Welcome to Panachallenge!
If you are already a member, Click Here to Log In.

t t rss cal
    Home   ·   Rules   ·   Mugshots   ·   Challenges   ·   Stats   ·   Forums   ·   Help Register    

  #101 Motion
Entry 1 of 17
Street Racer       ©2011 Jade O.
Panasonic DMC-FZ30       1st place, 144 points
15s, f4.5, ISO 80, 35mm, Manual, Spot, no flash
Post-Processing: Crop, rotate, resize, layers.       Extra Info: None
27 comments on this entry
Log in to
add a comment

Apr 21, 2011
Believe it or not, but my next challenge idea would have been "levitation". Funny, don't you think? And yes, I was looking forward to see Michaels idea with the stairs, the second floor and the piano... LOL!
Congrats Jade.

Apr 21, 2011
    Fantastic photo Jade O. Reminds me of a TRON scene

Jade O.
Apr 21, 2011
    No problem, LaRee. I'll make it a point to indicate in future what my Layers were used for; it doesn't add too much wording and can help explain the PP process.

Apr 21, 2011
    Jade, layers in no stretch of MY imagination automatically assumes that more than one shot was used!

Jade O.
Apr 20, 2011
    Una - Finally got around to looking up "in dubio pro reo". Wikipedia has some neat info on it.

Michael - I don't save necessarily after each part of PP but I do use the same sort of shorthand sometimes to help me distinguish between versions that have been say cropped (c), rotated (r), adjusted (a), or panostitched (p), etc. Unfortunately, quite often the tag on my images tells me more than I expected about the result of my efforts, using the above, for example , dmc1907crap.jpg!

Apr 20, 2011
    Jade - I had the same problem remembering what I had done. Now I've got a code that helps jog my memory so I don't usm over another usm for example. I include a letter for each step in the file name each time I update; c for crop, u for usm etc. It's not perfect but it helps.

My suggestion is that pp be required with the entry but not published until after the vote. Lie you, I see this as a great learning experience.

Jade O.
Apr 20, 2011
    Thanks, LaRee. I'm uncertain what ALL PP used means, and I've simply taken it to mean (whether it was a requirement or not) that, for example, if you cloned out something you can simply say "Clone" or "cloned out distracting elements" as opposed to "cloned out the guy bent over tying his shoe standing behind the subject as well as clone out the orange construction cone in the foreground". Similarly, I've thought "Layers" meant the image has been manipulated most probably by use of more than one shot, or by major rearrangement of the existing shot so that you know what you see is not what came out of the camera in one "frame" to use an older film metaphor. Of course, half the time I can't remember all the steps used to make the image though I could in this one. And in some PP techniques, like some sharpening techniques to recover out of focus or motion blur, the PP explanation is quite complex taking, for example, up to sixty steps on one technique I have written down breaking the image into LAB layers and selectively manipulating each layer then reassembling.

But I partly agree with your concerns and partly with Mepo's. I think it IS important to list the basic PP tools used (which is what I do) and I also think it would help the learning process a lot to know just HOW an effect was achieved, whether it is a one frame shot or multiple layers. I often ask in my comments, "I hope you will tell us how you did that" and I don't always get a reply but I think there is a limit to how many demands we make of members. As for PP, I think in the digital age, it is a fact of life and not necessarily a bad thing. Photography is an art form and I believe in allowing the artist to use all the tools at her disposal - there is a sense wonder in a fantastic shot that was created "straight from the camera" that looks like it was manipulated but wasn't, and for that reason only, do I share Mepo's inclination to rate a great shot higher when there is no PP. But I will still rate a PP shot higher if it impresses me more. It's a totally subjective thing.

Apr 20, 2011
    LaRee - I had no idea that that was a stipulation at one time. It has obviously been long gone.

I have embraced pp and am enjoying the learning experience. Having said that, I still give more votes to a "natural" photo and usually downgrade any that do not include pp information (since it is supposed to be included). I think that if anyone states they have used layers that is enough for me to figure out if more than one shot was used.

I am undecided about the requirement for pp information at all. I see that other sites are also accepting many entries without that information even though it is stipulated. Perhaps it is better to just let an image stand on its own.

I'm not sure if I'm being fair but if I see a photo that is obviously HDR I will downgrade that also. I find it is usually overdone and (imo) flattens the photo excessively. Used properly it is an excellent technique that does not detract from the original.

Jade: That was the right decision. Please don't let Franz pick any more challenges - I will have to stand on my head in a bucket of water for his next choice I'm sure LOL LOL

Apr 20, 2011
    Congrats Jade. To answer your question, yes I do think ALL post processing should be noted. If an image is a composite image it should be clearly stated in the post processing information. It seems that Panachallenge has moved away from the stipulation that an image not be a composite in order to be accepted as a valid entry. The whole point used to be to meet the challenge theme with what a photographer could accomplish with their camera and not with a lot of post processing.

Jade O.
Apr 19, 2011
    Thank you each for your votes and comments. Honestly, this is the result when you have two throwaway shots (a cyclist and a nighttime highway shot from a bridge) and have no time left - you improvise! The how I did it is set out in my comments below; pleased you like the result though still not sure I would have ranked my own entry first!

I'd ordinarily pass on choosing the next topic in favour of a runner up who hadn't picked before but given the runner up is Franz....Lol!

Apr 19, 2011
    Congrats Jade on your #1! It was an highly skilled and delicate work.
Edited on Apr 19, 2011

Apr 18, 2011
    Congrats Jade! And, thank you for your message.

Apr 18, 2011
    I also wanted to thank you for the comments you left on my photo... I am flattered!

