What is Digg?72 Comments
- shewasjustagrl, on 12/01/2007, -1/+62Major kudos for being able to sit completely still for 20 seconds.
- bonlebon, on 12/01/2007, -0/+30And all the security guards from malls across America will yell: "Damn you Digg...."
- moofer, on 12/01/2007, -0/+23The escalator is not a toy. It is to be feared and respected.
- invader, on 12/01/2007, -0/+23A lot of people thought the original was fake.. That's why I went to all the effort to go back, film the explanation, and show others how to do it. And you still think it's fake?? I guess it's a lost cause.
I recommend that you go try it out, though. It's the best way to convince you that it's possible and EASY. - invader, on 12/01/2007, -1/+14If your mom's basement has an escalator...
- darlyn, on 12/01/2007, -0/+13I would try that if I could find a place completely void of other people.
- ki85squared, on 12/01/2007, -0/+13Link to this Digg story: http://digg.com/design/Awesome_Photography_Techniq ...
- nomadishere, on 12/01/2007, -2/+12Very cool lighting
- tempusrob, on 12/01/2007, -0/+9Look at the original on Flickr, though ... not so sharp. Scaling works wonders. :)
- davidrools, on 12/01/2007, -0/+9that's what first made me think it had to be post processed: his face is still so sharp after a 20 second exposure
- blackmesa, on 12/02/2007, -0/+9It's not as impossible as you think. In a 20 sec exposure, if you were sitting still you wouldn't end up with a blur of all the light evenly distributed through the frame as much as you'd get an 'average' of all the light reflected off your face. As long as you were mostly in one spot, it wouldn't look very blurred. Try it yourself; set a camera to do 20 seconds, stand behind the camera, press the shutter release, then wait a few seconds, walk in front of the camera, stand still for 10 seconds or so, and walk out of the frame again. You'll get a fairly unblurred photo of yourself. Now do the same just sitting there (you're not walking in and out of the frame) and the blur is reduced even further. If there were only *tiny* movements in a person when you did a long exposure, then you'd get that airbrushed look on the cover of magazines.
- invader, on 12/01/2007, -1/+10Link to your useless comment on this Digg story: http://digg.com/design/Awesome_Photography_Techniq ...
- acmephoto, on 12/01/2007, -1/+9Brian Shaler looks like a different guy nearly every time I see his mug online. He must have a new "do" or something, or maybe it's his stunt double?!
- Stalks, on 12/01/2007, -6/+14Surely with a 20 second shutter speed, he can't possibly stay absolutely still whilst riding down an escalator. Meaning the image of him would be blurry as well?
Unless, god forbid, it was edited after wards. :O - controlguy, on 12/01/2007, -2/+9I believe there are 2 factors working in favor of the photographer: (1) Low aperture and (2) Reduced resolution.
By using a low aperture and longer exposure, the camera acts like a low-pass filter on movement. This is because each "update" of the LCD receives very little light. I just tried this by taking a picture of a light using a high f-stop and 8" exposure. Even though I waved my hand many times quickly across the light as the picture was being taken, all you can see in the photo is the light.
Also, by showing you the low-resolution photo, the perception of blue is also reduced. For example, it's commonplace to take a photo in low-light and think it looks great on the LCD only to find that the actual full-resolution photo has significant blurs after you download it to the PC. Again, this can be attributed to a low-pass filter effect on movement. - selrahc, on 12/01/2007, -1/+6Link to Woot: http://www.woot.com/
- MattM462, on 12/01/2007, -1/+6Link to the photo story: http://digg.com/design/Awesome_Long_Exposure_Escal ...
Link to the photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotizmo/396179226/ - RajDhillon, on 12/01/2007, -0/+4It was just the video camera settings. The exposure on the video camera made the picture on the cameras live view come out too bright.
- rYno, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4nice technique - dugg for local az guy and because I work right by that escalator... :)
- invader, on 12/01/2007, -0/+4Look at the full size: http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2074648327&siz ...
It's a little blurry, but it would have been more apparent if I had uploaded the largest resolution.
I did very light processing on this image to make the colors a little more vibrant and a small amount of sharpening. The image is not a composite, though, as that would defeat the purpose of showing people how to do it with one photo. - santaliqueur, on 12/01/2007, -0/+4Camera Toss? Maybe if I had a cheap point & shoot. Surely not trying that with my D200 and 18-200 VR. /photography e-pen0r
- invader, on 12/01/2007, -0/+4You can use the light meter on your camera (if it has one) and 0 EV is fine. I shot with a little until +1 EV. The remark about the setting not being right was with the camcorder. I set the camcorder's shutter speed manually to be a little slower because I was in a dark room. When I put the camera's LCD in front of the camcorder, it didn't automatically adjust to view the image. The image appeared fine on the LCD.
- zspeed78, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4I thought this had something to do with the Light Speed University girls hahah
- basye, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3I saw a kid riding an escalator once, who then fell and died on the spot. Escalators are scary!
- myst77, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3instead, you could use motion blur in photoshop and avoid looking completely numb sitting still in front of a camera for about 20 second on a public escalator!
- Yazoo, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3Link to Google: http://www.google.com
(cant forget google) - GloriaH, on 12/01/2007, -0/+3Fabulous - thank you
- Lane, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3sitting still for 20 seconds was the only way photos could be taken originally before the invention of the flash. Why do you think no one in early photos is smiling!
