USCG Tight Turn

[FrankMi]

I have been trying to make certain images more three-dimensional in appearance. After tripping over creating a 3D like image in this thread, Dave Humphries suggested that a really close subject might contribute to the effect so that is one of the things I am trying with this image.

The Coast Guard patrol boat was quite close when I grabbed this image. The image was shot as JPEG at ISO 125, f5.6, 1/250 sec and 186mm FFE. For ACR processing, the exposure was bumped +0.45, Blacks 13, Fill Light 14, and Clarity +40. In Photoshop I duplicated the image and applied Soft Light @ 30%, Motion Blur 23° @ 40px, and used a Reflected Gradient at about 23° to expose the Motion Blur for just the foreground and background water. In Topaz Adjust I applied a bit of Clarity to just the boat and wake in an attempt to get better separation of the boat from the surrounding water. Here is the result.



Comments and helpful criticisms are always welcome.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Frank,

The Coast Guard patrol boat was quite close when I grabbed this image.

Well it helps, as does the bold reddy-orange in the subject foreground.

I viewed this in the LyteBox before reading all your text and I was going to ask whether you had applied PP motion blur because I noticed it as being unnaturally uneven (sorry), but the answer became obvious when I read the full post.

My feeling is that if some of the water is motion blurred (as if you had panned with the speeding boat and used a slow shutter speed), then there shouldn't be parts of it that are so 'pin sharp' (in front, plus, to a lesser extent, in the wake behind).

In all other respects, it is a well shot and processed image though.

However, it is easy for me to criticise and I am acutely aware that for a variety of reasons, my photographic output is nil these days

So you can't even "help" me in a similar fashion

[NorthernFocus]

Nice action shot and the boat is crisp and well exposed on the frontal area. The blur doesn't look natural. It isn't placed properly for DOF type blur and if motion blur is intended then only the boat and immediate spray area would be traveling at the same speed therefore everything else should be blurry. Likely only another photographer would notice.

[FrankMi]

My feeling is that if some of the water is motion blurred (as if you had panned with the speeding boat and used a slow shutter speed), then there shouldn't be parts of it that are so 'pin sharp' (in front, plus, to a lesser extent, in the wake behind).

Hi Dave! I probably shouldn't have used Motion Blur and perhaps should have opted for Lens Blur instead. My goal was to increase the separation between the boat and it's track and the rest of the relatively 'busy' water. Next time I'll not use quite so much blur. It doesn't help when you create a noticeable issue while trying to minimize a lesser issue! Thanks for the feedback and comments! Sounds like you could use a schedule adjustment that will allow you to get out shooting more often!

[FrankMi]

The blur doesn't look natural. It isn't placed properly for DOF type blur and if motion blur is intended then only the boat and immediate spray area would be traveling at the same speed therefore everything else should be blurry.

You're right Dan, the post processing was poorly executed. I was so focused on getting the 3D look that I ignored the obvious. Your comments are much appreciated! Fortunately, folks like you and Dave are there to help me improve and are willing to take the time and effort to help out.

[dan marchant]

Hi Dave! I probably shouldn't have used Motion Blur and perhaps should have opted for Lens Blur instead.

I don't think the problem is the type of blur but rather the unrealistic way you have applied it. You have part of the foreground water blurred and part in sharp focus, which just doesn't look right.

[FrankMi]

I don't think the problem is the type of blur but rather the unrealistic way you have applied it. You have part of the foreground water blurred and part in sharp focus, which just doesn't look right.

Thanks Dan, the goal was to achieve separation of the boat and wake from the surrounding water to enhance the image depth for a more 3D appearance without introducing any other visual issues.

Based on the suggestions provided, I applied the Motion Blur to all of the flat water, including in front of the boat. I also reduced contrast and brightness of the flat water.

If this isn't sufficient, I'll switch to a Lens Blur and reduce the blur amount but for now let's see if this is moving in the right direction.



Your thoughts?

[Mike Buckley]

I'm going to go against the grain of everyone's thoughts and suggest another idea: I don't think any part of the water should be blurred in this composition because doing so makes it look as if you are trying to emulate panning in a situation when panning wouldn't be used. If the boat was moving less toward the camera and more from left to right or right to left, using post-processing to emulate the effect of panning could work because that is when you could use panning as a capture technique.

