If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
In article , Alfred Molon wrote:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17436...=1384458124309 I suspect the photographer took a burst of 11 images, then somehow merged them in postprocessing. Or what's your opinion? Of course, or it was done in-camera on planet Carrot It's heavily post-processed, so it's only obvious to assume that the stitching was done in post as well. Great pic, by the way -- Sandman[.net] |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
In article , YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
Le 14/11/13 20:44, Alfred Molon a écrit : Alfred Molon: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17436...=1384458124309 I suspect the photographer took a burst of 11 images, then somehow merged them in postprocessing. Or what's your opinion? May be that. Another possibility is use of multiple exposure on the same image, on my camera it is limited to 10 (others can have different possibilities) And if you do no use automatic gain the result is overexposure of the background. With this orange background, it may be too. Another possibility is merging images extracted from video. Much easier to achieve the effect than with bursts. Video is rarely, or pretty much never, shot with such a fast shutter as to freeze the motion on every frame. You would pretty much always have motion blur. This is most likely a burst shot series. -- Sandman[.net] |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
In article 2013111416072051661-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:
Alfred Molon: Perhaps another question. Would/should a shot like this be allowed in a photo competition, or does it not qualify as a photo? Here is again the link: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17436...=1384458124309 Everything depends on the rules of the competition. Are multi-exposures disqualified? If they are, how about HDR? Is that permitted or not? HDR usually employs between 3 & 5 bracketed exposures. Exactly - and if HDR isn't allowed due to that restriction, is it still allowed if processed from a 14bit single-exposure RAW file? Then, are there restrictions on the manner of post processing, are there any restrictions stated in the rules? In your example, other than having software which facilitates stacking and subsequent flattening of the layers, it doesn't appear to be particularly complicated and Photoshop should be able to handle that with ease. An HDR would require more complexed processing. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the sky and water wasn't bright flat orange in the original scene :-D Here is a similar idea found in 500px. https://db.tt/fbriXKtJ Nah, that's probably five foxes all hunting the same prey :-D -- Sandman[.net] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Savageduck: Everything depends on the rules of the competition. Are multi-exposures disqualified? If they are, how about HDR? Is that permitted or not? HDR usually employs between 3 & 5 bracketed exposures. Then, are there restrictions on the manner of post processing, are there any restrictions stated in the rules? In your example, other than having software which facilitates stacking and subsequent flattening of the layers, it doesn't appear to be particularly complicated and Photoshop should be able to handle that with ease. An HDR would require more complexed processing. Here is a similar idea found in 500px. https://db.tt/fbriXKtJ Now that series of shots most definitely has displaced the fox laterally each time. In real life the fox leaps up almost vertically and comes down so steeply that they often tend to flip over onto their back. Their is no way that a fox leaps in a long arc as the series of photographs implies. True, a fox most certainly can and do pounce from a distance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKAxEWSf3r0 But in the duck's link the fox is looking directly down in each frame, meaning that it was more likely pouncing on an animal down in the snow right in front of it. Also, the leap is a bit too long for your normal fox who has strong hind legs, but that's a bit too far. -- Sandman[.net] |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Alfred Molon: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17436...=1384458124309 I suspect the photographer took a burst of 11 images, then somehow merged them in postprocessing. Or what's your opinion? I think there are two alternative possible explanations. The spacing between the birds may be a clue. If this was the result of the straightforward overprinting of a uniform series of shots taken with a conventional camera the spacing between the bird images would get less as it slowed down for landing. Which, uh, is exactly what we see in the image. The first three shots are further apart than the following shots. And when the bird has landed it takes some larger strides which again increases speed. Here's some slow motion of a flamnigo landing: http://www.arkive.org/lesser-flaming...video-06c.html I think it's quite obvious that it slows down for the landing and then steps up speed after landing. Not saying that this was done in-camera, but the spacing doesn't say either way. -- Sandman[.net] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
Le 15/11/13 12:45, Sandman a écrit :
In article , YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote: Le 14/11/13 20:44, Alfred Molon a écrit : Alfred Molon: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17436...=1384458124309 I suspect the photographer took a burst of 11 images, then somehow merged them in postprocessing. Or what's your opinion? May be that. Another possibility is use of multiple exposure on the same image, on my camera it is limited to 10 (others can have different possibilities) And if you do no use automatic gain the result is overexposure of the background. With this orange background, it may be too. Another possibility is merging images extracted from video. Much easier to achieve the effect than with bursts. Video is rarely, or pretty much never, shot with such a fast shutter as to freeze the motion on every frame. You would pretty much always have motion blur. This is most likely a burst shot series. Condidering the small size o the image and the small size of the bird on the image, I have no visual clue. Some cameras are be capable of high speed video. And I dont think the landing of a large bird is a very fast event. I think it is more likely a burst than on-camera multiple exposure, because that technique does not allow for such a good spacing, it is prone to superpositions (and, used or that more or less). Video would be the simpler technique. Noëlle Adam |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote: Le 14/11/13 20:44, Alfred Molon a écrit : http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17436...=1384458124309 I suspect the photographer took a burst of 11 images, then somehow merged them in postprocessing. Or what's your opinion? May be that. Another possibility is use of multiple exposure on the same image, on my camera it is limited to 10 (others can have different possibilities) And if you do no use automatic gain the result is overexposure of the background. With this orange background, it may be too. Another possibility is merging images extracted from video. Much easier to achieve the effect than with bursts. Noëlle Adam Here is a similar one I took: http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/web...0/egretpan.jpg -- m-m photo gallery: http://mhmyers.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
In article , YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle: May be that. Another possibility is use of multiple exposure on the same image, on my camera it is limited to 10 (others can have different possibilities) And if you do no use automatic gain the result is overexposure of the background. With this orange background, it may be too. Another possibility is merging images extracted from video. Much easier to achieve the effect than with bursts. Sandman: Video is rarely, or pretty much never, shot with such a fast shutter as to freeze the motion on every frame. You would pretty much always have motion blur. This is most likely a burst shot series. Condidering the small size o the image and the small size of the bird on the image, I have no visual clue. Some cameras are be capable of high speed video. And I dont think the landing of a large bird is a very fast event. Absolutely, but most modern ones are 1080p60, which means 60 frames per second, or a shutter speed of 1/60, which even for a slow bird landing would result in motion blur. HFR cameras usually require lots of light, and it's just unlikely you would use such a camera for filming a flamingo landing to make a photo composition of it. I think it is more likely a burst than on-camera multiple exposure, because that technique does not allow for such a good spacing, it is prone to superpositions (and, used or that more or less). Video would be the simpler technique. Well, to be perfectly clear, a burst shot and in-camera composition of those shots is no different than if you do it in post. The only realy difference is that if you're doing it in post you have more control over the composition *and* you can remove some shots that would overlay like you say. But on the other hand, you could get lucky and not get overlay even in camera. For the record, I am personally quite convinced that the linked image was shot with burst and edited together in post, which is where the photographer also burned out the water and sjy and made it orange (shooting against the setting sun would already create a good silluette and orange tint to facilitate this. -- Sandman[.net] |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
In article , M-M wrote:
Alfred Molon: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17436...=1384458124309 I suspect the photographer took a burst of 11 images, then somehow merged them in postprocessing. Or what's your opinion? YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle: May be that. Another possibility is use of multiple exposure on the same image, on my camera it is limited to 10 (others can have different possibilities) And if you do no use automatic gain the result is overexposure of the background. With this orange background, it may be too. Another possibility is merging images extracted from video. Much easier to achieve the effect than with bursts. Here is a similar one I took: http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/web...0/egretpan.jpg Ah, so that would be a combination of the two, right? I mean, we have the "bird landing on water" from the linked image, and the "fox pouncing the snow in a long leap" from the other. Great middleway! :-D -- Sandman[.net] |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How was this shot taken
On 2013-11-15 11:47:39 +0000, Sandman said:
In article 2013111416072051661-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Alfred Molon: Perhaps another question. Would/should a shot like this be allowed in a photo competition, or does it not qualify as a photo? Here is again the link: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17436...=1384458124309 Everything depends on the rules of the competition. Are multi-exposures disqualified? If they are, how about HDR? Is that permitted or not? HDR usually employs between 3 & 5 bracketed exposures. Exactly - and if HDR isn't allowed due to that restriction, is it still allowed if processed from a 14bit single-exposure RAW file? Then that would not really be an HDR, but single image tone-mapping, resulting in a pseudo-HDR. Then, are there restrictions on the manner of post processing, are there any restrictions stated in the rules? In your example, other than having software which facilitates stacking and subsequent flattening of the layers, it doesn't appear to be particularly complicated and Photoshop should be able to handle that with ease. An HDR would require more complexed processing. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the sky and water wasn't bright flat orange in the original scene :-D Here is a similar idea found in 500px. https://db.tt/fbriXKtJ Nah, that's probably five foxes all hunting the same prey :-D ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak C613 Shot-to-shot time | arifi | Digital Point & Shoot Cameras | 0 | February 27th 08 07:35 AM |
Metz 402 - great for 1st shot but will not recycle for 2nd shot | Pat[_7_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | September 16th 07 07:26 PM |
Shot to shot speed | Tass | Digital Photography | 2 | February 13th 06 07:52 PM |
[SI] My Red Shot | Graham Fountain | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | September 13th 04 03:45 PM |
Faster SD card cuts shot-to-shot time | bk | Digital Photography | 3 | September 11th 04 05:11 AM |