Picture Technique Needs Help--how did he do this?
- Thread starter X Breaker
- Start date
....Beat me too it, Although correct, you beat me to it.Snapshot9 said:
First off, I gotta love the difference between "Digital Photographers" and real photographers when answering questions.
Some immidiately think how it could be done in photoshop and assume it would be used, while others think what crazy darkroom technique(or in this case just camera technique) could be used to do it.
No offense as I am an avid photoshop user, but always strikes me when people think effects cant be done without it.
Anyway, regarding the photo, the other balls could easily be moved by someone out of frame and if the photo was taken *after* the shot(and the shooter told to stay completely still right after shooting) then the cue would be stationary as well, while the camera still would catch the movement of the other balls.
Whether or not it WAS done with more than one photo, this is wrong:
"I'm certain it's more than one photo."
Because i'm certain it can be done with just a 35mm and no digital manipulation or composites......
It could be done either way or as a marriage of both, but to say it *has* to be a composite is definitely wrong
Some immidiately think how it could be done in photoshop and assume it would be used, while others think what crazy darkroom technique(or in this case just camera technique) could be used to do it.
No offense as I am an avid photoshop user, but always strikes me when people think effects cant be done without it.
Anyway, regarding the photo, the other balls could easily be moved by someone out of frame and if the photo was taken *after* the shot(and the shooter told to stay completely still right after shooting) then the cue would be stationary as well, while the camera still would catch the movement of the other balls.
Whether or not it WAS done with more than one photo, this is wrong:
"I'm certain it's more than one photo."
Because i'm certain it can be done with just a 35mm and no digital manipulation or composites......
It could be done either way or as a marriage of both, but to say it *has* to be a composite is definitely wrong
I'm pretty certain this is a regular photograph.
When you see these sorts of motion blur photos, there are two varieties. One shows the "stopped" action before the motion occurs, as in this photo. Meaning, the situation prior to the motion is frozen, and then the motion is blurred.
The other option is that the action is stopped after the motion occurs. IF that was the case in the attached photo, the person's hand and cue would be blurred and the image of the balls moving down the table would be sharp.
This is accomplished by using a flash. If the flash goes off at the beginning of the shutter time, it freezes that scene, and then for the rest of the shutter time you have any motion being blurred. Thats what this photo looks like.
One the other hand, if the flash goes off at the END of the shutter time, everything that happened prior to the flash is blurred, and only the scene at the end of the shutter time is "frozen".
SO if you hypothetically had a shutter time of 5 seconds in the attached photo, here is the sequence of events: The person's hand, cueball, and oneball are stationary, the flash goes off and captures that scene, then there are 5 seconds in which the balls move and create the blurs. Since the blur streaks are fairly short in the attached photo the actual shutter time is probably much shorter (i.e. 1/2-3/4 of a second). You would also need a small F stop to accomodate the longer shutter times.
The other way to get the photo is through double exposure, where you expose one photograph with all the balls sharp, and then expose another photograph on the same frame using a slower shutter time to accomplish the blur. For this you need a steady tripod and you have to underexpose both shots, the "blur" frame being more underexposed then the "sharp" frame. However, this photo looks like the case of flash then long exposure time.
Many good SLR's allow you to select when the flash occurs, at the start or end of the exposure time, to vary this effect.
The reason there appear to be two unrelated balls moving on each side of the scene is because they were moving during the shot but the long exposure time prevented them from being recorderd onto the scene until they slowed down enough to be exposed. I believe the cueball drifted into the 2, and you see its motion as it slowed down. The ball on the right of the scene looks like it was struck by the one ball and went two rails, and similarly only its position as it slowed down was recorded. You can actually see dark columns behind the path of the balls that show where they went but are not recorded with any detail because of fast motion and slow shutter times.
Hope that helps.
When you see these sorts of motion blur photos, there are two varieties. One shows the "stopped" action before the motion occurs, as in this photo. Meaning, the situation prior to the motion is frozen, and then the motion is blurred.
