Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Karve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,431

    Light trail with rider in focus - how is it done?

    Can anyone give any pointers on creating an image like this. I have experimented with light trails and they come out great but how can you get that light trail but also snap the rider nice and crisp. Any help appreciated.

    Light trail with rider in focus - how is it done?-slide3.jpg
    www.essexhertsmtb.co.uk - Mountain Biking near London in the UK

  2. #2
    offroader
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,145
    Looks like its probably prefocused using manual focusing.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Karve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,431
    Thanks for the tip. I guess the question im asking is more around shutter speed. To get a light trail like that id need a 10sec shutter maybe, but to capture the rider id need a 1/200 sec... how can you do that in the same shot? Or is it in fact 2 shots?
    www.essexhertsmtb.co.uk - Mountain Biking near London in the UK

  4. #4
    Kathleen in AZ
    Reputation: DurtGurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,133
    I suspect that is a composite image. Here was my best attempt to get a similar shot using a long exposure to get the light trails and a handheld flash mid-frame to grab the rider.


  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Karve View Post
    Thanks for the tip. I guess the question im asking is more around shutter speed. To get a light trail like that id need a 10sec shutter maybe, but to capture the rider id need a 1/200 sec... how can you do that in the same shot? Or is it in fact 2 shots?
    flash duration is only about 1/300th of a second. So it is a long shutter with flash (looks like two flashes off-camera).

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by epic View Post
    flash duration is only about 1/300th of a second. So it is a long shutter with flash (looks like two flashes off-camera).
    Yes, that's what I'm thinking also. Two off-camera strobes. One is to the right of the camera, about 90 degrees from the angle to the camera and the rider. It's lighting his arm and back, and the bike. The other is to the left of the camera, slightly behind the rider, mostly catching his face and the front of his right arm.

    It was likely shot with an open shutter, and the strobes were fired remotely with a Pocket Wizard (or something similar) when the rider was in position.

    Whoever shot it did a good job of balancing the light sources. The strobes likely required some kind of colored gel to get their light temperature to match the color of the bike's light. Otherwise, there would be some orange or green tint on either the rider or the trail/trees.
    Justin
    Salt Lake City
    2012 Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Comp 29
    2006 Specialized Allez Expert Double

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,102
    btw - I mis-typed flash duration is more like 1/3000th not 1/300th.

  8. #8
    gearstomorrow
    Reputation: singlespeedtoday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    56
    Here's a shot I did around this time last year.

    60 second exposure with a single handheld flash fired on the rock beside the rider. Trail was lit by a flashlight. It was done in near darkness to avoid any ambient light pollution on the rider.

    Click for large image.


  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,102

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    23
    Yeah, long exposure, then manually-triggered flashes. Easy to do with strobes since they have a trigger button (or remote) and the rest are slaved off the first. Really cool technique. But what makes it a strong photo (to the OP) is not just the technique, but the composition. See how the light leads your eye through the trees? It's really well done.
    John

  11. #11
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,146
    This image has been very retouched, we don't have the original, and we are seeing a small, pixelated version.

    Manual Focus; hyperfocal infinity to 11 ft. on a 28mm full-frame lens.
    5 sec @ f5.6.

    In this darkness a longer shutter speed is easily doable, with little or no effect on the image, allowing for flexibility at the start.

    Flash duration, given a 12-foot subject distance at ISO 100, could be 1/5000 sec at 1/8 power. Not something really critical as freezing this motion at this speed is probably doable at 1/500 sec duration. Keep in mind that we are talking peak output over time expressed in a bell-type curve, not a simple on/off.

    They didn't do this in one take.



    The strobing of the handlebar light is a curiosity.
    I don't rattle.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skiahh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    This image has been very retouched, we don't have the original
    Not sure you can say this with any definitiveness, since we don't have the original or any of the FXIF data.

    The strobing of the handlebar light is a curiosity.
    This one, I can answer. It's an LED light, so the open lens is capturing the on/off cycling that all LEDs use. Human eyes don't catch it, but a long exposure camera sensor will.
    www.teamnavycycling.org
    10 Pivot Mach 429
    09 Felt Nine Race
    03 Litespeed Tuscany

  13. #13
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,146
    Oh no you din't.....

