Here's the image...

Poll - how much photoshop work in this image?Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Poll - how much photoshop work in this image?My first poll so I hope I don't stuff making this...
Here's the image... ![]() Last edited by tasadam on Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Share what you know, learn what you don't.
Wilderness Photography of Tasmania http://www.tasmaniart.com.au
looks like the car has no driver ????
Cheers ....bp....
Difference between a good street photographer and a great street photographer.... Removing objects that do not belong... happy for the comments, but .....Please DO NOT edit my image..... http://bigpix.smugmug.com Forever changing
needs a crop... off the top and bottom for a stronger composition IMHO
New page
http://www.potofgrass.com Portfolio... http://images.potofgrass.com Comments and money always welcome
Tasadam,
Your poll is not precise. I dont know if you are asking about: 1. Should this image be more post processed? or 2. Guess, if there is some post or not. If #1 is concern, I would say that: a. Lift up colour, especially red with commercials on it. b. Image is a bit bluerred. If this would be very important to me I would literally redraw crucial parts. c. Could be good to have more on the left, to give a car space and put front in strong point. d. Clone up, on the right-top: bluish facia Regards, K.Polak
This is a truly strange photo. There is a point of focus but it appears to be in very strange and varied places. There appears to be motion blur in the wheels but not in the body (yet it is blurred).
The vehicle is not on the race track and I just have the feeling that it is stationary - my guess is ”I have no idea” ![]() Last edited by sirhc55 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
No, it's definitely not a piece of paper ![]() ![]() ![]() Cheers What's another word for "thesaurus"?
a) it looks near the pits, so I doubt they'd be doing any sort of speed there
b) somebody pointed out no driver c) everything is blurred car, wheels and background If it was a panning technique, the car would be sharp and the wheels having a radial blur from rotational motion. The background would be also blurred more significantly if it was doing any sort of speed aswell imho. I dunno, that's just my take on it. BBJ would probably be able to more insight on this. Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
Well I sure had fun here.
big pix - I wonder what Todd Kelly thinks of that? MHD - Couldn't agree more but for the purposes of this exercise, I chose to leave the photo uncropped... krpolak - you know far more about PS than I. I agree about lifting the red, indeed in MS Office Picture Manager, when I edit - brightness & contrast, it does indeed enhance the reds and whites quite nicely, but as with MHD, I didn't want to alter those aspects of the photo. The purpose of the exercise was more to do with but also so I could get an idea whether people liked this image as it appears or whether the effect that has been created is too much. digitor - Yes, that's interesting, isn't it... The top spoke in the back wheel does seem sharper, or "less moving" than all others... I am having trouble understanding that one myself but have one theory. This photo is as it was taken. There is no editing whatsoever. The only thing I have done with it is opened it in MS Office Picture Manager and resized it to 800x600. Where does the effect come from? 70mm focal length, f27, 1/30 second exposure. I would have preferred to have the camera tripod-mounted for this shot so I could track smoothly. Truth be known, as I was rushing, the camera was probably wobbling all over the place. Perhaps as I was panning, I had a bit of a twist happening. I did have the camera in AF-C, as I should for a moving subject (unless I have already sized up a point on the track that I want to capture the images and have pre-locked the focus). But the real key as to why the effect is like it is - it was taken with a 70-200 VR lens. Kipper –
This shot is taken on a "ride day" 2 days after the race. There were actually 2 passengers in the car as well as Tod Kelly, and I can tell you that as there were no officials, the car was doing a lot more than 39.5 kph in pit lane at the time this was taken. That's why I was rushing. I was pretty lucky to have been standing where I was to get this, and other photos. When the car comes out of the corner into the starting straight and you're standing quite close as it goes by, it's quite something. Back to the photo, 1/30 second exposure time shows I really was just having a play to find out how good this "VR" is. I think the main reasons for the effect is my rushing and as such, my inability to smoothly track the vehicle, and also my pushing the VR to beyond its capabilities. Want proof - Right click on the image and "Save as"... Put it on your hard disk, right click on the file and "Properties", Summary, and Advanced... There's all the specs on the photo. There were spectators / other passengers waiting in the open pits behind the car. Then there was a closed garage where the registration desk was... Then there was the other open garage where people got into the car... here ![]() By the way, the chap with the D2x at the front of the car is the official photographer for all the people getting rides, they each get a nice photo to take away with them. He's the nice person that gave me a few minutes to play with the 70-200VR... 1st time I'd even SEEN one. And it was the 1st time I got to see one of these... ![]() That was my highlight for the day - seeing a D2x and the 70-200VR, and getting a bit of a play with the VR lens. (I didn't get a ride). By the way, he seems to be a bit over-equipped with that D2x - from their site, down the bottom in the fine print...
And for anyone that missed some decent slow exposures of cars from race day... Here Last edited by tasadam on Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Share what you know, learn what you don't.
Wilderness Photography of Tasmania http://www.tasmaniart.com.au
I just worked it out. As I am panning with the car, and the wheel is rotating, the speed of the lower spokes in relation to the lens is greater than the speed of the spokes at the top of the wheel. Of course, he says... But why did the same effect not apply to the front wheel? I don't have all the answers. But maybe because there is no spoke vertical in the top of front wheel, the "less moving" effect is not so prominent here. Can't think of any other reason. Share what you know, learn what you don't.
Wilderness Photography of Tasmania http://www.tasmaniart.com.au
Previous topic • Next topic
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|