The other option is that the action is stopped after the motion occurs. IF that was the case in the attached photo, the person's hand and cue would be blurred and the image of the balls moving down the table would be sharp.
This is accomplished by using a flash. If the flash goes off at the beginning of the shutter time, it freezes that scene, and then for the rest of the shutter time you have any motion being blurred. Thats what this photo looks like.
One the other hand, if the flash goes off at the END of the shutter time, everything that happened prior to the flash is blurred, and only the scene at the end of the shutter time is "frozen".
SO if you hypothetically had a shutter time of 5 seconds in the attached photo, here is the sequence of events: The person's hand, cueball, and oneball are stationary, the flash goes off and captures that scene, then there are 5 seconds in which the balls move and create the blurs. Since the blur streaks are fairly short in the attached photo the actual shutter time is probably much shorter (i.e. 1/2-3/4 of a second). You would also need a small F stop to accomodate the longer shutter times.
The other way to get the photo is through double exposure, where you expose one photograph with all the balls sharp, and then expose another photograph on the same frame using a slower shutter time to accomplish the blur. For this you need a steady tripod and you have to underexpose both shots, the "blur" frame being more underexposed then the "sharp" frame. However, this photo looks like the case of flash then long exposure time.
Many good SLR's allow you to select when the flash occurs, at the start or end of the exposure time, to vary this effect.
The reason there appear to be two unrelated balls moving on each side of the scene is because they were moving during the shot but the long exposure time prevented them from being recorderd onto the scene until they slowed down enough to be exposed. I believe the cueball drifted into the 2, and you see its motion as it slowed down. The ball on the right of the scene looks like it was struck by the one ball and went two rails, and similarly only its position as it slowed down was recorded. You can actually see dark columns behind the path of the balls that show where they went but are not recorded with any detail because of fast motion and slow shutter times.
Hope that helps.
Last edited:
Jesus Christ, I just realized I know all those people. That guy in the photo is none other than Ginacue's Ernie Guttierez.
Ah, the old crew in Sherman Oaks!
Ah, the old crew in Sherman Oaks!
MacGyver said:
"real photographers"? I've used both digital editing and film, both require skill IMO. I once entered a couple photographs in an art show under the un-edited catagory, and because of the way I shot the photo the judges didn't believe that it was un-edited and disqualified me. I also use digital editing all the time in such a way that you could never tell I have touched the picture. In my opinion this is a single photograph, unedited. I completely agree with henho. This picture makes me want to bust out my 35mm and play around on a pool table!
henho said:
This image could also have been captured without a flash. The exposure would simply have been started after the player put the balls in motion. It looks to me like the balls are only lit by an overhead light.
In the next picture, he turns his head and creates blur:
http://sorinphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/1481582#73960014-M-LB
Snapshot9 said:
I'm willing to bet this image was taken with a digital camera, and not a 35mm.
MacGyver said:
Digital photography is no less "real" than film.
Sound Flash Sensor
This is very possible without photoshop. Look at Harold Edgerton's work with strobe lights from the 60's.
If you look at the hand, and the cue, and the cue ball, there is no blur. This shot could have been done with a sound activated circuit, in that the shutter and flash is activated when the sound of the balls click. This is a fairly common circuit (an not too hard to build), and is not limited to digital or film cameras. All you need is a SLR (film or digital), a tripod, flash and the circuit.
Here's a link to sound switches
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-cheap-sync.html
The shutter is activated when the balls collide. It is definately eaiser to pull off a great shot with digital (instant gratification) but a roll of Velvia 50 would defintely produce a better picture IMHO.
The same circuit can be adapted to light. That is the way you get the really cool lightening photographs.
That is my guess. I might have to build the circuit and give this a try.
Brian
www.nittanyleather.com
This is very possible without photoshop. Look at Harold Edgerton's work with strobe lights from the 60's.
