Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

theolein · Sep 28, 2004, 10:23 AM

I found this over at one of the defcon image galleries. An amazing image of someone painting with light during a long time exposure, with lightning in the background.

Another image from the same guy, without lightning:

turtle777 · Sep 28, 2004, 10:25 AM

Wow, looks pretty cool...

Sure it's not PS'ed ?

-t

cszar2001 · Sep 28, 2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by turtle777:
Wow, looks pretty cool...

Sure it's not PS'ed ?

-t

Yeah - looks a little too perfect.

benandkelley · Sep 28, 2004, 11:30 AM

The "A" looks a bit too perfect for someone to do that while standing...just look at the curve of the arch in it. It's a fun little picture that the touched up. It would be neat to see that lightning in real life.

Disgruntled Head of C-3PO · Sep 28, 2004, 11:33 AM

The first one is very Cash like.

wdlove · Sep 28, 2004, 12:11 PM

It's very impressive looking.

TheJoshu · Sep 28, 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by benandkelley:
The "A" looks a bit too perfect for someone to do that while standing...just look at the curve of the arch in it. It's a fun little picture that the touched up. It would be neat to see that lightning in real life.

standing, and backwards

macroy · Sep 28, 2004, 12:27 PM

not an photo expert but... how do they not 'expose' themselves when makeing the movements? i.e. I would think you'd see him with like 10 arms from when he's moving around.

CollinG3G4 · 12:44 PM

Photoshop!

The lightning is totaly out of perspective.

turtle777 · Sep 28, 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by macroy:
not an photo expert but... how do they not 'expose' themselves when makeing the movements? i.e. I would think you'd see him with like 10 arms from when he's moving around.

That's right. Duh.

I should have thought of that...

-t

killer_735 · Sep 28, 2004, 12:44 PM

Actually, since the person isn't emitting light, and the thing that they're writing with is, I'm inclined to believe it is possible to get the letters lit up, but not have the person be part of it.

Or you could do it with filters and layer styles.

chris v · Sep 28, 2004, 01:13 PM

I have seen this done with sparklers. It's not easy. I think they shot 20 or 30 exposures, and still had to settle for one that was just legible. The sparklers did light up the faces some, too. 4 people-- each one wrote one letter.

That pic is far too perfect.

Acidtrux · Sep 28, 2004, 01:45 PM

Hello All,

It has been fun watching you debate the various points as to why the photo is faked or photoshopped. I'm here to tell you that its real. I know because I'm the one doing the writing.

I'll keep the explanation brief: We used a 15 second exposure on a Sony digital camera. We were at the Grand Canyon around 9pm and it was totally dark. The writing is from a keychain LED flashlight called a Photon light which emits light away from the user, hence no reflection as in the case of a sparkler. The photo is 100% real and unedited with one exception: the photo has been flipped 180 degrees because as one user so observantly noted: its really hard to write backwards in the dark

And yes, we did that in one incredible take. Couldn't do it again in 100 years if we tried. God and Nature were flexing their muscles. We also took another 6 or so pictures before the lightning struck just writing our names. After this shot we felt it couldn't be topped, so we left.

If anyone has questions about the pic feel free to write or post here. I'll be glad to answer them.

Glad you found the pic interesting.

--
Ac!dtrux

Acidtrux · Sep 28, 2004, 01:50 PM

Oops

I've been since informed that it was a Cannon digital camera (it's not my camera, a friend did the pointing and clicking).

--
Ac!dtrux

Luca Rescigno · Sep 28, 2004, 02:09 PM

I've done some time-lapse photography. Nothing big, just enough to kind of know what it's like.

The only way you'd be able to have the picture look like that would be if you stood in one place with your arms in that position for a very long time, and the rest of the time you were moving very fast and not keeping any part of your body still at any point. The way the figure is just standing there and not blurry at all is impossible without editing.

turtle777 · Sep 28, 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Acidtrux:
Hello All,

It has been fun watching you debate the various points as to why the photo is faked or photoshopped. I'm here to tell you that its real. I know because I'm the one doing the writing.

