Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Video and Photography

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Antbug (antbug)      Join Date: Jul 2004       08-09-2007, 10:48 PM Reply   
Well the other day Joe called me up and asked me what settings I thought this pic was taken with. It got me thinking what everyone else would say. I know it's hard to just say something with out taking any readings from the camera in all, but when I'm out I kinda know where I want to start. So with all that said, what would you say your settings would be (in full stops) for this photo.


Game on....
Upload
Old    Taylor Jensen (wakeboardertj)      Join Date: May 2005       08-10-2007, 1:37 AM Reply   
judging by the depth of field, f/16, and the blur of the water, 1/30th. that has to be a lens with really good IS or shot from the other side of the bank with a tripod.
Old    Scott (scott_a)      Join Date: Dec 2002       08-10-2007, 1:44 AM Reply   
I'd say closer to 1/60th than 1/30th, but I guess it depends on the speed that they're traveling at.
Old    Walt (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       08-10-2007, 2:11 AM Reply   
I think the shutter speed was closer to 150/200 range.
Old    Joe Umali (dakid)      Join Date: Feb 2001       08-10-2007, 6:25 AM Reply   
i'd say not higher than 1/60th.
Old    Walt (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       08-10-2007, 6:48 AM Reply   
Notice how the house isn't blurred but the spray is. I think the shutter speed is faster than you might think.
Old    Garrett Cortese (garrett_cortese)      Join Date: Mar 2003       08-10-2007, 7:45 AM Reply   
Walt asked me for my opinion on this, so here goes:

The house is blurred some, as is the shoreline, but not as much as the boat. This is because the shot was taken with a wide angle lens. There is a lot of perspective with wide angle lenses, which means it would take a while for subjects in the background to "travel through" the frame, if that makes any sense.

This isn't shot from a tripod. It's either shot with a gyro/steady-cam device or just plain old handheld from another boat that is chasing the Ski Nautique at speed. If the camera is traveling at the same speed as the subject, then the subject won't be blurry (which is why the models have to hold still in shots like this --- you can see the young girl's hair is blurry because it's blowing in the wind).

My best guess is somewhere around ISO 100, 1/80th @ f13. I'm judging this based on similar pictures I've taken, and the fact that some of the spray from the boat is still kind of visible (it's not all one white blur). This photo I took is 1/40th @ f9 on ISO 400 (it was cloudy out), but it gives you a sense of the blur you achieve at 1/40th. Although, a lot of that depends on the speed the boats are traveling, as well. I know we were cruising at a pretty good pace for the photo of the Malibu, but I have no idea what that Nautique is going at. That just means there's a whole lot more room for guessing camera settings...Upload
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       08-10-2007, 8:09 AM Reply   
First picture is not very sharp and I'd bet it was cropped heavily. Garrett yours looks like it was shot with a fisheye or a pretty wide angle lens.

Joe's got to produce with that new camera now so he's smart in finding baseline settings. I'll guess f8 at 1/60th on the original.
Old    Scott (scott_a)      Join Date: Dec 2002       08-10-2007, 11:17 AM Reply   
x2 on the "cropped heavily" bit.

I'm guessing that shot of Aubrey staring back at the camera through the window was taken with a Canon 15 fishy.

Since we don't know the speed of the boat OR what speed that particular ski boat planes out at, I'm gonna guess that it's only going 20ish mph, and the shutter is around 1/60th @ f9, ISO whatever. Obviously this is an evening shot with soft light so I don't think that you're gonna be able to run the aperture up more than f10. And for the sake of argument, let's say that he's using a Nikon and can't run the ISO up any higher than 200 without making the shot extremely noisy and crappy-looking. (hah! kidding!) So there. Since we don't know what the final numbers are I'll leave my guess at that.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:15 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us