Moving!

[chaman]

Scale model built by me from a popular film series (Star Wars). PP included WB manipulation to create a film look, flares and motion filter to imitate movement and add a sense of speed. I wanted to look as realistic as possible from the techniques used in building and painting to the way the image was taken.

269A1580-Edit-2 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

[chaman]

Two more from the same shoot:

269A1586-Edit-2 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A1578-Edit-2 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

[Shadowman]

Nice concept.

[chaman]

Science fiction is definitely not the thing around here....

[chaman]

Guess I should stick with sunsets, flowers, etc....huh?

[Urbanflyer]

Guess I should stick with sunsets, flowers, etc....huh?

NO--do what makes you smile!!!!~

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Oscar,

I applaud your efforts to try something different from our norm (and yours).

Unfortunately, from a technical standpoint, I'm not sure they've worked well enough.

Here's why I say this;
If that were a real, full size air/space craft passing by, it would basically ALL be blurred, most likely; the direction of motion blur would be in the direction of travel, unless you're panning even faster (relatively) in a different direction. Or far sharper across the board with good panning technique (obviously not relevant here) and/or a fast enough shutter speed.

However, all your shots have one part far sharper; the cockpit pod, suggesting to me that the softness elsewhere is a Depth of Field problem that you have tried to mask by using further post processing blurring and effects.

I suspect the only answer for the DoF problem will be focus stacking, but that's a whole 'nuther thing that I've never tried myself, so cannot advise on (beyond the theory).

The third works best for blur, but I do like the plasma lighting effects on all three and flare on the first.

A valiant attempt and one that alternatives of shooting (subject distance, focal length, aperture, making best use of DoF) might improve somewhat, together with a bit more thought applying the PP motion blur in terms of direction and overall application.

I hope my comments are viewed as constructive (as intended).

Good luck with a future attempt and I hope you do have another go and show us the results, the last thing any of us want to do is put you off experimenting - it's how we all learn best.

Kind regards,
Dave

[FootLoose]

Science fiction is definitely not the thing around here....

Well, it's not my thing so when I look at these things I don't know which direction they are supposed to be moving. The shape of the second one suggests to me that it should be moving from right to left but you have left space on the right of frame which conventionally suggests the object is moving into that area. Motion blur might clarify this (so to speak) but at the moment it isn't working. I wonder if you might have been too light-handed in your application of it.

Perhaps if you explain how you shot these images - your set up etc and your pp methods - people might be able to offer suggestions to help.

[chaman]

Hi Oscar,

I applaud your efforts to try something different from our norm (and yours).

Unfortunately, from a technical standpoint, I'm not sure they've worked well enough.

Here's why I say this;
If that were a real, full size air/space craft passing by, it would basically ALL be blurred, most likely; the direction of motion blur would be in the direction of travel, unless you're panning even faster (relatively) in a different direction. Or far sharper across the board with good panning technique (obviously not relevant here) and/or a fast enough shutter speed.

However, all your shots have one part far sharper; the cockpit pod, suggesting to me that the softness elsewhere is a Depth of Field problem that you have tried to mask by using further post processing blurring and effects.

I suspect the only answer for the DoF problem will be focus stacking, but that's a whole 'nuther thing that I've never tried myself, so cannot advise on (beyond the theory).

The third works best for blur, but I do like the plasma lighting effects on all three and flare on the first.

A valiant attempt and one that alternatives of shooting (subject distance, focal length, aperture, making best use of DoF) might improve somewhat, together with a bit more thought applying the PP motion blur in terms of direction and overall application.

I hope my comments are viewed as constructive (as intended).

Good luck with a future attempt and I hope you do have another go and show us the results, the last thing any of us want to do is put you off experimenting - it's how we all learn best.

Kind regards,
Dave

Not trying to hide anything at all. the blurring was indeed mostly added to create the movement effect. Here is the image without the effect:

269A1580-Edit by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

Looks acceptably sharp to me? It was shot at f/32 to minimize the DoF effect you mention and I think it gave good results.

I will never add an effect to hide something. If the image is not good to my standards I simply move on or try again. Thanks for looking. Oh and here are the other two:

269A1578-Edit by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

269A1586-Edit by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

They look sharp to me also...

[chaman]

NO--do what makes you smile!!!!~

You bet! Even if its misunderstood....

[Dave Humphries]

They are indeed sharp Oscar and I owe you an apology.

I just wonder why you blurred the way you did then, since it doesn't strike me as 'natural'.

For the one part of each image that is sharpest, that was (supposedly) the part the camera was tracking, so think about how the blurred parts 'needed' to be moving, relative to the camera and the sharp part of the 'craft, then consider the direction of 'travel' and the 'speed' - and it looked impossible to me - but I may be wrong (again!).

I much prefer the second set - well done.

Cheers,
Dave

[chaman]

I will experiment with blurring in Photoshop some more. No need for apologies!

[FootLoose]

I agree with Dave, there seems to be more movement in the 2nd and 3rd shots without the addition of blur.