If you look at the hand, and the cue, and the cue ball, there is no blur. This shot could have been done with a sound activated circuit, in that the shutter and flash is activated when the sound of the balls click. This is a fairly common circuit (an not too hard to build), and is not limited to digital or film cameras. All you need is a SLR (film or digital), a tripod, flash and the circuit.
Here's a link to sound switches
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-cheap-sync.html
The shutter is activated when the balls collide. It is definately eaiser to pull off a great shot with digital (instant gratification) but a roll of Velvia 50 would defintely produce a better picture IMHO.
The same circuit can be adapted to light. That is the way you get the really cool lightening photographs.
That is my guess. I might have to build the circuit and give this a try.
Brian
www.nittanyleather.com
Last edited:
Yes, but...
I agree that it could have very well been accomplished without digital manipulation, however I noticed something that made me believe that it was done with more than one exposure.
I can't imagine what the shot setup was before the exposure was taken. There are two moving, blurred balls, an object and cue ball. Why is the one ball sitting where it is? It would be interfering with the shot in motion we are supposed to be observing. Then there are the two phantom streaks, one horizontally to the viewer's left, and the other diagonally to the near right corner.
Could the shot have been performed using the one ball as the cue ball and the 9 ball as the object ball?
Ken
I agree that it could have very well been accomplished without digital manipulation, however I noticed something that made me believe that it was done with more than one exposure.
I can't imagine what the shot setup was before the exposure was taken. There are two moving, blurred balls, an object and cue ball. Why is the one ball sitting where it is? It would be interfering with the shot in motion we are supposed to be observing. Then there are the two phantom streaks, one horizontally to the viewer's left, and the other diagonally to the near right corner.
Could the shot have been performed using the one ball as the cue ball and the 9 ball as the object ball?
Ken
i've talked to sorin before about his photography... he uses digital.... canon equipment if i remember correctly. all you have to do for that effect is leave the shutter open... it's pretty easy, i've done a lot of shots like this messin around.
This is definitely an unedited photo taken with the shutter open. The reason why he's not blurred is because he stayed still after the stroke until the shutter closed.
I have a picture that has this same effect. If I can find it, I'll post it up.
I have a picture that has this same effect. If I can find it, I'll post it up.
My bet is gimicked
Well, my bet is that the photo is gimicked. Take a look at the shadow the one ball he is shooting at throws. Take a look at the shadows of the other balls. Looking at the nine ball path I also see what appears to be another cue stick. Much can be done in one shot with either a film or digital SLR however this does look to have included some work with multiple layers in photoshop.
Hu
Well, my bet is that the photo is gimicked. Take a look at the shadow the one ball he is shooting at throws. Take a look at the shadows of the other balls. Looking at the nine ball path I also see what appears to be another cue stick. Much can be done in one shot with either a film or digital SLR however this does look to have included some work with multiple layers in photoshop.
Hu
ShootingArts said:
nah... just a regular pic... i just asked sorin about it to make sure. its really simple, i don't know what all the hype is about...
Just to clear this up, I emailed the photographer and asked.
-Shiner
-Shiner
More detail on the photo from the photographer.
"Well, there is no conspiracy when is comes to the shot in question. I was doing some studies on motion photography and I was privileged to use Mr. Gutierrez as a model and also I have to give credit to the people of House of Billiards in Sherman Oaks where I shot this. I used a tripod, DSLR, f/11, 1.6 seconds exposure time, ISO100,
no flash, just available light and it was shot at 35mm (56mm on my camera). The shot was cropped to achieve the wide screen format."
"Well, there is no conspiracy when is comes to the shot in question. I was doing some studies on motion photography and I was privileged to use Mr. Gutierrez as a model and also I have to give credit to the people of House of Billiards in Sherman Oaks where I shot this. I used a tripod, DSLR, f/11, 1.6 seconds exposure time, ISO100,
no flash, just available light and it was shot at 35mm (56mm on my camera). The shot was cropped to achieve the wide screen format."