The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Images > Image of the Day

Image of the Day Images that will blow your mind - every day. [Blog] [RSS] [XML]

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-09-2007, 11:17 PM   #31
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post
I think the photographer was panning with the jet and also using a pretty high shutter speed.

Or maybe it was photoshopped. I tend to believe it's real though. Even though it looks unreal.
I"m with you on that glatt. It was exactly what I was thinking as I was looking at it.
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 11:23 PM   #32
Aliantha
trying hard to be a better person
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 16,488
if the first pic is actually a frame from a film rather than a still shot, the effect of the boats seeming to be so close could be adjusted through the depth of field. In effect, making what seems a long way off, much closer. (or vice versa if that's what you want to show)
__________________
Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber
Aliantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2007, 11:29 PM   #33
Bullitt
This is a fully functional babe lair
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 2,324
That is correct. That's how you get the subject sharp and in focus and blur the background. Used heavily in automotive racing photography. If you use a slower shutter speed and pan the camera with the subject, the background will be blurred while the subject remains sharp, giving the photo a sense of movement and speed instead of what looks like a car just sitting on the track.
__________________
Kiss my white Irish ass.
Bullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 01:13 AM   #34
Scriveyn
amnesic-confabulatory opsimath
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Between my ears
Posts: 736
Is it a plane flying low or a speed boat skimming a bit high? :p
Scriveyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 06:24 AM   #35
spudcon
Beware of potatoes
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 2,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
A picture used to be worth a thousand words.
Now it's worth a thousand denials.
Attached Images
 
spudcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 08:07 AM   #36
Adam
Sibling of the Commonweal
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
On closeness and blurred backgrounds:

Almost all sports photography and most spectator event photography uses telephoto lenses to bring the action close while the photographer is safely distant. Telephoto lenses see things differently than the standard 35mm lens (which is the closest approximation to the human eye). Telephotos "flatten" the image. That is, a distant object does not appear to diminish in size as it would seen through a standard lens. This elimination of linear perspective generally goes unnoticed by the public.
It can be used to great effect artistically, often employed for certain shots in film to give a specific feel- as in a HUGE setting sun. (The best example I've ever seen of this is when, in Poltergeist, Jobeth Williams looks down the hall to her children's door- the cameraman pulls focus while switching FROM telephoto, giving the illusion of a lengthening hallway- brilliant!)
The photographer's lens is reason the plane looks so close to the boats. Since I've spent years looking at sports photographs (sculpting from them) I've gotten pretty good at judging distances. The plane IS close, but not THAT close.

The blurred background is very likely an unintended consequence of following such a rapidly moving object. It can be done for dramatic effect (as mentioned, in making a car appear to be moving fast), but I believe that in this case it is most likely due to the extreme speed of the jet- even the fastest shutter speed couldn't freeze the background while panning the camera that fast. Nascar cars don't exceed 200 mph- WELL within any camera's ability to take a crisp, unblurred photo. Those photographers are probably doing it for dramatic effect. This jet is moving at about 1100 fps (750 mph) - tough to freeze the action.

And that's all I have to say about that.


(Damned Photoshop has ruined the simple appreciation of great pictures!)
Adam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 08:49 AM   #37
SteveDallas
Your Bartender
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philly Burbs, PA
Posts: 7,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
The blurred background is very likely an unintended consequence of following such a rapidly moving object. It can be done for dramatic effect (as mentioned, in making a car appear to be moving fast), but I believe that in this case it is most likely due to the extreme speed of the jet- even the fastest shutter speed couldn't freeze the background while panning the camera that fast. Nascar cars don't exceed 200 mph- WELL within any camera's ability to take a crisp, unblurred photo. Those photographers are probably doing it for dramatic effect. This jet is moving at about 1100 fps (750 mph) - tough to freeze the action.
I agree... which is why I'm curious as to how you can pan fast enough, and accurately enough, to freeze the plane. (Also I note that in almost al of the other shots--the ones linked by glatt for example--both the plane and the accompanying scenery are--this effect is not present.)

