|
|
How did the photog get this effect?
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Offline
|
|
Photoshop. Radial Blur filter.
That's a pic of a big piece of CERN's LHC, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
he could have just rotated the camera around the lens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Offline
|
|
No. That would have blurred the entire image, since, by rotating the camera body, you would be rotating the entire imaging plane. If you notice, the focal area of the picture is not blurred. This is how the Radial Blur (or some similar software) tool does its thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ide3308
he could have just rotated the camera around the lens
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
No. That would have blurred the entire image, since, by rotating the camera body, you would be rotating the entire imaging plane.
No, I think that is exactly how the photo was taken, by rotating the camera.
The rotation effect is greater the farther from the center of the image, so the outer edges would motion blur more than nearer the center of the rotation axis. The photoshop filter will do a similar effect, but that looks more like in camera to me (although it's hard to really see it a such a small resolution).
|
__________________________________________________
My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thanks for the reply Thorzdad. Unfortunately this sort of answer is really starting to p1ss me off. Seems that more and more is done with PS than with the camera.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mattyb
Seems that more and more is done with PS than with the camera.
I'll repeat what I said above. I'm pretty sure that image WAS done in camera, not with photoshop. Here is a similar image I made a few months ago of a machine uncoiling ribbons of steel for a pipe manufacturing process. I simply held the camera at the axis of the hub and tried to spin the camera in sync with the spin of the machine.
|
__________________________________________________
My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Offline
|
|
And, on the other hand, here's a pic of the LHC that I grabbed and ran a quick Radial Blur on. 10 seconds of work, Looks pretty close to the one in the OP. Depending on the original source, and the software, the effect could be refined even more.
Remember, too, that, in your example of the spinning hub, you are trying to sync the movement of your camera with a spinning object (the hub.) There's really no other way to get that particular shot other than in-camera. The thing in the LHC photo, on the other hand, is stationary. It doesn't spin. It's just sitting there.
All I'm saying is, I'm not seeing anything in the OP's image that makes it obviously an in-camera effect. Yes, it can be done, just as it can be done in software. I can't see any imperative to do an in-camera spin effect for that particular shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status:
Offline
|
|
maybe we should have a photo challenge along the lines of "mimic this effect/style/etc". hmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, it certainly would get some traffic going in here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Haha, that sounds like fun!
|
__________________________________________________
My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
All I'm saying is, I'm not seeing anything in the OP's image that makes it obviously an in-camera effect. Yes, it can be done, just as it can be done in software. I can't see any imperative to do an in-camera spin effect for that particular shot.]
I agree with that, and you did a nice illustration of achieving the effect in photoshop. My point is, I don't know exactly how it was done, but I though it could have been done in camera. Your also right about my example above, the spinning hub is different from what's happening in the OP.
I was sort of hoping (assuming) the image was a journalism image and hadn't been photoshopped, but I have no basis for thinking that.
Here is a quick spin in camera (sloppy) that will show how the outer edges will have more distance blur than areas closer to the center. Just wanted to show mattyb that it is possible.
(
Last edited by design219; Aug 24, 2009 at 07:05 PM.
)
|
__________________________________________________
My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: France
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Thorzdad
All I'm saying is, I'm not seeing anything in the OP's image that makes it obviously an in-camera effect.
I do. Mattyb's picture was certainly done just by rotating the camera. Overexposed areas are very different in a real motion blur and a photoshoped motion blur (on a fake motion blur, overexposed areas are faded by the blur, on a real one, they are still strongly overexposed).
Here, the hilights show that:
A - The picture was made by rotating the camera. Simple. Fast.
or
B - The picture was made by adding a radial blur in photoshop AND painting on the hilights to make it look like a real motion blur.
Let's pick a choice at random and push it with overconfidence...
|
-noliv
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|