[blwnhr]

I've been buying a lot of European and American motoring magazines lately and am noticing a lot of shots like the one below.

It has me baffled on how this result is achieved. Would you say it is PhotoShopped or genuine?

I am alright at panning, but I can't understand how you can run a shutter-speed that slow (image attached looks like about 1/60) and get the whole car sharp.

To get that result the only way I can work out how to do it is to have the camera fixed to the car somehow (someone on here posted how to do this with a tripod on the door of a WRX). But, how would you attach to this car? Is the photo genuine and the mount PS'd out?

I am hanging out to get some shots like this, but can't for the life of me work it out.

The shot in question:



I would say this one is tethered to the car.



This one is shot from another car which is easy enough.


The shots came from here.


Finally, does anyone know where in Australia I could get the suction-cup things they use for fixing the camera to the car?

[Buddha Jones]

If I had to take my guess, I would say they were stills taken from a low angle video camera.

[Lowell Goudge]

you could do something like the first one with a PZ1 and trailing curtain sync.

start zooming the camera in, when you trip the shutter, and set the flash at the end to expose the car

[almo]

I've been buying a lot of European and American motoring magazines lately and am noticing a lot of shots like the one below.

It has me baffled on how this result is achieved. Would you say it is PhotoShopped or genuine?

I am alright at panning, but I can't understand how you can run a shutter-speed that slow (image attached looks like about 1/60) and get the whole car sharp.

To get that result the only way I can work out how to do it is to have the camera fixed to the car somehow (someone on here posted how to do this with a tripod on the door of a WRX). But, how would you attach to this car? Is the photo genuine and the mount PS'd out?

I am hanging out to get some shots like this, but can't for the life of me work it out.

The shot in question:



I would say this one is tethered to the car.



This one is shot from another car which is easy enough.


The shots came from here.


Finally, does anyone know where in Australia I could get the suction-cup things they use for fixing the camera to the car?

They are actually low speed shots taken by a photographer situated on a very low slung platform hanging off of a truck.

I have seen a few of these photo shoots, they are very interesting to watch.

P.S. By low speed I was referring to the cars, not the shutters....

[m8o]

you could do something like the first one with a PZ1 and trailing curtain sync.

start zooming the camera in, when you trip the shutter, and set the flash at the end to expose the car

Wouldn't that actually result in a ghost trail of the rear of the car and the wheels/tires? Especially on the tires of the far side of the car...
I thought the BG in #1 was an exercise in advance Photo Shop actually, with the car shot by someone on a vehicle. You'd be surprised by how slowly you can go and get the wheels to simulate 'fast' motion. 10mph I learned, which brings me to...


#2 reminds me of something an infrequent member here named 'karma mechanic' posted a while back (I'm lucky I posted in the thread else I'd have never found it):


so could actually be a setup such as this but further back and lower (well, the wheelie will make the camera lower ):

(how kewl and ambitions is that setup?!!)

Here's the thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/12986-car-action-shot-10-mph.html

#3 I'd say the photographer is on a trolley or hanging off a truck too as mentioned.

[blwnhr]

you could do something like the first one with a PZ1 and trailing curtain sync.

start zooming the camera in, when you trip the shutter, and set the flash at the end to expose the car

PZ1? I've got a similar result to that before but it has me beat on how to get the car so sharp with the wheels o blurred.

They are actually low speed shots taken by a photographer situated on a very low slung platform hanging off of a truck.

I have seen a few of these photo shoots, they are very interesting to watch.

P.S. By low speed I was referring to the cars, not the shutters....

Interesting. I'd not thought of that.

not the shutters... Are you sure? To get a wheel as blurred as in the first shot it must be under 1/100, surely. And then there's the problem of getting the whole car sharp.



Found this too. Might get this at the same time as my Sigma 10-20mm, which will be about Easter.

