Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-10-2010, 08:33 AM   #1
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
So, how was this shot really done?


(Jonathon Newton - The Washington Post)

According to the article in the WaPo, the photographer stated...

QuoteQuote:
I set the shutter speed at 1/30th of a second, with the aperture setting at f11. The ISO rating was 200. The slow shutter speed created the blur and I rotated the lens slightly -- about 10 degrees -- to create a sense of motion. I focused the camera on Strasburg and when he pitched his head remained still enough to keep that part of the photograph in focus.

Not knocking the photo, but I don't buy the explanation of the technique.

If the lens was actually "rotated" as I believe was stated in the article, with the camera centered on Strasburg's face, then the in-focus crowd on the left would be rotation-blurred just like the crowd on the right. If he had done a lens rotation with the camera centered on the leftside crowd, Strasburg would be blurred just as much or more than the rightside crowd, because he was closer to the camera and thus would have exhibited even more angular movement.

If the lens had been "zoomed" everything would have exhibited some blur, even the people in the left side background who are as sharp as tacks. This would be true even if they were the original center of the image and what we are seeing is a cropped version. And in this event, Strasburg would be even more blurred than the rightside crowd since he is closer to the camera.

I'm also having trouble with what appear to be two distinct zones of focus... Strasburg AND the background crowd. Even with perfect hyperfocal technique this would be hard to pull off with a 200-400mm zoom, even at f11 the DOF just isn't there.

I'd love to have someone explain how this could really be done in-camera and account for all of the apparent discrepencies. Because otherwise...

Mike

06-10-2010, 08:41 AM   #2
mel
Veteran Member
mel's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,531
The crowd to me looks like classic Lensbaby, but Strausburg doesn't seem to fit with either the description really. It almost looks like two photos.
06-10-2010, 09:30 AM   #3
Veteran Member
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,361
Looks more like a zoom vs. rotate for sure. I'm guessing photoshop.

But in reality, I'm not that impressed with it. The focus area of the crowd doesn't do it for me.
06-10-2010, 09:41 AM   #4
Veteran Member
arpaagent's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 803
Maybe the photog meant "rotated the zoom ring" instead of rotated the camera. Then he probably cropped out the left portion of the photo so the center of zoom was no longer in the middle. And maybe if the pitcher was moving to the right he could stay in decent focus? I'm not sure.

Anyways, I don't buy his story.

06-10-2010, 09:42 AM   #5
mel
Veteran Member
mel's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,531
But wouldn't zoom affect the whole shot more? When zooming you zoom over the entire image. So even if the focused crowd didn't experience the smearing effect, they'd still be some what blurry from getting closer or further. Additionally, zooming is going to place the not-so-zoomed area in the middle. The fact that the focused spot in the crowd is off to the side causes me to think Lensbaby.

But I don't understand what he means by "rotated". He turned the camera? He tilted the camera? Or he zoomed the lens?
06-10-2010, 09:44 AM   #6
mel
Veteran Member
mel's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,531
QuoteOriginally posted by arpaagent Quote
Maybe the photog meant "rotated the zoom ring" instead of rotated the camera. Then he probably cropped out the left portion of the photo so the center of zoom was no longer in the middle. And maybe if the pitcher was moving to the right he could stay in decent focus? I'm not sure.

Anyways, I don't buy his story.

Cropping. Duh. I think the photographer should have mentioned that if he did crop.
06-10-2010, 09:49 AM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 883
It makes sense to me. I think what someone said about the in focus people being the original center is true. So that would explain why they are in focus. I think by rotated the lens, the photographer mean rotated the zoom ring, i.e. zoomed in. If you zoom from wide to long, then things blur from the center, towards the edges, as the exposure goes on. So, since Strasburg is facing the the frame edge, and while moving through his pitching step, would be moving towards the right frame edge. So if the lens was being zoomed atthe same speed that Strasburg was moving through his pitch, then he would stay sharp, as would the people in the original center, and everything else would have zoom blur.

06-10-2010, 10:55 AM   #8
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by FullertonImages Quote
It makes sense to me. I think what someone said about the in focus people being the original center is true. So that would explain why they are in focus. I think by rotated the lens, the photographer mean rotated the zoom ring, i.e. zoomed in. If you zoom from wide to long, then things blur from the center, towards the edges, as the exposure goes on. So, since Strasburg is facing the the frame edge, and while moving through his pitching step, would be moving towards the right frame edge. So if the lens was being zoomed atthe same speed that Strasburg was moving through his pitch, then he would stay sharp, as would the people in the original center, and everything else would have zoom blur.
It still doesn't make sense, at least to me... Strasburg appears to be at approx a 70 degree angle to the lens axis so he would have exhibited zoom blur just like the people in the immediate background. Also, consider that to keep his face sharp, the photographer would have to be panning slightly. This would/should compound the blur from the purported zooming by adding panning blur which would throw the leftmost crowd out of whack. It just doesn't add up...

