altering the Duck

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:58:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-01 16:25:22 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:46:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I played with the Duck's bicycle races and came up with some different
versions. i have every confidence that the Duck prefers his original.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP%20blur1.jpg

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.

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.

Yup!


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.

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.

That's what I trhought I said. :-)

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.

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/Fil...C_9046E1bw.jpg

But were you not panning?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 21:38:24 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 7:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-01 16:25:22 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:46:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I played with the Duck's bicycle races and came up with some different
versions. i have every confidence that the Duck prefers his original.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP%20blur1.jpg

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.

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.

Yup!


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.

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.

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.

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/Fil...C_9046E1bw.jpg

The "realistic" blur does no justice to that image. Every time I look at
it, I am bothered by that truck.

What about all the cars following along with all their antennae up?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-06-01 19:44:29 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:58:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-01 16:25:22 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:46:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I played with the Duck's bicycle races and came up with some different
versions. i have every confidence that the Duck prefers his original.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP%20blur1.jpg

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.

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.

Yup!


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.

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.

That's what I trhought I said. :-)

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.

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/Fil...C_9046E1bw.jpg

But were you not panning?

Not so much panning as tracking and shooting. The series I shot of that
peloton consisted of 48 frames shot in about 6 seconds, with focus
mode "C" selected and 3D-tracking FP. I didn't have much time to be
deliberate to actually "pan" as such, and out of that 48 there were
only a handful of keepers. I consider panning to be following the
moving target until I can trigger the shutter to capture the target.
The background is usually blurred with a successful pan.

Something such as this:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...427ACAE2w2.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:03:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-01 18:38:24 -0700, PeterN said:

On 6/1/2013 7:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-01 16:25:22 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:46:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I played with the Duck's bicycle races and came up with some different
versions. i have every confidence that the Duck prefers his original.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP%20blur1.jpg

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:
r
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.

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.

Yup!


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.

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.

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.

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/Fil...C_9046E1bw.jpg

The "realistic" blur does no justice to that image. Every time I look
at it, I am bothered by that truck.

What truck?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Bikes%202.jpg

Hell! Then fix it.
You have CS6 and "content aware fill" don't you?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil..._9046E1dtw.jpg

Content aware fill! What's wrong with cloning?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/1/2013 10:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 21:38:24 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/1/2013 7:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-01 16:25:22 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:46:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I played with the Duck's bicycle races and came up with some different
versions. i have every confidence that the Duck prefers his original.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP%20blur1.jpg

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.

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.

Yup!


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.

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.

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.

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/Fil...C_9046E1bw.jpg

The "realistic" blur does no justice to that image. Every time I look at
it, I am bothered by that truck.

What about all the cars following along with all their antennae up?


What cars?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP%20blur2.jpg

--
PeterN

On 6/1/2013 11:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

What's wrong with cloning?


Too controversial

http://news.yahoo.com/human-cloning-stem-cell-advance-reignites-ethics-debate-131035703.html

--
PeterN

On 2013-06-01 19:46:03 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

What about all the cars following along with all their antennae up?

Team cars with spare bikes.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil.../DNC_9081w.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-06-01 20:08:28 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 19:03:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-01 18:38:24 -0700, PeterN said:

On 6/1/2013 7:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Le Snip

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/Fil...C_9046E1bw.jpg

The "realistic" blur does no justice to that image. Every time I look
at it, I am bothered by that truck.

What truck?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Bikes%202.jpg

Hell! Then fix it.
You have CS6 and "content aware fill" don't you?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil..._9046E1dtw.jpg

Content aware fill! What's wrong with cloning?

Cloning is OK, but content aware fill is easier to use and does a
better job in most cases.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:03:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-01 19:44:29 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:58:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-01 16:25:22 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:46:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I played with the Duck's bicycle races and came up with some different
versions. i have every confidence that the Duck prefers his original.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP%20blur1.jpg

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.

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.

Yup!


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.

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.

That's what I trhought I said. :-)

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.

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/Fil...C_9046E1bw.jpg

But were you not panning?

Not so much panning as tracking and shooting. The series I shot of that
peloton consisted of 48 frames shot in about 6 seconds, with focus
mode "C" selected and 3D-tracking FP. I didn't have much time to be
deliberate to actually "pan" as such, and out of that 48 there were
only a handful of keepers. I consider panning to be following the
moving target until I can trigger the shutter to capture the target.
The background is usually blurred with a successful pan.

Something such as this:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...427ACAE2w2.jpg


.... or this?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Jan%201961.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-06-01 22:04:59 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:03:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-01 19:44:29 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:58:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-01 16:25:22 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

on Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:46:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I played with the Duck's bicycle races and came up with some different
versions. i have every confidence that the Duck prefers his original.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/1_DxOVP%20blur1.jpg

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.

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.

Yup!


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.

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.

That's what I trhought I said. :-)

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.

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/Fil...C_9046E1bw.jpg

But were you not panning?

Not so much panning as tracking and shooting. The series I shot of that
peloton consisted of 48 frames shot in about 6 seconds, with focus
mode "C" selected and 3D-tracking FP. I didn't have much time to be
deliberate to actually "pan" as such, and out of that 48 there were
only a handful of keepers. I consider panning to be following the
moving target until I can trigger the shutter to capture the target.
The background is usually blurred with a successful pan.

Something such as this:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...427ACAE2w2.jpg


....

or this?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Jan%201961.jpg

Exactly.

--
Regards,

Savageduck