What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
54 Comments
- socialpyramid, on 03/09/2009, -1/+21is that a composite image? not sure how you'd get the girl in focus and the rest motion blur..
- effstops, on 03/09/2009, -2/+20The lensbaby wouldn't result in motion blur (directional blur), only depth of field-related blur, and panning with the girl would cause the window and the rest of the car to be in perfect focus as well.
The motion blur is definitely an effect. - ironicsans, on 03/09/2009, -0/+12Of course, all photographers who entered this contest, whether they win or not, "grant Smithsonian Institution a royalty-free, world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to display, distribute, reproduce, and create derivative works of the entries, in whole or in part, in any media now existing or subsequently developed, for any Smithsonian Institution purpose, including, but not limited to advertising and promotion of the magazine and its Web site, exhibition, and commercial products, including but not limited to Smithsonian Institution publications... The Smithsonian Institution will not be required to pay any additional consideration or seek any additional approval in connection with such uses."
What a great way for the Smithsonian to get thousands of free images they can use in the Smithsonian Institution calendar, coffee mugs, gift shop items, mousepads, t-shirts, etc.
Can't anyone hold a contest without a rights-grab anymore? - joshpass, on 09/14/2009, -3/+15Beautiful woman.
- Coffeedemon, on 03/09/2009, -0/+9Panning? That should keep the things that move at the same speed of your subject (ie: the car window) in focus too though.
- zuiquan, on 03/09/2009, -0/+9And it's also a great way for unknowns to get worldwide attention. Just think while you're at the next street fair and you see a photographer selling his pics while he prominently displays a "Smithsonian featured photographer!" sign on his stall and wonder why his pics cost 3 times the going rate and he sells them.
- ProphetTheRebel, on 03/09/2009, -2/+9That is an awesome photo...The expression on her face could mean so many different things.
- inactive, on 03/09/2009, -1/+6How can true real-time photographic skill be judged any more in a PhotoShop world? Nothing is believable.
- compulsive1, on 03/09/2009, -5/+9and this is awesome exactly why?
I take this submission as an effort to swing the vote by exposing thousands of digg readers to this particular image in hopes that some of them will vote for it. - don2779, on 03/09/2009, -0/+4IMHO the easiest way would be to create a new layer then apply the motion blur. You could then just use the history brush to "paint" the girl back into focus.
- DubiousDrewski, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3A lensbaby has a radial blur that radiates from a central point. The blur in this photo is parallel, so it can't be one of those.
- ldkronos, on 03/09/2009, -0/+3I can't tell you without annoying you.
- masterc, on 03/09/2009, -1/+4I don't remember what the technique is called, but you focus on your subject and press the shutter and move with it. That ends up keeping wherever you focused in focus, and blurs the unfocused parts.
- zuiquan, on 03/09/2009, -2/+4http://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/6th-ann ...
Uh no thanks, I think I'll wait for the next one. Even if it comes tomorrow or next week. - MLisa, on 03/09/2009, -4/+6Why do all women want to look like me? Impostor.
- inactive, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2either you're high, gay, or America's next top model.
- Cuchanu, on 03/09/2009, -1/+3I'm sorry ***** I didn't realize I was breaking your nerd rules.
- juttman, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2"Duck lady, there's a sniper!!!!!"
Sorry, that was probably a tad insensitive. - alski707, on 03/09/2009, -0/+2If you only have one image to go by, and not a collection or a photo-essay, it really can’t be, then again I’m not sure if that was ever the idea…
I think Photography has always been completely subjective, its one person capturing one subject, in one field of view, with one technique, at one moment in time that usually lasts a fraction of a second, he or she might have taken 5000 images of the same subject, but they get to choose what you see, in that sence in a competition or a news storey a photo is just a measure of itself and nothing else, it’s always been that way, digital and photoshop just make it a lot easier to get the intended results.
When I was looking through those I found myself asking stuff like “is that vignetting real or photoshop”, then I start wondering “does it matter?”, you can do a lot of things with real-world lens and film, does it matter that its not what the camera saw? at what point does it start being too much? Just my opinion but that does seem like that’s going to be our century’s big philosophical beef with photography. - Halfempty, on 03/09/2009, -1/+3She's blurry in real life. If the car was in focus, she'd appear blurry
- FacePuncher, on 03/09/2009, -2/+4And so she drove out of my life. With half my *****. Bitch.
- lelebelle, on 03/09/2009, -1/+2Beautiful photos. "Walk on Water" and "A Vietnamese woman selling flowers on the streets of Hoi An" are simply exquisite. I think my favorite is "A man washing in Malowi" though.
- web2pointYo, on 03/09/2009, -0/+1The only other way I can think of getting that right out of the camera would have been a slow shutter speed combined with locking focus on the subject (her face) and physically turning or twisting the camera body. Now that I look at it some more, I see that the blur of the car and the other passengers is horizontal, not what you would get from a camera twist. So she is not moving at the same speed as anything else in the shot (car, passengers, background). One interesting possibility, is that it was a completely lucky shot where the car was moving to the photographers right, while he held the camera stationary, or very slightly moved it to the left, and the girl was moving/leaning back/to the left, exactly when he pressed the shutter.