- cheeseylaalaa, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4Wow, another long exposure photograph
- darlyn, on 12/01/2007, -1/+4OK, mostreliable, I meant some place where I wouldn't disturb someone else while trying to do this.
- strkt9, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2A 3 or 4 second photo would be a lot sharper and you would get the same effect.
- dukem72, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2Right on, thanks for clearing that out.
- santaliqueur, on 12/01/2007, -0/+2I realize the 18-200 is not a pro lens, but it's still sweet. The 70-200 2.8 VR is the lens I drool over. Someday, it shall be mine.
- RoroCo, on 12/02/2007, -2/+4Even with a A setting at 9 (like he mentioned), you would need a ND filter to reduce the amount of light required to properly expose a 20 sec shot. A shot with a naked lens from the camera for a 20 sec shot would be plain white. Also, like FTLJohnson mentioned, it is nearly impossible to stay still for a close up 20 sec shot on flat ground - much less on an escalator. I am usually not one to automatically claim its a fake, but for that type of shot, there is too much moving around to produce a picture that sharp.
All that being said - it is still a hell of a shot regardless of the processing he used.
Good work! - invader, on 12/01/2007, -1/+3Link to the "how to" video: http://www.viddler.com/explore/brianshaler/videos/ ...
- plebeian, on 12/02/2007, -0/+2thanks for posting this. i was hoping some more safety conscious folks would represent here.
- selrahc, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Not everyone is ADD.
- davidrools, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Yeah I was being totally sarcastic...playing on the whole Photoshop thing with a video twist. It's an awesome creative technique with a wonderful result, especially with that particular escalator (dark-ish with colored lights behind).
Have you tried it on the "up" escalator? - invader, on 12/01/2007, -2/+3Also rub on a light layer of Unsharp Mask ;-)
- solecist, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Cool shot - nice use of - um - patience
- grumpyrain, on 12/02/2007, -1/+2Even so, something does not quite add up.
It is 6 seconds not 20. I checked the exposure in my lounge room without lights and only natural light from the back door in ISO100 F/5.6 at 21mm for 6 seconds is about 5 stops too bright, and no other filters were mentioned. There is also obviously stronger lighting in a shopping complex than this room right now, so I can't see how this worked.
I don't want to take away from the photo, it is still a really interesting effect.
Make - Canon
Model - Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 240
YResolution - 240
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
DateTime - 2007:02:20 00:15:23
Artist - unknown
ExifOffset - 252
ExposureTime - 6 seconds
FNumber - 5.60
ExposureProgram - Manual control
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:02:19 20:19:44
ShutterSpeedValue - 6 seconds
ApertureValue - F 5.60
ExposureBiasValue - 0
MaxApertureValue - F 3.51
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
Flash - Not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 21 mm
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 3456
ExifImageHeight - 2304 - davidrools, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1f/5.6 is too wide
- reddikilowatt, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1In the early days of photography, it was common for exposures to be very long, 30 or more seconds. That's why everyone looks so stiff.
When I was doing a lot of long exposure stuff in the old days, I could handhold my camera for a full second and still get great results, even though every photography book said that it was impossible. Sitting still for 20 sec should be a piece of cake. - SyntraFTW, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1Heh, if only.
- grumpyrain, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1> f/5.6 is too wide
I didn't make those figures up, they are in the EXIF linked from TFA.
For a 6 second exposure under that lighting, F/5.6 should have been well and truly blown. But on the other hand, it is 21mm so the only way to achieve such short DOF is with a wide-ish aperture.
I can only presume he had some sort of ND filter. - cdg52, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1 I do 20 seconds all the time with my one buddy late at night, its simple to hold still... unless you know you have ADD and you fidget a lot. But even the first shot was 6 and that can be done easy, also the Rebel XT takes 8mp images so with the size he's outputting you wont notice the blur at all, and if you look at the large prints of both images, you do see the minor blur at the small size formats due to they are only 72dpi... when the rebel outputs 300 by default.
- selen, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0I have ever seen the best lighting and completely void of other people.
It is to be feared and respected.
Nice technique - dugg for
http://www.onlineflashgames.org
http://www.bid-directory.net - godofblog, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0To get great video out of the Aiptek, follow a few rules. (1) NEVER use the digital zoom function -- always keep it zoomed out. Move closer to your subject if you want it to fill more of the frame. (2) Remember to use the manual focus switch -- macro for around 20 inch away close-ups, the medium postion for a bit farther away, and the full infinity position for anything more than about 6 to 8 feet or so away from the lens. (3) Hold the camera as steady as possible if it's a hand-held shot, and if possible use a tripod. (4) Use the white balance feature as necessary depending on your light source. (5) Pay attention to the basic prinicples of good photography, i.e. the "rule of thirds" -- if you don't know what that means, look it up on Wikipedia.
more info http://astore.amazon.com/aiptek.digital.camcorder- ... - mhmdkhamis, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0When he showed the "final" result on his camera the shot looked over exposed, he did say something in regards to the setting not being right.
So can someone explain to me please if you need to make the shot under expose or is there any other trick to this. Thanks.
http://download.paramegsoft.com/ -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is