Ac!dtrux

Give me one reason to believe you !

-t

Acidtrux · Sep 28, 2004, 03:23 PM

The site that image is found on is my friend's site, www.skphoton.com. WOuld it be sufficient if I put some text of your choice on the main page of that site? Thats about the best I can think of to prove this to you that you would be able to independantly verify.

--
Ac!dtrux

G4ME · Sep 28, 2004, 03:24 PM

i think the name says it all

storer · Sep 28, 2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by wdlove:
It's very impressive looking.

but maybe ps'd.

Mastrap · Sep 28, 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
I've done some time-lapse photography. Nothing big, just enough to kind of know what it's like.

The only way you'd be able to have the picture look like that would be if you stood in one place with your arms in that position for a very long time, and the rest of the time you were moving very fast and not keeping any part of your body still at any point. The way the figure is just standing there and not blurry at all is impossible without editing.

But this isn't time laps photography, it's simply a long exposure.

On a dark night it is very easy indeed to do what the photographer did. If you're wearing dark clothing and using the light he said he was using this isn't a problem at all. We use a similar technique all the time in the studio when photographing images containing computer screens. You keep the shutter open until you've captured the ambient light, then hit the image with a flash to fill the shadows. It's easy.

I am 100% sure that the image is real.

turtle777 · Sep 28, 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by storer:
but maybe ps'd.

Definitely NOT maybe.

-t

Luca Rescigno · Sep 28, 2004, 06:27 PM

Ah, I meant to say long-exposure. Time-lapse is where you take many quick photos over a period of time and overlay them, right?

AKcrab · Sep 28, 2004, 06:32 PM

I think it was two (or more) shots. A long exposure spelling out the words (although it seems more likely that that was done as individual letters) and a photo of the guy with arms outstretched with the lightning in the background.

villalobos · Sep 28, 2004, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
I've done some time-lapse photography. Nothing big, just enough to kind of know what it's like.

The only way you'd be able to have the picture look like that would be if you stood in one place with your arms in that position for a very long time, and the rest of the time you were moving very fast and not keeping any part of your body still at any point. The way the figure is just standing there and not blurry at all is impossible without editing.

Most likely, the guy actually shows up because of the lightning. Like he said, if he is lucky enough to get a lightning right after he is done writing the stuff, the picture is plausible. Very lucky, but quite plausible.
The bluish light reflection on the road is also a good indicator that this seems real. And if not, it looks very good anyway.

DeathMan · Sep 28, 2004, 07:01 PM

Exactly what the villa lobos said.

The guy did the writing in the dark, and then stood and posed with his arms up till the lightning flashed, then got out of the way until it could flash a few more times (if there is more than one flash) and there you go.

Its reasonable.

TheJoshu · Sep 28, 2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
Exactly what the villa lobos said.

The guy did the writing in the dark, and then stood and posed with his arms up till the lightning flashed, then got out of the way until it could flash a few more times (if there is more than one flash) and there you go.

Its reasonable.

It all sounds pretty good to me, except all that fitting in the space of fifteen seconds.

(My money says it's real, but regardless I'm DEFINITELY going to try it some time.)

phantomdragonz · Sep 29, 2004, 02:17 AM

so this is how it was taken... and it looks good to me... he is in the process of writing the "T" as the lightning struck.. it's a cool well done picture.... I hope to take one like that myself... it's a long exposure oooo ahhhhh a special effect!!! pansies...

Zach

Sandbaggins · Sep 29, 2004, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Acidtrux:

Snipitty snip-
If anyone has questions about the pic feel free to write or post here. I'll be glad to answer them.

--
Ac!dtrux

What was the ISO and shutter speed set at?

If its an SLR or similar prosumer Point and Shoot what was the Aperature set at?

