Question about movement photo with ghost image

[marclapierre13]

I have seen a few photos where they have that really cool effect, where the background is in focus, and then theyll have a moving object, and itll be somewhat in focus as well, but its see through.
An example is the one with the piano player where his hands are still visible and in focus, but see through, and then the piano is in focus.

Any tips?

 

[marclapierre13]

Example courtesy of Andrew Morrell

A example is this.

A great image courtesy of Andrew Morrell(hope he doesnt mind me using it as an example

 

[Lovesong]

I don't think that this is a PS effect per se. If anything, these types of shots require long exposures, and small apertures or ND filters. Basically, you're taking a picture of a stationary object (the piano in this case) and a moving object (the hands). When you take a long exposure, the images average out to reveal the stationary constant object underneath, and the moving object appears blurred and translucent.

 

[lucero1148]

ghosting

And if you're using a sophisticated flash that allows 2nd curtain firing you can control the ghosting of the image. Essentially when you snap the shutter the flash won't fire until the end of the exposure so if the image is moving from left to right and your shutter is set at 1/30sec the ghost trail will start from the
left and the flash will fire and freeze the subject prior to closing of the shutter.

 

[marclapierre13]

I don't think that this is a PS effect per se. If anything, these types of shots require long exposures, and small apertures or ND filters. Basically, you're taking a picture of a stationary object (the piano in this case) and a moving object (the hands). When you take a long exposure, the images average out to reveal the stationary constant object underneath, and the moving object appears blurred and translucent.

No, its not a photoshop effect as far as I know, it is something to do with the shutter speed I think, but I dont know to do it, hoping someone can shed some light on this technique.

 

[James L]

Just play with this yourself. Put your camera on a tripod, and set it to shutter priority mode. Set it for a shutter speed of 1 or 2 seconds, and focus it on something static (like a piano keyboard if you have one!). Let the camera chose the correct aperture for a correct exposure.

Now, stick your hand in the frame and take the shot. While the shutter is open, move your hand around.

What you will see on the photo is the static area of the image is sharp (because it didn't move), but your arm will be ghosted and blurred due to the movement during the long period of time the shutter was open.

In other words, the shutter speed was not fast enough to "freeze the motion" of your hand. This is a very common issue. Often when people complain that their images are not sharp enough you can look and see that they are trying to photograph a running puppy with a shutter speed of 1/15th of a second, when it should be 1/500th kind of thing. In your case, rather than get a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the motion, you want to go the other way and use a shutter speed long enough to create the blur from the motion.

Hope that helps!

 

[Westside guy]

Long exposures are also a useful trick to "remove" people from photos of buildings etc. - assuming they don't just stand in one place anyway.

 

[marclapierre13]

See thats the thing. In that picture it is NOT blurred. It is a little. But it is mostly transparent. But you can still make out the left hand. Its not just a huge blur...

 

[Westside guy]

See thats the thing. In that picture it is NOT blurred. It is a little. But it is mostly transparent. But you can still make out the left hand. Its not just a huge blur...

Well the effect is dependent on both the overall time of the exposure, and on the positioning of the various elements over that time. Probably the left hand was moved briefly, then held in position for a good chunk of the exposure (which is also why the right hand is pretty clear - it didn't move at all during the entire exposure).

 

[ChrisA]

See thats the thing. In that picture it is NOT blurred. It is a little. But it is mostly transparent. But you can still make out the left hand. Its not just a huge blur...

Here is why...

The hand blurs if it is moving while the camer's shutter is open. It is not blured if it remains fixed but it can e a matter of degree. It the photo the hand is not moving for half the exposure then it moves. I think this was the sequence of events

1. shutter opens hand is still, the camera records a sharp image of the hand,
2. hand moves so the camera records a blur AND the part of the keyboard newly visible
3. shutter closes.

The result of any exposure is NOT a recording of an instant in time but a recording of everything that happened while the shutter was open. Even if the shutter was open for only 1/100th of a second. Stuff can happen.

 

[termina3]

No, its not a photoshop effect as far as I know, it is something to do with the shutter speed I think, but I dont know to do it, hoping someone can shed some light on this technique.

You could do it in photoshop, laying one photo over the other and messing with the opacity. That said, it's much MUCH easier doing this the way it's been done for years–long shutter.

On a related note:
I knew a photographer whose specialty was having the bride "looking down" at the service from one of the upper corners. What the photog would do is get an exposure with the majority of the frame blacked out, with the bride "looking down" in the corner that was visible. Then he'd re-expose the frame, blacking out the corner this time, and leaving the rest open of the service.

You can imagine it works much better and easier in photoshop now…

 

[AndrewMorrell]

Neat discussion - thanks marc for posting the shot.

This is a pretty simple example of shutter drag. The strobes popped, illuminating the subject - moving hands playing a stationary piano. The strobes lit for a fraction of a second, but the shutter stayed open for 1/5 of a second. The piano player's hands continued to move in the time between the lights extinguished and the shutter closed, causing the blur.

I was lucky that the piano stayed sharp, because this was a handheld shot.

Here's a map of the lighting:

Here's the relevant EXIF data:

aperture: f/5.6
shutter: 1/5
ISO: 200
exposure bias: -0.7
Canon MarkIIN, Canon 17-40L @ 17mm

Here's the original photo:

Thanks again for "decontructing" this one.

Andrew

 

[marclapierre13]

Ahhh. Makes much more sense now.
Tnxs everyone for their contribution and discussion, and again for Andrews photo as a great example, and his explanation.