[Shadowman]

I might be confused in your interpretation of 3-D, but this image has very little surface area in which you would want to wrap your eyes around the structure. There are too many flat surfaces and the only curved surface is at an odd angle. If you are talking about just making the object appear to jump off the page then you are off to a good start.

[FrankMi]

I'm going to go against the grain of everyone's thoughts and suggest another idea: I don't think any part of the water should be blurred in this composition because doing so makes it look as if you are trying to emulate panning in a situation when panning wouldn't be used. If the boat was moving less toward the camera and more from left to right or right to left, using post-processing to emulate the effect of panning could work because that is when you could use panning as a capture technique.

I appreciate the feedback Mike. I agree that if the goal were to emulate panning, then this is not the way to do it. I left the Motion Blur in this version to see how much of a difference making all of the flat water blurred would make. In my next test I would likely change to Lens Blur and reduce the pixel count from 40 down to about 10. The goal is not to simulate panning but rather to find an effective way of increasing the separation between the boat/wake and the relatively flat water by decreasing the busyness of the flat water. There may be more effective ways of doing this.

[FrankMi]

I might be confused in your interpretation of 3-D, but this image has very little surface area in which you would want to wrap your eyes around the structure. There are too many flat surfaces and the only curved surface is at an odd angle. If you are talking about just making the object appear to jump off the page then you are off to a good start.

You bring up an interesting point John. Can you elaborate a bit on how you see the use of curves in an object to 'wrap your eyes around the structure'? I'm not quite sure how 3D and object curves relate, but certainly there were significant curves in this earlier effort that might play a part in projecting a 3D feeling to an image.

[Shadowman]

You bring up an interesting point John. Can you elaborate a bit on how you see the use of curves in an object to 'wrap your eyes around the structure'? I'm not quite sure how 3D and object curves relate, but certainly there were significant curves in this earlier effort that might play a part in projecting a 3D feeling to an image.

Hi Frank,

When I said curves, I wasn't referring to the edit function, but how light curves around a structure. In the art world, artists use linear perspective, aerial perspective, layering, tonal changes to trick the eye into believing the form they are viewing is multi-dimensional. As photographers we have to do the same, but we need a good canvas to convey that look. Your image is taken from a higher perspective or angle so you are limiting yourself to an almost single plane, where if you had taken this shot from a lower angle, you could utilize the depth of the scene the far off horizon, the height of the ship, the different tones reflecting off the surface of the ship and the water.

[FrankMi]

In the art world, artists use linear perspective, aerial perspective, layering, tonal changes to trick the eye into believing the form they are viewing is multi-dimensional.

Thank you so very much for the clarification John. That makes a lot of sense and plays a significant role in what kinds of subjects make good candidates for the 3D appearance.

[dan marchant]

Thanks Dan, the goal was to achieve separation of the boat and wake from the surrounding water to enhance the image depth for a more 3D appearance without introducing any other visual issues.

Unfortunately it is introducing other visual issues because what your doing is unrealistic. The wake of the boat stretches from the boat to the rear of the scene. It is the same distance from the camera as the sea and should be equally blurred. Unfortunately the human brain is very good at picking up on issues like this and it tends to cause a mental discomfort.

I use Lightroom and find that carefully adding clarity is a better way to get the subject to stand out. You have to do it carefully but at a certain point the subject tends to "pop" and separate from the background. Using the adjustment brush to select just the subject and apply a very small boost to the exposure/sharpening also helps.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree that if the goal were to emulate panning, then this is not the way to do it.

If the goal is not to emulate panning, I don't understand the blur. The blur is otherwise defying the natural look of control using depth of field and/or shutter speed. That explains why your treatment appears unnatural to me.

Even so, I applaud your attempt to do something you've perhaps never done to accomplish something perhaps you've never accomplished. Keep it up!

[Adrian]

Interesting thread

My initial reaction, before I read any of it was that the image was basically weirdly out of focus, to the extent that it was not pleasant to look at. I was thinking why did he choose such shallow DOF that only parts of the boat are in focus?

