Comments on: The Making Of An Automotive Magazine Shot-Explained Visually By Scott Dukes

By: Vip Angkoon Klangchanee

Vip Angkoon Klangchanee — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 03:42:00 +0000

Thank you for your awesomeness.

By: Vip Angkoon Klangchanee

Vip Angkoon Klangchanee — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 03:42:00 +0000

Cool. Thanks.

By: pevanesce

pevanesce — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:48:00 +0000

Whoever mentioned tech geeks wasn’t kidding. I had a headache by the time I slogged through the first dozen comments. To the critics: This shooter is obviously working. Are you? You might want to consider focusing more on what you can learn from the article, and how you can apply it to making a living as a pro.

I have found that those who spend most of their time nitpicking others have generally accomplished the least.

By: Nède

Nède — Tue, 29 May 2012 08:48:00 +0000

well if you have enough patience…go ahead and read thoose 450+ pages
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=490505

very instructive

By: Juancho Monetti

Juancho Monetti — Sat, 26 May 2012 11:59:00 +0000

Yeah you can do it this way but I still shoot hanging out of another car going 120km/h, comes out not as good but more fun and I have Toyota as a client.. In saying that, this is cleaner, more controllable and safer. Thanks for the pointers :) http://www.juanmon.com

By: Hornk

Hornk — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:52:00 +0000

I think you’ve hit up on the key: is the axle moving. With the camera mounted to the car the axle is stationary in the camera’s frame. So you’ll have circular blur.

By: perceptionalreality

perceptionalreality — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:24:00 +0000

Crap, I just thought through this some more and now I’m thinking you’re right. Gotta love thought experiments! Time for some real ones. :)

By: perceptionalreality

perceptionalreality — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:15:00 +0000

Oh, swing and a miss! ;)

The issue here is the way the different parts of the wheel move with respect to the rest of the car, or more specifically the axle.

A Ferris Wheel blurs in a radial pattern because the axle is not in motion. But the axle of the car is. The top of the wheel is moving at twice the rate of the axle. The bottom of the wheel is stopped. Everything in between is at some point between those two speeds (with 3:00 and 9:00 positions moving at the same rate as the axle).

I’m really tempted to hook up my rig and do a series of shots specifically to demonstrate this, but I really don’t have time for that. But the fact is that regardless of the location of the camera the top of the wheel is moving faster than the axle while the bottom of the wheel is stationary (though only for a brief moment). At “3-5 mph in neutral” this would feel like a longer moment than at 80 mph, but in fact the duration doesn’t change, we are simply able to perceive more precise divisions of the circumference of the wheel. (Like the difference between a wheel with 6 spokes (or I guess spoke-pairs? as this wheel has) vs a bicycle wheel with dozens.)

Frame of reference is very important in physics, as you are right to point out. But here the frame of reference is the circumference of the wheel relative to the axle, not to the camera. The location and vector of the camera have no impact on the relationship between the circumference of the wheel and its axle. But it does seem like it would affect the ideal shutter speed at which to capture that effect.

Yeah, I’m definitely going to need to hook this up. :)

By: Hornk

Hornk — Fri, 25 May 2012 14:17:00 +0000

actually that’s only true if the camera’s reference frame is stationary. In this shot, because the camera’s reference frame is the same as the car’s the wheels would blur in a circular pattern.

By: Robertt1

Robertt1 — Fri, 25 May 2012 14:16:00 +0000

Well, welcome in the world we’re living in. The advertising has reached a point (long time ago) where the product must impress (or even shock) regardless of how it look in reality. No one seem to be interested in the reality anymore. No one buys the reality. Consumers like to be lied and mislead.

I like nice processed photos, but I think a product must be advertised as it looks and behaves in reality, not in ultra-special-particular conditions and ultra-processed. I buy a real product, not lies about that product.