I'd expect to see more blur on a long exposure using the camera handheld...

any chance you have the EXIF data?

Sandbaggins · Sep 29, 2004, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Sandbaggins:
What was the ISO and shutter speed set at?

If its an SLR or similar prosumer Point and Shoot what was the Aperature set at?

I'd expect to see more blur on a long exposure using the camera handheld...

any chance you have the EXIF data?

Scratch the handheld comment as it looks like its set on the ground.

Would like to know the other settings though.

phantomdragonz · Sep 29, 2004, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Sandbaggins:

I'd expect to see more blur on a long exposure using the camera handheld...

dumbass can you see the ground in the pic??? they set the camera on the ground!

and ISO! it's a digital who gives a flying fawk!

Zach

Sandbaggins · Sep 29, 2004, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by phantomdragonz:
dumbass can you see the ground in the pic??? they set the camera on the ground!

and ISO! it's a digital who gives a flying fawk!

Zach

I noticed it you dipshit.

I'm still interested in the other info you ass.

BTW digitals have all that info

Go Fxck yourself now.

phantomdragonz · Sep 29, 2004, 02:56 AM

hahah!!! funny I just tried to get my digital to do that but I dont have all the options to turn up the iso and open the aperature, and I can only do a 2 second exposure, but i cant tell when it starts so none of my pictures came out...

but calm yourself, it's only yelling over the internet =D

Zach

Sandbaggins · Sep 29, 2004, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by phantomdragonz:
hahah!!! funny I just tried to get my digital to do that but I dont have all the options to turn up the iso and open the aperature, and I can only do a 2 second exposure, but i cant tell when it starts so none of my pictures came out...

but calm yourself, it's only yelling over the internet =D

Zach

Hmmm...maybe he (or his friend) used a different camera than the
one you have.

Its quite possible.

Demonhood · Sep 29, 2004, 03:01 AM

calm down you two.

here's the exif data i found. crazy, he's using one of the cameras i have. cool.

EXIF Data

File size: 1347289 bytes
File date: 2004:08:04 20:09:08
Camera make: Canon
Camera model: Canon PowerShot SD110
Date/Time: 2004:08:02 23:53:24
Resolution: 2048 x 1536
Flash used: No
Focal length: 5.4mm (35mm equivalent: 37mm)
CCD width: 5.28mm
Exposure time: 15.000 s
Aperture: f/2.8
Metering Mode: matrix
Jpeg process: Baseline

phantomdragonz · Sep 29, 2004, 03:03 AM

nvm

Sandbaggins · Sep 29, 2004, 03:08 AM

Thanks for the info

Looks like that camera has an ISO range of 50-400.

SKPhoton · Sep 29, 2004, 03:08 AM

I took this picture.

It is not photoshopped whatsoever other than flipped horizontally as previously mentioned. It's nice to see this image causing a stir seeing as this is the image I am most proud of taking.

Complete Image Gallery

Okay, let's lay out the story.

We were road tripping across the country and took a detour to the Grand Canyon. We arrived there at dusk and snapped a few shots of the Canyon as the sun set. The way the canyon is set up, they have virtually no lights in order to keep it as close to nature as possible. Once it got too dark to take regular pictures, I started taking long exposure shots down the canyon for obvious reasons. We get back to the parking lot and I remember I've always wanted to write my name with my blue keychain photon light. So we start writing our names. The camera was set down on the ground on the parking lot to keep it steady. As we were taking this shot, I noticed a bright flash about halfway through the shot. (I figured it was the headlights of an oncoming car at first). Once we saw what the camera had captured, we started screaming due to excitement and were on a high for the rest of the night.

I see the EXIF info has been posted which is good.