The only way for his face to remain sharp under your theory would be a face-on shot where the lens is miraculously zoomed out by precisely the amount that he approached the camera.

Last edited by MRRiley; 06-10-2010 at 11:18 AM.
06-10-2010, 11:01 AM   #9
Veteran Member
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Newrfoundland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,667
I'm tempted to make reference to the shooter, but I'm going to blame the article when I say that I don't think it covers all of the steps taken in making this image.

Last edited by JohnBee; 06-10-2010 at 08:05 PM.
06-10-2010, 11:02 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 2,867
Any way you slice it, I now have a headache. I think photoshop too, as there are conflicting techniques within the photo - zooming while exposing the image, slow speed motion blur in selected parts of the photo and relatively sharp/unblurred sections in two areas of the picture.

Edit: is this the only version available? The site has a link to buy the photo, but no larger image linked. Kind of makes it somewhat obvious that more was done to this photo than they would like the average sports rube to see (and typical photog nuts to look at!).
06-10-2010, 04:49 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 883
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
It still doesn't make sense, at least to me... Strasburg appears to be at approx a 70 degree angle to the lens axis so he would have exhibited zoom blur just like the people in the immediate background. Also, consider that to keep his face sharp, the photographer would have to be panning slightly. This would/should compound the blur from the purported zooming by adding panning blur which would throw the leftmost crowd out of whack. It just doesn't add up...

The only way for his face to remain sharp under your theory would be a face-on shot where the lens is miraculously zoomed out by precisely the amount that he approached the camera.
Hmmm... Good point. That would pretty miraculous, but I guess is theoretically possible. More likely, PS is in play...
06-11-2010, 07:41 AM   #12
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
I agree with Mike about the nature of the blur. Strasburg should be blurred also. Even if you ignore Strasburg and look at the crowd on its own, the blur still isn't right for rotational blur. The crowd on the right shows linear, horizontal blur, at the top the blur is vertical. If the in-focus part were the center, and the lens rotated the crowd on the right side would show vertical/curved blur, and at the top, horizontal.

There is something else that seems wrong to me. I am not a baseball fan, so maybe things actually happen this way, but:
Both of the pitcher's fee are clearly off the ground. Do pitchers actually get airborne in the wind-up?

Last edited by Parallax; 06-11-2010 at 07:47 AM.
06-11-2010, 07:54 AM   #13
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,574
I think the photographer is BSing us. It looks to me like we have two kinds of blur going on here. The crowd blur has all the tell-tale signs of a zoom blur, while the pitcher looks like he was panned. Even if, as the photographer says, the pitcher's head was still (as was the in-focus part of the crowd behind him), where are the ghost images of the pitcher's face that would have been part of a zoom blur?
06-11-2010, 10:40 AM   #14
mel
Veteran Member
mel's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,531
So even if it is a single shot with no PS, I dare him to do it again. With the same or similar results.
06-11-2010, 03:04 PM   #15
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Forest Park, Georgia/Jacksonville, Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 633
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
There is something else that seems wrong to me. I am not a baseball fan, so maybe things actually happen this way, but:
Both of the pitcher's fee are clearly off the ground. Do pitchers actually get airborne in the wind-up?
Actually his toe is probably still in contact with the pitching rubber and it's just the low level of the shot that makes it hard to see. But no, pitchers don't go truly airborne during the delivery as it would reduce velocity.

Note also that the blur in the background all around the first base umpire does not seem to match the umpire himself. At least it doesn't to my tired old eyes.

CW
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
article, background, camera, crowd, f11, lens, photography, shutter, strasburg, technique
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mug shot of a Pug...a Pug Shot Eastern Shore Charlie Post Your Photos! 2 04-26-2009 09:20 PM
ir shot rjburgos Post Your Photos! 0 09-18-2008 07:57 PM
Two new ones and one re-shot Kim Post Your Photos! 12 12-29-2007 04:40 AM
Shot this am nighthunter Post Your Photos! 11 08-01-2007 07:43 AM
Here's a shot--at posting a shot! Rupert Post Your Photos! 2 09-17-2006 04:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top