- MLisa, on 03/09/2009, -2/+3BTW if you just click on the first image it brings up all of them so you don't have to go through the slide show page by page.
- jbcorny, on 03/09/2009, -1/+2meh.
- dzneill, on 03/10/2009, -0/+1Maybe all three?
- hamobu, on 03/09/2009, -3/+4Purty!
- ohhector, on 03/11/2009, -0/+1unfortunately it's not! (reply was misplace...this was a reply to "Or...it could genuinely be a neat image.")
- inactive, on 03/10/2009, -0/+1Have you been to Las Vegas?
- npdcrazypyro, on 03/09/2009, -0/+1You could do it if the movement/rotation of the camera was just right. If you were rotating the camera to follow the car (left to right), but you were also moving the camera from right to left, a certain spot would be in focus, while the rest is not.
- ohhector, on 03/11/2009, -0/+1eh...this is a finalist in a contest?
- Frebs, on 03/09/2009, -1/+2Let me fix that for you: ...like a lot of anglo-saxon women are.
There's a big Latin world in the west. - PaulOwen, on 03/09/2009, -0/+1So its not panning, its not a selective lens and its not because the girl is turning to look at the camera.
The reflected shadow image in the car window is also blurred because it would have looked odd in focus. But it also demonstrates why the either the subject behind the glass window can't be in focus, or ... the motion blur was added in later.
Using photoshop. - Cuchanu, on 03/11/2009, -0/+1Yeah I realize that it's a ***** slightly racist term but it's still what people use to describe "white" countries. Also I wasn't specifically referring to white women, but rather the women in those countries. Obviously there are exceptions.
- DubiousDrewski, on 03/09/2009, -0/+1Or...it could genuinely be a neat image.
- withoutamartyr, on 03/11/2009, -0/+1It's possible the girl is moving inside of the car and he's moving the camera to stay on her, but that's a silly solution.
- dancantone, on 03/09/2009, -1/+1I got to de hotel for do sexy time with you! NO?
- Cuchanu, on 03/09/2009, -3/+3You guys have to check out some of the other ones. Some are ok, others are incredible.
- surf1punk, on 03/09/2009, -2/+2Even easier, get photoshop...
- Indolentron, on 03/09/2009, -2/+2I'm guessing the photographer kept the camera centered on the girl, and the girl kept turning to face the camera, so the orientation of her face relative to the camera changed less than the rest of the picture, resulting in less blurring.
- hijinks, on 03/09/2009, -6/+6its easy.. use a lensbaby
http://lensbaby.com - LifestyleBuzz, on 03/11/2009, -0/+0awesome photos, nice Post.
- dimplemonkey, on 03/10/2009, -1/+1There are so many stories that can come from this great photo. It almost compares to the feelings I get when I look upon the Mona Lisa smile. It's like she is smiling but then you wonder if she's about to grimace in pain? Was she about to look in disgust or was she pleased with what she saw? Did she know something that we didn't and when we realized what it was - boom - her reaction was captured? There's nothing conclusive about this photo and I really like the fact that I don't know!
- scarwars, on 03/10/2009, -2/+2Just because Slumdog won an Oscar doesn't mean I should like this picture
- Sheethappens, on 03/09/2009, -1/+0Easily done. You can even simulate this without using anything else but your own senses.
All the photographer has done is move the camera at the same speed as the passing car - eg, turning as the car passes - and took the picture. The fact that the girl was in focus is proof of that. Obviously the photographer may well have tried to take a snap and moved at the correct speed but actually set the focus at the wrong length and messed it but my bet is that he/she knew that car was coming and had either taken the picture on an auto focus camera of fantastic quality or had previously set the focus to that length. Interesting shot but I have personally - and accidentally - taken one a WHOLE lot better. My wife and I, on a hot Summer day, had decided to start a water fight and I had really hit her in the face with a bucket full of water and then ran like a coward and hid behind our outside laundry. I had been loading a very old fixed focal length camera before all this started, inside the laundry and grabbed it while passing. I knew she was going to walk up the same path I had run up so leaned around the corner of the laundry with the camera ready and snapped at the same instant that she threw the water. The resultant picture caught the water in flight coming right towards the camera with my wife behind it, seen partially through the water, smiling. My wife's face was reasonably in focus but the water was perfectly in focus. One of those "had to be there" moments to catch something that stunning, all an accident. - loudog, on 03/09/2009, -1/+0Shopped.....
- inactive, on 03/09/2009, -5/+2Do you think this is a chat room?
- Pippers, on 03/09/2009, -5/+0Why does her face have a shadow outline around it?
- Braxford, on 03/09/2009, -6/+1See You Next Tuesday!
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is