    The rear wheel recedes even though it is not that much further away from the front, seen in wide lenses. Further there is keystoning in the trees off to the right, fairly pronounced even at a distance, as the photographer has slightly tilted his camera down. That gives another clue. If you copy the image from the center where the tree is vertical all the way to the right edge of the image, flop it and paste it on the left, the keystoning in the other direction makes sense with a wide angle. Also, it reveals that the rider bulges out at you. Again, wide angle.

    This tactic reveals something else: there is more image to the left which has been cropped out. That technique makes his appear "normal" but it is a trick. Judging by the wide angel effect from the main subject to the background with only modest distortion, it is a 28-35mm. A Normal 50 doesn't receded in the background as quickly and anything longer, an 85 is the next size, flattens the image. Anything wider recedes much more dramatically.

    I estimate the distance from experience and the view of a bike sized object. The image holds focus from the bike to infinity. That is how I get the hyperfocal, and infinity to 12 ft setting which can be easily be in focus at f5.6with a 28 or 24 but not possible with a 50. anything wider gets distorted. Even a rectilinear lens which can correct for its distortion gets wild as soon as you tilt it.

    Using a Nikon Speedlight SB-910, the dial says I can hold a 5.6 at 1/8 power at ISO 100. Such low power settings have pretty short strobe times, these are shown on an info table at B&H PHoto. The right light is at the riders shoulder height, probably on the shoulder of the trail, the left on the uphill side of the trail about nose height. I doubt they are anything more than straight battery strobes; small boxes at best, fairly close judging by the drop-off from the calf to the helmet.

    If I knew the strobe rate of the LED I could count the bar effect and find the exact speed: rate of strobing/x divided by number of strobe bars/distance. I'm guessing the speed of the rider at 12-15mph, based upon mtb experience and the fact that the position of the highlight from the back wheel behind him and his position indicate a bit of banking in a smooth turn, which is around 20 ft per second. That gives me a yardstick for the distance traveled as described by the light which puts the time at about 5 sec. Even if he was traveling slower I have time; its dark. As I said, in this darkness it could be longer without a problem.

    I'm a professional photographer. One of the exercises we do for grins is to deconstruct photos, figuring out how they were done. This goes way back to pre-FXIF days when you had to figure this stuff out. Definite? Perhaps not. I'm betting that I can show up with 2 910s on stands, a radio remote, and a 28mm and get pretty dam close right off the bat.

    The real strength of the shot is the idea. Good execution, from the technique to the art direction, is a given.

    BTW, skiahh; I did not see your analysis....and you won't find 90% of the info I just gave you in a FXIF file, definitely.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 10-19-2013 at 10:27 PM.
    I don't rattle.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: skiahh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    I'm a professional photographer. One of the exercises we do for grins is to deconstruct photos, figuring out how they were done. This goes way back to pre-FXIF days when you had to figure this stuff out. Definite? Perhaps not. I'm betting that I can show up with 2 910s on stands, a radio remote, and a 28mm and get pretty dam close right off the bat.

    The real strength of the shot is the idea. Good execution, from the technique to the art direction, is a given.

    BTW, skiahh; I did not see your analysis....and you won't find 90% of the info I just gave you in a FXIF file, definitely.
    I'm not saying you're wrong or that I understand most of what you said. But it's still just an educated guess and not definitive. You have a single picture and said, definitively, that it was "very retouched." (And, it probably is.)

    Another professional photographer might also have ideas of how this could be an unretouched image, too.

    Your analysis from the image on here is like me saying I can analyze an aircraft crash from news footage on TV because I have a couple of thousand hours flying and flew professionally for ~15 years. Sure I can... and many times, I'd be pretty darn close. But without all the info, it's still speculation. Educated speculation, sure, but it doesn't rise the the level of making those definitive statements.

    In all likelihood, you're right about the retouching and even the specifics of how it was done and no, I "din't".
    www.teamnavycycling.org
    10 Pivot Mach 429
    09 Felt Nine Race
    03 Litespeed Tuscany

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    20
    That was fun.