I'm not saying it was 'shopped.. I'm legitimately asking, as a pretty green photographer, how it was accomplished.
SteveDallas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 09:12 AM   #38
Adam
Sibling of the Commonweal
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveDallas View Post
I agree... which is why I'm curious as to how you can pan fast enough, and accurately enough, to freeze the plane.
Practice. Follow it in from far away (when you have to move less) pivot at the waist for smoothness (I just know someone's going to jump on that). Use a pro camera like the Cannon EOS 1D Mark III- fire off 10 frames per second.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveDallas View Post
Also I note that in almost al of the other shots--the ones linked by glatt for example--both the plane and the accompanying scenery are--this effect is not present.
Looks like the photographer is farther away. That's my guess. Otherwise he'd have pulled in tighter on the jet. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he's maxed out his zoom. That would put him so far away he only needs to pan very slowly.
Or, when the plane is come toward or going away from the photographer, he doesn't need to pan at all- as in the close-up ones of takeoff and approach.

...off to work.
Later Gents.
Adam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 09:13 AM   #39
LabRat
twatfaced two legged bumhole
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,143
From now on I am referring to passed gas as pulled vapors.
__________________
Strength does not come from how much weight you can lift, or how many miles you can run. It comes from knowing that you set a goal, and rose to the challenge. Strength comes from within.
LabRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 09:14 AM   #40
Bullitt
This is a fully functional babe lair
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 2,324
Right on Adam. There are a great number of things to consider when working with telephoto and looking at a telephoto image.

Another thing to consider SteveDallas is that a general rule of thumb for telephoto lenses is that you need a minimum shutter speed of whatever mm length you are "zoomed" to in order to create a sharp, non blurry image of something stationary to begin with, let alone freeze action. Cameras can only have so high of a shutter speed (unique to each camera, example my Nikon D50 DSLR has a high of 1/4000th of a second, my previous Panasonic FZ7 had a high of 1/2000th). So if the photographer was far away using say a 300mm lens, which is a somewhat common telephoto length, then he/she needed to use a minimum shutter speed of 1/300th of a second in order to first have a non blurry image of anything, and then go up from there in order to attempt to freeze the plane in motion. Combine panning with that and the jet moving ridiculously fast and it becomes hell of hard to get a sharp image.

The reason why some of the other images do not appear to be as shaky is because the photographer was not using such a long telephoto length (closer to the action and/or simply cropped the original photo) and thus has much more control of the image.

Imagine trying to follow a moving object with your eyes from 200 meters, and then the same object moving at the same speed at 10 meters and you'll get what I'm saying. Just like how when you are driving your car, the grass is all blurred whizzing by but the mountains in the distance are nice and clear.
__________________
Kiss my white Irish ass.
Bullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 09:18 AM   #41
Bullitt
This is a fully functional babe lair
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 2,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Use a pro camera like the Cannon EOS 1D Mark III- fire off 10 frames per second.
Yeah that would help a little too haha. Oh my poor 2.5 frames per second
__________________
Kiss my white Irish ass.
Bullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 09:37 AM   #42
barefoot serpent
go ahead, abbrev. it
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Posts: 2,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickja1 View Post
Oh, yeah, I'm sure it isn't photoshopped. This is just another 100 million dollar plane flying 1300+ miles per hour less than 50 feet off the ground in a bay loaded full of boats.
only about 760 mph
__________________
Chooses rowing vs. wading
barefoot serpent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 09:50 AM   #43
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,496
Flickr is cool because many of the pictures there have the EXIF data for each picture listed.
for example, the picture below was taken under the following conditions:
Camera: Canon EOS 30D
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 200

You can see the jet is pretty crisp, but the sailboat masts have some slight blur from the panning. The jet is coming more head-on here, so there isn't so much panning action as the original IotD photo at the top of the thread, where the jet is flying by. The large version of the image really shows this.

glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 10:32 AM   #44
chrisinhouston
Professor
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 1,857
Here's my claim to fame. No water vapor but these are from my son's graduation from the US Naval Academy. I was shoooting with a 50-500mm Sigma zoom on my Canon 5D
Attached Images
  
chrisinhouston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2007, 03:20 PM   #45
narcuul
Aggregate Aggravator
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17
That actually is water vapor around the fighter. It is created by the sudden extreme drop in air pressure behind the compressed shockwave. Since the pressure suddenly drops, the air cools instantly, and because cool air can hold less moisture than warm air, the moisture condenses into visible water vapor, but only for an instant.

When the shape of the object travelling through the air is faster than the speed of sound in the air, the compacted air has no time to dispand and the shockwave stays. That front does not break apart as it expands from the object - if it would, there would be no sonic boom.

I hope this explanation is comprehensible..

There is an interesting analogy to Cherenkov radiation.
narcuul is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.