How was this done ?!!! ... it is a tough one :-)

Flyfisher Tom

Flyfisher Tom

Well-known
Local time
6:44 PM
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,974
Location
on the river ...
View My Gallery
I have long admired Depardon's work. But one photo really has me stumped on technique. Part of its allure, I suppose ;-)

http://www.magnumphotos.com/cf/htm/CPicZ_MAG.aspx?E=2S5RYDYGXIHT&o=TAG&MD=T

It looks like he might have panned the camera in motion with the fighter, but that doesn't explain why the ground is blurred, while the remaining background is sharply focused.

Any thoughts? 😉
 
I think he was tracking to the fighter's head and the legs were moving faster - perhaps was slowing down to start standing more upright such that his legs were still "catching up" to his body/head?
 
It appears as if the Depardon is running with the fighter, so it's not technically a 'pan,' more like a trucking action; however, it's possible that there was some additional slight camera movement (a panning-type action or jiggle) as he ran with the fighter (?).

that's my guess

🙂
 
agreed - definitely not panned but running along, combined with some slight 'inward' circular movement (ie the opposite of panning). If I am making myself clear.
 
Flyfisher Tom said:
I have long admired Depardon's work. But one photo really has me stumped on technique. Part of its allure, I suppose ;-)

http://www.magnumphotos.com/cf/htm/CPicZ_MAG.aspx?E=2S5RYDYGXIHT&o=TAG&MD=T

It looks like he might have panned the camera in motion with the fighter, but that doesn't explain why the ground is blurred, while the remaining background is sharply focused.

Any thoughts? 😉
Click to expand...

Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Put a thumbtack in the middle, and tie a string to the thumbtack. Now, from the end of the string, move around part of the circumference of the circle. Notice that a large movement around the edge is just a small movement in the center - more territory to cover for the same 'degree' of movement.

Now, imagine the photographer, running alongside and behind the fighter, with his camera aimed towards the distant building - that's the center of the circle. With a sufficiently long shutter speed, he moves several feet along the outside of the circumference, while moving very little with relation to the building. He was moving at the same speed as the fighter - only the fighter's leg, which was in motion not relative to the photographer, appears blurred.

This is a very difficult shot and I'm amazed at it, but I think I know how he got it. He didn't 'pan' in a traditional sense. He kept his camera pointed directly at the distant building while he ran across the street side-by-side with the gunman. I would guess he was shooting f/8 and 1/60 and moving like greased lightning.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Ok, I was trying to say the same thing as Bill but I didn't explain it as well.

I'm not sure if it's something he had in mind or if it was more of a coincidence though? I'm not familiar enough with his work to comment on that.
 
bmattock said:
Now, imagine the photographer, running alongside and behind the fighter, with his camera aimed towards the distant building - that's the center of the circle. With a sufficiently long shutter speed, he moves several feet along the outside of the circumference, while moving very little with relation to the building. He was moving at the same speed as the fighter - only the fighter's leg, which was in motion not relative to the photographer, appears blurred.


Bill Mattocks
Click to expand...

I think that is very plausible. But even with that scenario, I am still puzzled/amazed/awed by why the ground in general, and not just the fighter's leg, is motion-blurred while the actual building in the distance is tack sharp. Notice that the motion-blur is evident in large stretches of the ground nearly leading up to the building in the back.

In any event, I find this photo incredibly compelling and viscerally powerful.
 
Flyfisher Tom said:
I think that is very plausible. But even with that scenario, I am still puzzled/amazed/awed by why the ground in general, and not just the fighter's leg, is motion-blurred while the actual building in the distance is tack sharp. Notice that the motion-blur is evident in large stretches of the ground nearly leading up to the building in the back.

In any event, I find this photo incredibly compelling and viscerally powerful.
Click to expand...

Consider what is moving with relation to the photographer. We're talking relativity here, so put on your Einstein wig and start speaking with a German accent...

The building is not moving with relation to the photograper - it is at the center of a circle, the hub. A large movement around the outside of the circle produces only a small movement with relationship to anyone racing around the circle and looking in towards the center. The ground is not moving - but it is moving with relation to the photographer as he traverses ground with the shutter open. And as he is facing inwards towards the center of the imaginary circle, the ground nearest to him moves more than the ground closest to the building. If you look closely, you can see that this appears to be the case. The gunman appears not to be in motion, although he is obviously moving with great speed. That would be because he is moving at the same speed and direction relative to the photographer - what you initially thought might be a panning technique. The fighter's leg is blurred - it is moving too, but unlike the rest of his body, it is moving relative to the photographer - both in motion, but at different speeds/directions.