Was talking to my friendly local camera store man this morning and he said they used one of these and actually cracked a window they stuck it too whilst testing the strength of it. Must be darn strong suction cup!

(Also got to play with his Nikon D300 and Nikkor 50mm 1.8...mmmmmmmmm).

[almo]

PZ1? I've got a similar result to that before but it has me beat on how to get the car so sharp with the wheels o blurred.




Interesting. I'd not thought of that.

not the shutters... Are you sure? To get a wheel as blurred as in the first shot it must be under 1/100, surely. And then there's the problem of getting the whole car sharp.

i don't know what the exposure times were. I was just speaking to the speed of the cars/truck. Could have been fast of slow for all I know. I imagine all the images have been shopped to some degree or another.

[Gaelen]

I have also wondered how they did those

I took this shot, the car was doing about 10km/h



I can't seem to figure out the turning shots though...I guess if I was mounted on a car, really low or something

[stewart_photo]

I've been buying a lot of European and American motoring magazines lately and am noticing a lot of shots like the one below.

It has me baffled on how this result is achieved. Would you say it is PhotoShopped or genuine? (snip)

Some of those replying here must obviously be trying to pull your leg (play a joke on you). Of course, there is no possible way to capture those exact images with a camera alone. Instead, you're looking at a whole lot of editing done with photo editing software. In each image, the background was separated from the car, with each background edited to enhance the blur of motion and reduce or remove color. Indeed, each image may even be a composite made from more than one image, with perhaps the car pasted into a background taken elsewhere. The appearance of the cars also appear to have been heavily modified as well (adjustments to shadows, glare, exposure, contrast, headlights in the last image, etc). Actually, one or two of the cars (perhaps all) may have been photographed sitting perfectly still, with editing done later to add blur to the wheels to give the impression of movement.

stewart

[amateur6]

Of course, there is no possible way to capture those exact images with a camera alone.

I have seen a lot of 'shops in my day, and these are 'shops.

Actually, IMHO (as someone who does advertising photoshop work), I believe that the third image (Mustang and Porsche) has the least post-processing done to the cars. The shadows are accurate, the wheelspin minimal, and it's easy to blur & gritify (like that one? Just made it up) a totally desaturated background.

Second image is a lot of work, one way or another (hard to pop a wheelie at 10mph)! The reflection of the stands is accurate to the position of the car (but note -- not blurred, so the car probably wasn't moving or the shutter speed was nice and fast), the back wheel has realistic spin (there are reflections in there that are either genius airbrushing or accurate), so probably isn't from the same shot (could have been on a stand of some kind, though) and the front wheel isn't moving and is quite distended (hanging low from the well) indicating, again, a support under the front axle (or an actual wheelie, but that likelihood is, as Stewart says, very low). I'd say they just drove the camera down the track for the background shot, low shutter (or fast car).

First image is the definite sheet-metal porn shot of them all, though. That background's gotta be taken from another shot (I just don't think there's any pp blur out there that will give such a complex zoom/turn result) -- but the road surface below the car DOES look artificially blurred (no detail). Body of the car obviously from a different one (or more than one), and the wheels... sheesh, I dunno about the wheels. You can see the brake calipers through the spoke blur on the front one, which says "real" (another shot) but the back one... something just doesn't look right about that.

In any event -- want shots like these? Hire a crew to help you, AND get ready for a lot of post work.

I do admire the way they left some grunge on the rear window of #2 for added authenticity.

[JCSullivan]

All 3 are definate post processed and yes, I agree all three are composites.

M8o, thanks for the link to the other thread - I had missed that one.

[Supa Lao]

Some of those are rig shots. An example of that is shown below. The rigs are just photoshopped out.




For some more examples, you can go here:
Automotive Rigs

[m8o]

I don't agree with any saying them being total 'shops becuase of the sharpness of the car or other reasons and were done sitting still.

oh, and I see between the time I started the post and accumuted all my links until now, Supa Lao posted a great example. Well, here's my post anyway since I spent the time...