Apr 18, 2011
    Congrats Jade! I love this shot, you definitly took this photo to another level... I agree that this would be awesome as a large piece of art. You have a wonderful talent... You deserve 1st place

Apr 18, 2011
    The more I see this the more I like it - Congratulations on a well deserved first. I would love to see this as a large piece of artwork on a feature wall.

Apr 18, 2011
    Jade - Congrats on your #1. Well deserved. In my comments I was simply trying to say that objects are supposed to be smaller the farther away they are and that their position should alter with reference to the horizon. What the heck - it is a superb motion shot.

Apr 18, 2011
    Congrats on your #1. It definitely says "motion".

Apr 18, 2011
    Jade o nice one well done on finish. Wonder what's next.....

    Comments After End of Challenge    
    Comments During Voting    

Apr 18, 2011
    Very unusual. I still don't know whether I like it. But it says "In dubio pro reo" and so I put it in my TF to honor the artwork. :-)

Jade O.
Apr 17, 2011
    Michael, always appreciate your comments but don't understand the perspective issue. The smallest helmet is intended to be perhaps the same distance from the viewer as it would be about 20 feet away, the light trails start at least 200 yards away and - the horizon is, of course, about 22 miles at ground level - much further at 22,000 feet lol! (pre-metrically speaking), unless you mean I should have carried the helmet perspective back to the same point as the lights origins - I suppose I could have stretched the light trails to infinity using the perspective tool -certainly that might have looked better.

Thanks Noodler!

Apr 17, 2011
    Super shot. My initial attraction was tempered by the lack of perspective in the position and size of the helmet. If the helmet had followed the rules of perspective (and perhaps been blue :-) this would have been my first choice. Excellent impression of motion - am sure it will do well in the voting.

Apr 17, 2011
    Love this shot

Jade O.
Apr 16, 2011
    ac71 Thanks!

fc Yep, just two photo's rendered in layers.

Lo Thanks! I was unsure about the underexposed cyclist but I wanted to avoid colour details since I thought it would be distracting from the overall impact.

LaRee I, too, wondered about whether the image was "unbalanced" since the left is heavy in detail and the right starkly barren. But in the end I thought it added to the tension and kinetic sense of the shot.

As for incomplete PP, hmm, LaRee, what would you like to see in post processing?

Something more like: I took a plain black background and cut in some white lines (selectively cropped the plain black shot), then I took a photo of the cyclist and cropped out everything except the part of the cyclist you can see (selectively cropped the cyclist), then I took a photo of traffic on the highway from the bridge and cropped it so just the lights were visible and rotated it 90 degrees and layered it on the black background (selective crop/rotate/layer) and, then I resized the cyclist multiple times and took the multiple layers and put the multiple layers in a nice row varying the opacity of each layer (layers).

I just figured "crop, rotate, resize, layers" was enough to tell everyone what PP tools were used. If we are supposed to explain HOW we used PP then I'm definitely not doing this right!

Of course, fc stated it even more simply, this is really just two different photos layered on a black background.

Apr 16, 2011
    Beautifully composed. Layering the subject has allowed you to keep the crispness of the figure and lines. The choice of colours against the black background is superb.

Apr 16, 2011
    Incomplete post processing information I am sure. The shot looks off balance to me. Maybe a crop off the right side would help?

Apr 15, 2011
    Like this one a lot as I assume two pictures( one of the cyclist) and a road scene with traffic movement. The positioning of the layers has worked

Apr 15, 2011
    Very cool Photo! top contender for me in a pool of some wonderful entries.
Entry Navigation
First       Prev       Entry
1 of 17
      Next       Last      




1 of 17



Vote Stats
18 total votes:

1st  (4): ||||
2nd  (7): |||||||
3rd  (3): |||
4th  ():  
5th  ():  
6th  (3): |||
7th  (0):  
8th  (0):  
9th  (1): |
10th  (0):  


By Jade O.


116 Challenge

#69 45th
#70 27th
#71 1st
#72 9th
#73 4th
#74 2nd
#76 4th
#77 4th
#78 7th
#79 2nd
#80 5th
#81 7th
#82 26th
#83 17th
#84 5th
#85 2nd
#86 1st
#87 9th
#88 14th
#89 11th
#90 8th
#91 13th
#92 2nd
#94 8th
#95 5th
#96 9th
#97 4th
#98 3rd
#99 10th
#100 9th
#101 1st
#102 2nd
#103 4th
#104 3rd
#105 2nd
#106 2nd
#107 22nd
#108 4th
#109 5th
#110 8th
#111 11th
#112 11th
#113 13th
#114 2nd
#115 14th
#116 4th
#117 23rd
#118 10th
#119 2nd
#120 1st
#121 6th
#122 8th
#123 1st
#124 7th
#125 5th
#126 2nd
#127 8th
#133 8th
#134 3rd
#135 1st
#136 2nd
#137 15th
#138 9th
#139 4th
#140 3rd
#141 7th
#142 4th
#143 5th
#144 6th
#145 2nd
#146 3rd
#147 9th
#149 18th
#150 4th
#151 2nd
#153 2nd
#154 8th
#155 6th
#156 12th
#158 4th
#159 6th
#160 4th
#161 6th
#163 10th
#165 19th
#166 2nd
#167 12th
#168 5th
#169 6th
#170 14th
#171 13th
#172 1st
#173 2nd
#174 7th
#180 28th
#181 4th
#182 11th
#184 21st
#185 6th
#188 14th
#191 2nd
#193 1st
#195 13th
#196 12th
#197 2nd
#200 4th
#202 4th
#210 13th
#254 10th
#261 15th
#275 12th
#276 1st
#277 8th
#280 3rd
#281 1st
#282 11th

Avg rank:




1 of 17


    Comments? Suggestions? Problems? Click here!       Disclaimer