would be inevitable unless a fast shutter was used. I've never shot rally, but on circuit racing, 1/200 is more than sufficient to render most tyre marking illegible.
 
I would suggest that it is a parked car with some help from Photoshop due to the total lack of blurring on the wheels/tyre OR a fast shutter. The blurring is easily created with photoshop
 
taken with an old instamatic. camera cover accidentally opened before rewinding the film. taken to boots to be developed on a friday when the staff wanted to get off early and go down the pub.
sorted
 
Initially I thought front flash sync looking at the front of the car, then I look at the blurring at the back of the car and think rear sync flash. Therefore I think it is a photoshop manipulation.
 
I reckon someone has used a slow shutter and a flash, only problem being that someone else is doing the same and it has been flash exposed twice at two different points(two flashes). Given the amount of people standing at the corner it seems pretty plausable.
 
considering none of the "speed blur" actually follows the lines of the car very well, its almost definitely a photoshop image :) or they were moving the camera a LOT when they fired the shutter off !

Oh and great subject too ;) (says me who owned 3 Imprezas including a Group N one :))
 
Does look like there is some editing.. The blurring looks overlayed on the rocks

I had a similar accident the other day, turned and shot this photo, f3.2, 1/50 and the flash on the second curtain.

IMG_1867.jpg
 
WanderingMind said:
Does look like there is some editing.. The blurring looks overlayed on the rocks

I had a similar accident the other day, turned and shot this photo, f3.2, 1/50 and the flash on the second curtain.

IMG_1867.jpg
Click to expand...

That's typical of the blurring in front of the subject with flash sync on the 1st curtain Ian. 2nd curtain sync would have put the blurring behind the main subject.
 
The effect can be got from a slow shutter, using mulitflash, in poor light, i got results like that from the Night Brit Car event this year using that method..
 
Its just a flash with 1st curtain sync imo. The wheels are frozen because the flash duration was short enough to freeze it. You have to think of it as the picture having 2 seperate shutter speeds. There is the slow normal exposure that captured a lot of the blur then the flash duration that froze the car. The light levels look like they wernt overly low so the flash was more or less balanced with the ambient light.

If it was photoshopped why would they of done the crap blurring at the front of the car, you just would of put the front of the car in sharp focus.
 
i hate it when people automatically say 'oh thats photoshopped' because they dont know any better.
But that photo is photoshopped. Some of the effect is from the flash (it def had a flash used - look at the reflective jackets in the background), but look at the motion blur... its all blurred at different angles. some of it even has a curve to it when other bits are straight. You could argue that the car is moving different in relation to the camera than the earth is. But look at the motion blur on the earth. the blur on the rocks is at a completely different angle to the blur on the road.
my money is on photoshop.
 
Looks like the lens has been zoomed after the flash has gone, similar to this (but this was with no flash)


6ydmrdu.jpg
 
badgerbaiter said:
i hate it when people automatically say 'oh thats photoshopped' because they dont know any better.
But that photo is photoshopped. Some of the effect is from the flash (it def had a flash used - look at the reflective jackets in the background), but look at the motion blur... its all blurred at different angles. some of it even has a curve to it when other bits are straight. You could argue that the car is moving different in relation to the camera than the earth is. But look at the motion blur on the earth. the blur on the rocks is at a completely different angle to the blur on the road.
my money is on photoshop.
Click to expand...

I think the thing with this shot is they havnt panned with the car they have just moved the camera in a straight line so the rocks and things are blurred from that movement but as the car was also moving its blurred slightly differently.
 
badgerbaiter said:
i hate it when people automatically say 'oh thats photoshopped' because they dont know any better.
But that photo is photoshopped.
Click to expand...

No offence but you say you hate it when people say that something is photoshopped because they don't know any better but it IS photoshopped!! How does that work? Maybe you should give the people that use this forum more credit for being able to tell if something is photoshopped! Some of us have spent a great deal of time and money on using photoshop!

There are several ways to do things in photoshop and it is clear that seeing someones final piece does not always give you an immediate insight into how it was done but there are numerous small give aways like a car that is blurred but with crisp unblurred wheels, background and foreground that is blurred at the same rate as a vehicle, things blurred at different angles etc.

It is VERY interesting to see how people approach different compositions and we can all benefit from these. I am enjoying montages using photos and cartoons at the moment but I have messed about with some blurring so this is interesting for me.
 
cowasaki said:
No offence but you say you hate it when people say that something is photoshopped because they don't know any better but it IS photoshopped!! How does that work? Maybe you should give the people that use this forum more credit for being able to tell if something is photoshopped!
Click to expand...

it wasnt a comment about people on the forum, it was just a general comment. It certainly wasnt meant as a personal attack to people that use this forum!!

But i did think it was photoshopped, but as some sharp eyed person pointed out, the sensor dust is still in tact, so I'm quite sure I was wrong now.
 
I think it looks like a low speed shutter / pan with flash which has been shot under a banner / hoarding.

Reminds me (ish) of this one I did using my son as model, no PS just hand triggered flash held above my head

run1.jpg
 
I don't think that's a zoom burst, it looks just like simple panning and rear curtain flash to me. With a wide-ish lens to warp it a bit.
 
Okay, heres your answer.
A little panning,
Slow sync flash,
Slowish shutterspeed, the rest was done in PS, added motion blur but not on the wheels. The reason the dust spots are not blurred is because the blurred layer is erased away just before the dust, revealing the non blurry spots from the layer below.
This car was parked in a drive so total PS here.
evostu-1.jpg

Dean:)
 
If that comment was aimed at my pic then THANKS.
Dean:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top