The lightning was unexpected and accidental but more than welcome. It definitely made for one impressive shot.

theolein · Sep 29, 2004, 09:39 AM

I'd just like to congratulate SKphoton and Acidtrux on these pics. I did (or at least tried to do) stuff like that back in the 70's when I was in high school with an analog film SLR and long exposure times. We used candles and flashlights covered with various coloured filters and the technique works very well once one's practiced the trick of writing legibly in thin air.

The technique has died out a bit these days with the first digital cameras not supporting long manual exposure times or multiple exposures, but the newer breed of digicams are starting to support such options again.

In those days, before the advent of digital photography and photoshop, the photographic tricks were done with a combination of manual exposure and lighting techniques and darkroom chemical and development techniques. Because all of that was quite limited, the result was that photographers needed to have a very good grip on exposure times,aperture openings, focal depths and a good knowledge of film and negative characteristics. The first camera I ever owned was a very old Minolta SR-7 from about 1968 which didn't even have an internal exposure meter, which forced me to guage exposure times and apertures mentally. I wasn't a paticularly good photographer but I did learn a lot about light and made some very interesting pictures back then.

In the 80's the only equivalent to the modern Photoshop was the Quantel Painbox, a dedicated hardware system for retouching and painting digital images and broadcast video. It cost around $1million. The introduction of Photoshop changed all that considerably.

cszar2001 · Sep 29, 2004, 01:46 PM

This is what really happened:

drive-thru · Sep 29, 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by cszar2001:
This is what really happened:
[snip]

Definitely not Photoshop.

Cool pic, the original anyway.

cszar2001 · Sep 29, 2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by drive-thru:
Definitely not Photoshop.

Cool pic, the original anyway.

Photoshop Elements, shaking hands and 2 minutes of valuable time.

SKPhoton · Sep 29, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by cszar2001:
This is what really happened:
[snip]

lol, props to you. Carly Patterson is awesome =)

Zimphire · Sep 29, 2004, 04:42 PM

Wow how did he get lightening to come out of his fingers like that.

macaddict0001 · Sep 29, 2004, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow how did he get lightening to come out of his fingers like that.

weed da twead

CreepingDeth · Sep 29, 2004, 06:09 PM

I'm not sure. It still looks a little doctored.
I am 100% sure that the background lightning is absolutly fake. It is Xenofex, a PS plugin with lighting. KPT collection has a similar filter. Looks like they blurred part of it and added a little grain. Otherwise, it looks like total bs. Not sure about the letters, though.

G4ME · Sep 29, 2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow how did he get lightening to come out of his fingers like that.

He's god.

entrox · Sep 29, 2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I'm not sure. It still looks a little doctored.
I am 100% sure that the background lightning is absolutly fake. It is Xenofex, a PS plugin with lighting. KPT collection has a similar filter. Looks like they blurred part of it and added a little grain. Otherwise, it looks like total bs. Not sure about the letters, though.

Yeah, and they also perfectly matched the hue of the ground on the left, didn't they?

sambeau · Sep 29, 2004, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I'm not sure. It still looks a little doctored.
I am 100% sure that the background lightning is absolutly fake. It is Xenofex, a PS plugin with lighting. KPT collection has a similar filter. Looks like they blurred part of it and added a little grain. Otherwise, it looks like total bs. Not sure about the letters, though.

I don't beleive you. I beleive them. Sounds completely plausible and above-board.

Amazing. Wish I'd taken it

SamuraiDL · Sep 29, 2004, 07:51 PM

hey with a lot of practice anything is achievable...

CreepingDeth · Sep 29, 2004, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by entrox:
Yeah, and they also perfectly matched the hue of the ground on the left, didn't they?

You really don't know WTF you're talking about, do you?
Anybody can brush that purplish blue and reduce opacity.
Observe.

Here's you're 5 minute quick job using a large soft brush with 3B6BF1. Change opacity and maybe a blend mode, and you've got a fairly close remake. Also not I desaturated the grass with the sponge, in case you ask.
Anything can be done in Photoshop. That's fairly basic.