So I showed it to one of my colleagues and she said "the boat is out of focus and the water is worse".

Not sure why you have chosen JPEG. Surely that limits the processing you can do? I'm not really sure that getting a 3D image works. The brain knows that it is looking at a photo and analysing it I think my brain tries to "correct" what you have shown. So you need to find a way of fooling me. I wonder if combining two images: a sharp one of the boat and a panned one of the water would create the desired effect?

Please don't take this as negative: I hardly ever comment on threads like this and you have made me think.

[FrankMi]

If the goal is not to emulate panning, I don't understand the blur. The blur is otherwise defying the natural look of control using depth of field and/or shutter speed. That explains why your treatment appears unnatural to me.

Even so, I applaud your attempt to do something you've perhaps never done to accomplish something perhaps you've never accomplished. Keep it up!

If it looks unnatural to anyone then it still needs work, regardless of the intended goals. It is a learning process when trying something different and one of my requirements for these kind of exercises is to get a result that stirs the senses without evoking any negative reaction, not even a subliminal one. Thank you for helping me identify what needs to be corrected Mike.

[FrankMi]

Interesting thread

My initial reaction, before I read any of it was that the image was basically weirdly out of focus, to the extent that it was not pleasant to look at. I was thinking why did he choose such shallow DOF that only parts of the boat are in focus?

So I showed it to one of my colleagues and she said "the boat is out of focus and the water is worse".

Not sure why you have chosen JPEG. Surely that limits the processing you can do? I'm not really sure that getting a 3D image works. The brain knows that it is looking at a photo and analysing it I think my brain tries to "correct" what you have shown. So you need to find a way of fooling me. I wonder if combining two images: a sharp one of the boat and a panned one of the water would create the desired effect?

Please don't take this as negative: I hardly ever comment on threads like this and you have made me think.

I appreciate your taking the time and effort to post your comments Adrian. It really helps to get honest and constructive feedback by which I can learn and make improvements.

The reason for JPEG was the camera settings that I had available for a fast reaction capture when this boat swung around and into a shooting position. I was using a Canon SX50 which does not shoot RAW in Auto. I would have used Aperture Priority which is configured for RAW, but at the time it was set for Exposure Bracketing and the fastest change I could make was to flip to Auto.

As John pointed out earlier, it may not be practical to try to get a 3D effect unless you can use lighting to model curves which isn't effectively possible with this subject. I now realize that the best I can hope for with this image is to get the boat to pop a bit and with the negative reaction to trying to use blur to get better separation between the boat and the background, this must be done more judiciously to avoid having it look odd.

In this version I have applied a 10px Lens Blur behind the boat and used a soft Gradient to gradually introduce the blur. I also decreased the Contrast and Brightness where Gradient was applied. I also slightly increased the crispness of the boat and cropped slightly tighter.



Let's see how this version fairs.

[Mike Buckley]

Let's see how this version fairs.

Very favorably for me.

In this version I have applied a 10px Lens Blur behind the boat and used a soft Gradient to gradually introduce the blur.

It's not that the blur is being introduced gradually per se. It's that using a gradient to apply the blur emulates the look you would have achieved if you had used a larger aperture that renders the background more and more out of focus the farther away the background is from the camera.

[LocalHero1953]

I would like to see what the image looks like without any effects applied, for comparison. Aside from 3-D (and I'm not sure if I would recognise this in a 2-D image ), I think what you want is for the eye to be drawn to the boat and the spray, and not be distracted by anything elsewhere. You have chosen colour, which I like, though others might choose B&W for such an image. The benefit of colour is that the orange of the boat is the immediate eye catcher. Everyone has their own approach, but I would be tempted to experiment with enhancing contrast and clarity (not too much of the latter - keep an eye on it at 100% view), and maybe saturation, on the boat and spray, and maybe decrease saturation and clarity on the rest of the sea.

Edit PS I have to say I don't see this as particularly close up, given that your lens was at 186mm. At this length, you get a lot of foreshortening, and the subject would have to be much much closer to see DOF effects. I think getting lower and closer (in a boat?) with a shorter lens, would allow you to play with other elements, eg distant boats or coastline and maybe DOF to demonstrate depth.