It is all about what is relative to the photographer. When I step onto an escalator, the world is moving relative to me. The world is spinning with great speed, but since I spin with it, it is motionless relative to me. In the photo, the building is not moving relative to the camera lens - the ground closest to the phtographer is, the ground closest to the building is not moving as much.

Again, my best guess. But that's what it looks like to me.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Looks almost like he might have been in a truck driving by and caught a low angle panning shot of the soldier, tracking him against the background. The legs and near foreground are blurred because they are moving relative to the lens. The head and far background are not.
 
Bill's explanation sounds right to me. With a wide-angle lense (looks wider than a 28mm, maybe a 24 or 20?), f8, hyperfocal, he may not have even needed to raise the camera to his eye.
 
I agree with Bill for the most part, but I also wonder if the photographer was as close to the fighter as he appears to be -- he's got a hell of a lot of DOF between the guy's elbow or hair and that distant building. I wouldn't be suprised if he were 20 or 30 feet away, and this is a major crop. There does seem to be some distortion of the kind you'd get with a very wide-angle lens...

JC
 
John Camp said:
I agree with Bill for the most part, but I also wonder if the photographer was as close to the fighter as he appears to be -- he's got a hell of a lot of DOF between the guy's elbow or hair and that distant building. I wouldn't be suprised if he were 20 or 30 feet away, and this is a major crop. There does seem to be some distortion of the kind you'd get with a very wide-angle lens...

JC
Click to expand...

If he used a super wide angle that would indicate he'd be really very close to the fighter. Even my CV 25/4 has incredible DoF at f8 already: set at 3 meter, the DoF goes from about 1.3 meter to infinity.

IMO Depardon was right behind the fighter, taking a risky run to get a risky shot. Remember that Depardon would most likely be unarmed and would need the protection of the fighter for cover to cross the street.

But did anyone contact Depardon to ask about this shot instead of speculating and even assuming he got this shot the "easy" way?
 
To the explanation why is foreground blurred - a nice example comes to my mind. Just imagine you are sitting in a car and looking at some distant hill through a side window. The trees and the road near the car move very fast relative to you, but the hill seems to be moving just a little...
 
RML said:
If he used a super wide angle that would indicate he'd be really very close to the fighter. Even my CV 25/4 has incredible DoF at f8 already: set at 3 meter, the DoF goes from about 1.3 meter to infinity.

IMO Depardon was right behind the fighter, taking a risky run to get a risky shot. Remember that Depardon would most likely be unarmed and would need the protection of the fighter for cover to cross the street.

But did anyone contact Depardon to ask about this shot instead of speculating and even assuming he got this shot the "easy" way?
Click to expand...

Remy,

With all respect, I think you mistook and misread the intent of the thread. It was to discuss the impressive skill behind the shot, not to deride or question the authenticity of it. Indeed, if you read my original post again, it was to share my admiration of it and his work 😀

I rank Depardon as one of the best photographers working today, so I doubt he got anything the "easy" way.

In fact, save for one comment made by one member (hopefully in jest), all of us above have expressed awe regarding the combination of skill and luck (the residue of preparation as they say) that went into this shot. Nearly all of us, myself included, assumed that he got it the hard way, by running in harm's way with the fighter with real possibility of getting shot.

I think Bill is right. He was up dangerously close, with a wideangle lens, ran step for step with the fighter, thus using his whole body as a panning movement, and got a phenomenally stunning shot.

As for contacting Depardon, I assume a long time and busy member of Magnum has better things to do than to explain a single photo to a photo forum, however esteemed our photo forum is 🙂 However, if you do happen to contact Depardon and get an answer from him, please let us know, of course.

For those who might be interested in the skills and mechanics behind Depardon, HCB, Koudelka, Erwitt et al., there is a fascinating film/DVD titled "Contacts: vol I":

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._1_1/002-7723454-2100017?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

It features each of these artists going through their contact sheets explaining the progression of their thinking leading up to the ultimate shot. Depardon presents his work from a sanitorium/asylum. Koudelka's presentation was quite interesting as well.

cheers 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom