altering the Duck

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by PeterN, May 31, 2013.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, May 31, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterN

    Tim Conway Guest

    Tim Conway, May 31, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    thanks, I just felt like playing to demonstrate that people can be
    standing side by side, and yet take different images. My interpretations
    of the Duck's image create three different interpretations of one
    original concept.
    I have to add that I started with a nice capture. Had the Duck's image
    not been good, I doubt I would have gotten results that i liked.
     
    PeterN, May 31, 2013
    #3
  4. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    I can see projects where #2 & #3 might be appropriate. #3 has a look
    which reminds me of a style used by some painters of sports art.
    The crop for #1 is too severe for me and butchers the peloton.

    ....and you are correct, as is usual in many of these cases, I prefer my
    original.
     
    Savageduck, May 31, 2013
    #4
  5. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Fair enough.
    If you wanted to play with the NEF, all you had to do was ask.
    ....but I suspect ISO 400, 1/2500, f/6.3 might not be the extreme you favor.
     
    Savageduck, May 31, 2013
    #5
  6. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Sort of Leroy Neiman meets Monet. ;-)
    thanks for letting me play.
     
    PeterN, May 31, 2013
    #6
  7. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    You probably have steadier hands than I.
     
    PeterN, May 31, 2013
    #7
  8. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Exactly what I was thinking.
     
    Savageduck, May 31, 2013
    #8
  9. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, May 31, 2013
    #9
  10. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Jun 1, 2013
    #10
  11. PeterN

    Sandman Guest

    The problem with adding directional blur to an image is that you need to
    make sure that the blur follows the actual motion in the image. It seems
    you added one in the center left part of the image, which make the rear
    cyclist go sideways. Plus, you have a series of cyclist going one
    direction and the line behind them going another, so you need two motion
    blurs and some masking.

    Plus, you used a radial blur, which changes the amount of blur on the
    length axis - i.e. has less blur in the center and more to the edges,
    this same effect can be done in camera and is called zoom blur - i.e.
    when you zoom your lens while the shutter is open.

    Photoshop has a motion blur function that is linear, but the motion in
    the image is in a perspective, so a radial blur is more fitting, only
    you need to put the center way back. Here's a more fitting position for
    that result:

    <http://sandman.net/files/motion_blur.png>

    Even so, the motion/radial blur on Photoshop doesn't handle motion in
    relation to stationary object. I.e. the effect is on the entire image,
    so the grass behind them is blurred as well, which is wrong since the
    photographer was stationary.

    Also, motion blur in PS is in both directions, or in the case of zoom
    blur, the wrong direction for this image. I.e. we should have motion
    blur only on the back of the cyclist, not in front of them, because the
    camera can't sample image data that hasn't occured yet (unless you use a
    flash and freeze one frame in the motion).

    So, in short, it's damn tricky to add motion blur in post :)

    Disclaimer: This was just a series of thoughts, not commentary on your
    photoshop skills, your end result or anything like that.
     
    Sandman, Jun 1, 2013
    #11
  12. PeterN

    PeterN Guest


    He was panning. Placement of blurs in post is a matter of taste. Red is
    a dominant color, and in a dominant position in the image. Therefore I
    put a gradual blur on the area behind the red. Also, in the impression
    varient, I desaturated the red. But those decisions are purely a matter
    of taste and artistic preference.
    YMMV
    No disclaimer needed. And nobody but me has to like my end result.The
    only request I have, is that if/when you do not like one of my images,
    (and many don't,) a reason shy would be appreciated.
     
    PeterN, Jun 1, 2013
    #12
  13. PeterN

    Sandman Guest

    No disclaimer needed. And nobody but me has to like my end result.The
    only request I have, is that if/when you do not like one of my images,
    (and many don't,) a reason shy would be appreciated.[/QUOTE]

    The disclaimer meant to say that I didn't comment on the image at all.
    The image made me think about how hard it is to add directional blur in
    post, and decided to write a bit about it. That's all :)
     
    Sandman, Jun 1, 2013
    #13
  14. PeterN

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Don't worry, Peter, no one - in this group - is shy about commenting
    how it can be done better.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 1, 2013
    #14
  15. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Durn sepl chekker.
     
    PeterN, Jun 1, 2013
    #15
  16. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I've never tried to create motion blur in post so I can't talk about
    that. However there is another complication.

    Motion blur is not created by speed across the ground i.e. km/hr but
    by angular velocity across the camera i.e. degrees/sec or similar. In
    many cases this is a distinction without a difference but in the case
    of the Duck's photograph it is important.

    that photograph you have a long string of cyclists, probably all
    traveling at much the same speed. The ones nearest the camera will
    have the highest angular velocity and therefore should have the
    greatest amount of motion blur. The ones in the distance are traveling
    at a lower angular velocity and should have less motion blur.

    If you want to be difficult, the cyclist in the front, nearest to the
    camera should have more blur than the cyclists alongside him but
    further away. For that matter his front wheel should have a greater
    motion blur than his back wheel.

    This is a photograph for which it is almost impossible to create a
    totally convincing motion blur in post.
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 2, 2013
    #16
  17. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    In the case of that particular shot, those further back have very
    little angular velocity compared to those about to cross the face of my
    lens.
    It was never my intent to add motion blur, I just wanted to capture the
    cyclist coming up the hill as best as I could. I certainly wouldn't
    have used a 1/2500 shutter speed, I would have been closer to
    1/60-1/90. My background would have been blur free as would the
    cyclists further back in the pack, and the lead riders would have been
    blurred.

    So just to see how close I could get to a reasonable motion blur in
    post I got to this. Not great or what I would have wanted, but closer
    to what might have resulted if shot deliberately to achieve the blur
    in-camera.

    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DNC_9046E1bw.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Jun 2, 2013
    #17
  18. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    The "realistic" blur does no justice to that image. Every time I look at
    it, I am bothered by that truck.
     
    PeterN, Jun 2, 2013
    #18
  19. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Jun 2, 2013
    #19
  20. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Jun 2, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.