Here's a thread of a guy who had a photographer use his car for some experimentation, to hone his skills with rolling shots :
AmgPower.com - View topic - Another shot by MDWPhotography...
edit: this link above is actually the wrong one. I copied and pasted from the wrong window. Here's what I meant: AmgPower.com • View topic - C55 Rollin' Shot
Then I just found this one he posted later, which is wow: AmgPower.com • View topic - Pics from recent shoots (C55 and 996TT) [56k get lost!]

The only reason you don't see the brakes on his car is because the rim is of a more closed design then on the Camaro above. (I'm c55m8o on that forum)
Here's his gallery with a bunch of rolling hots in it: Ling's Picture Gallery :: Ling's C55

Then there's Mitch Weiss ... Look for his shot of a corvette. Click Portfolio -> More -> Automotive -> pic 2/13
If that corvette didn't have chrome rims but rather black, you could believe the rims would become near invisible; yes, some photo chopping could be applied to smear the remnants of teh spokes. But that whole image of the Camaro above is not artificial. (yes, BG is).

He took an amazing impromptu rolling shot of my car.
Photo: All Smiles... | AMG Fest 2006 - 2nd Annual AMG/MB Meet @ MBUSA Headquarters - Aug. 2006 album | m8o | Fotki.com
The guy who organized the event just ran up next to me, the photographer opened the passenger side window (it was raining), and cranked off a couple of shots. Too bad he didn't open the door of the ML he was in to get down low... Could'a bee close to that camaro if he did.

All this just saying when the differential between a photographer in another vehicle and the rolling subject is only a few mph or ft./hr. difference if even that, it's quite possible to get razor sharp shots of the whole vehicle, and get the wheel effect.

[gawan]

I've been buying a lot of European and American motoring magazines lately and am noticing a lot of shots like the one below.

It has me baffled on how this result is achieved. Would you say it is PhotoShopped or genuine?

I am alright at panning, but I can't understand how you can run a shutter-speed that slow (image attached looks like about 1/60) and get the whole car sharp.

To get that result the only way I can work out how to do it is to have the camera fixed to the car somehow (someone on here posted how to do this with a tripod on the door of a WRX). But, how would you attach to this car? Is the photo genuine and the mount PS'd out?

I am hanging out to get some shots like this, but can't for the life of me work it out.

I would not be surprised if these were very realistic computer images with real photo backgrounds, what do you think?

But interesting is how a real photograph could achieve at least something similar as discussed...

[stewart_photo]

I have seen a lot of 'shops in my day, and these are 'shops.

Cute play on words. If you don't mind, I'll have to remember that for future use.

Actually, IMHO (as someone who does advertising photoshop work), I believe that the third image (Mustang and Porsche) has the least post-processing done to the cars.

Since we don't know what the person editing the images actually started with, it's fairly hard to know exactly what was done to each image. We can clearly see editing was involved, and point to the obvious, but never know everything without the person actually saying. Of course, that's one goal of Photoshop editing.

Second image is a lot of work, one way or another (snip) indicating, again, a support under the front axle (snip)

I don't think one would need to physically support the car in that angle ("support under the front axle"). Instead, using Photoshop, all one would need to do is tilt the sitting car some, drop the front wheel a bit, and apply blur to add motion to the rear wheel, to complete the impression of a wheelie. Of course, pasting the entire thing into the appropriate (expected) background certainly adds to that impression. While I'm not good enough to edit images that convincingly, I have seen similar things done in books about Photoshop. Also, based on some of the other editing done, it doesn't appear to be beyond the capabilities of the person doing the editing work on those images.

Regardless, the images offered by "m8o," "Gaelen," and "Supa Lao," are about the best one can hope for without a lot of very creative Photoshop editing. And I happen to think those images are more interesting and more believeable (better from my perspective) than the images from the magazine.

stewart