wulf
03-29-2007, 01:20 PM
A frequent challenge with photography is that light levels in different parts of the frame require different exposure settings, which is only made worse if you are also trying to do something requiring a slow shutter speed, like capturing motion blur. Take a look at these two photos I took on a recent holiday in Bristol.
This one is reasonably well exposed but boring:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wulf/437564051/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/437564051_051e0a8e98_m.jpg" width="240" height="159" alt="Looking Towards Cathedral" /></a>
On the other hand, this is more interesting but overexposed:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wulf/437564043/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/437564043_ea6b53fe5d_m.jpg" width="240" height="159" alt="Looking Towards Cathedral (Motion Blur)" /></a>
I think the result is much better combining the two and then using a graduated layer mask to blend them together, like a graduated filter for the camera:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wulf/438572457/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/438572457_c8e49a6e98.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="Motion Blur in Bristol - Enhanced" /></a>
In fact, if anything, it is better than a filter on the camera as I have been able to combine the elements I wanted from the two pictures. The fly in the ointment was that the shot contains moving elements (cars and people) and both were handheld (so didn't align perfectly anyway).
However, it didn't take much work, working on the masks (and finishing off with tweaking the curves to taste) to get a much stronger end result.
Wulf
ps. I could also have made the vertical lines straight but decided that I prefered the dynamism of leaving them as they were to complement the motion blur.
This one is reasonably well exposed but boring:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wulf/437564051/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/437564051_051e0a8e98_m.jpg" width="240" height="159" alt="Looking Towards Cathedral" /></a>
On the other hand, this is more interesting but overexposed:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wulf/437564043/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/437564043_ea6b53fe5d_m.jpg" width="240" height="159" alt="Looking Towards Cathedral (Motion Blur)" /></a>
I think the result is much better combining the two and then using a graduated layer mask to blend them together, like a graduated filter for the camera:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wulf/438572457/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/438572457_c8e49a6e98.jpg" width="500" height="334" alt="Motion Blur in Bristol - Enhanced" /></a>
In fact, if anything, it is better than a filter on the camera as I have been able to combine the elements I wanted from the two pictures. The fly in the ointment was that the shot contains moving elements (cars and people) and both were handheld (so didn't align perfectly anyway).
However, it didn't take much work, working on the masks (and finishing off with tweaking the curves to taste) to get a much stronger end result.
Wulf
ps. I could also have made the vertical lines straight but decided that I prefered the dynamism of leaving them as they were to complement the motion blur.