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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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