    EDIT: I was referring to the deconstruction process......

  16. #16
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,146
    Read the OP's initial post. You have made yourself irrelevant to the topic and contributed nothing useful. This is not a plane crash; it is far simpler.

    On the other hand I would appreciate the input of another skilled image maker who disagreed with me. We would both learn.
    I don't rattle.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    88
    Berkeley's post was way too long for me to consider reading. I'll try to make a simple approach:

    - Have the Aperture at about f12, focused to infinity.
    - ISO probably, 2000.
    - Expose the shutter for 15 seconds or however long the action is, it won't matter too much.
    -For the biker to stand out in just that one spot, you'll need to trigger an external flash from the side of him, which can be done with a wireless trigger.

    This should be all done in 1 photo. Photoshop would not be necessary.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    20
    Anyway, back to the topic at hand....
    .... if not shopped then surely a third strobe, no?

  19. #19
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,146
    What would that do?
    I don't rattle.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    20
    I don't know....

    How is the trail being lit?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    20
    Upon closer inspection....

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    20
    I originally thought the rider was lit by 2 strobes because his face is lit as well as his camel hump.

    However, I'd forgotten the wide angle effect, so probably one strobe on the rider's left and one to light the trail?

  23. #23
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,146
    Quote Originally Posted by I like bicycles. View Post
    Berkeley's post was way too long for me to consider reading. I'll try to make a simple approach:

    - Have the Aperture at about f12, focused to infinity.
    - ISO probably, 2000.
    - Expose the shutter for 15 seconds or however long the action is, it won't matter too much.
    -For the biker to stand out in just that one spot, you'll need to trigger an external flash from the side of him, which can be done with a wireless trigger.

    This should be all done in 1 photo. Photoshop would not be necessary.
    This is at least method with a grasp of principles, skaihh.

    My first contribution was concise. The second was to try and show how one can get there with a fair bit of accuracy. If a client comes to me with this picture in his hand and wants me to duplicate it this is what a pro does. I won't be off by much.

    What the FAA might ask you to do because you fly a plane is not relevant.
    I don't rattle.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugly View Post
    I originally thought the rider was lit by 2 strobes because his face is lit as well as his camel hump.

    However, I'd forgotten the wide angle effect, so probably one strobe on the rider's left and one to light the trail?
    I think you're right in guessing the two strobes on opposite sides. I usually do that approach myself for proof portraits. The other side can't be the continuous bike light, because it would not produce a light bright enough to freeze the subject.

  25. #25
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugly View Post
    I originally thought the rider was lit by 2 strobes because his face is lit as well as his camel hump.

    However, I'd forgotten the wide angle effect, so probably one strobe on the rider's left and one to light the trail?
    The trail is lit by the LED on the bars. The subject is lit by a strobe on the photographer's right, just off camera, and one to the left on the other side of the trail. These will freeze him.

    Note the difference in color balance between the strobe and the LED. They light different things so you don't notice that the LED goes yellow-green and the subject has "normal" color rendition. Highlights produced by the LED "look" white (neutral.) That is because highlights are either directly from the light source or spectral highlights, that is, off the glistening dampness of the trail (like off chrome or a mirror), so nearly as bright as the source. That is an over-exposure and any color over-exposed looks white. It is a basic principle of black-body radiation.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Light trail with rider in focus - how is it done?-screen1.jpg  

    Light trail with rider in focus - how is it done?-black-body-radiation.jpg  

    I don't rattle.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Focus vs friendliness... Questioning trail etiquette
    By crunky in forum Massachusetts
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-19-2013, 08:43 AM
  2. reba rl 29 air psi for light rider?
    By Gabe3 in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-21-2012, 11:39 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-31-2011, 05:05 PM
  4. Light parts for not so light rider
    By a2gtinut in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-09-2011, 06:02 PM
  5. Light Rider Light XC Wheelsets for AM/FR
    By mtbfan2 in forum Mongoose-Schwinn
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-17-2011, 10:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •