something weird about this pic

[Roona99]

I wonder how this was shot ?

To me it almost looks like it was shot in front of a canvas because of the shadowing behind Tiger Woods.

It doesnt look like ghosting either.

Any ideas ?

http://www.hs.fi/kuvat/iso_webkuva/1135244768071.jpeg

[runninmann]

Is this from Sunday's final round? Even though you couldn't tell it from watching TV, it was getting pretty dark at the finish many (all?) of the photographers were using flash.

[Roona99]

it was getting pretty dark at the finish many (all?) of the photographers were using flash.

No doubt this was light with a flash. (thats why I posted this pic here)

What remains as a mystery to me is what makes that "shadow" behind Tiger.

[TMR Design]

Yes but the thing that's odd about it is that the shadow is not changing size, proportion or perspective as you might image it would as the distance changes. The shadow appears to be uniform from just behind the subject and continuing backwards on the green as well as moving vertically up what appears to be hill or incline.

[Wilt]

Maybe it was shot against a photo mural on the wall!

[runninmann]

Who is the photographer? Where'd you get it?

[DDCSD]

Looks like a bad PS job. Look at the bright white spot on the right side of the frame, right next to Tiger's arm.

If its not your photo, you shouldn't be posting it. You should post a link to it.

[runninmann]

Looks like a bad PS job. Look at the bright white spot on the right side of the frame, right next to Tiger's arm.

If its not your photo, you shouldn't be posting it. You should post a link to it.I think that's a towel.

[DDCSD]

I think that's a towel.

A perfectly rounded towel...

[DDCSD]

It is obviously a bad PS job. If it wasn't, there would be a shadow from the caddie on Tiger.

[Hermes]

If it isn't a photoshopped shadow, it's a dead ringer for one.

[runninmann]

Maybe it's a reenactment of shot #4 here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/golf/bay-hill-arnold-palmer-invitational/orl-bay-hill-invitational-golf-photos,0,7356699.photogallery

[Roona99]

Looks like a bad PS job. Look at the bright white spot on the right side of the frame, right next to Tiger's arm.


I dont think this is photoshopped. Like someone said it propably is a white towel.

This photo was shot by Hans Deryk/Reuters.

I found this photo here (http://www.hs.fi/urheilu/muut/golf/artikkeli/Tiger+Woods+palasi+voittajaksi+ja+jatkaa+maailmanl istan+ykk%C3%B6sen%C3%A4/1135244768164) This newspaper is the largest and most respected in Finland. I would find it very suprising if Reuters would offer altered photos.


If its not your photo, you shouldn't be posting it. You should post a link to it.

Im not posting it. Im hotlinking a picture that already is on the internet publicly availeable to everyone. I dont see any real problem with that, since im not using it commercially. Doesnt make much difference if I hotlink like I did or give you the link as in address syntax.

[Hermes]

Maybe it's a reenactment of shot #4 here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/golf/bay-hill-arnold-palmer-invitational/orl-bay-hill-invitational-golf-photos,0,7356699.photogallery

Could be. What I don't understand (and what makes me question the PS theory slightly) is why anyone would want to deliberately put that shadow there. It certainly doesn't look natural and it's edges & position don't match the lighting and scenery visible in the picture.

[Roona99]

If it isn't a photoshopped shadow, it's a dead ringer for one.

What is a dead ringer ?

[Roona99]

Maybe it's a reenactment of shot #4 here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/golf/bay-hill-arnold-palmer-invitational/orl-bay-hill-invitational-golf-photos,0,7356699.photogallery

That photo is obviously shot by another photographer just a bit before the one I posted. I dont understand what you mean by reenactment ?

[DDCSD]

Hmm.... seems to be a Reuters shot by Hans Deryk:

http://search.us.reuters.com/query/?q=tiger+woods&s=USPHOTOS#

Maybe it just is a really strange optical illusion.???

[DDCSD]

Im not posting it. Im hotlinking a picture that already is on the internet publicly availeable to everyone. I dont see any real problem with that, since im not using it commercially. Doesnt make much difference if I hotlink like I did or give you the link as in address syntax.

It is against forum rules.

[Roona99]

Do you guys think it could be ghosting ? The shadow is really wide for being ghosting and it is suprisingly even, but basically thats the only possible reason I can think of that makes sense.

[runninmann]

That photo is obviously shot by another photographer just a bit before the one I posted. I dont understand what you mean by reenactment ?
I should have included the :rolleyes: . I was referring to all of the talk about it being a Photoshop job.

[Roona99]

Hmm.... seems to be a Reuters shot by Hans Deryk:

http://search.us.reuters.com/query/?q=tiger+woods&s=USPHOTOS#

Yes as I said already earlier as I posted the original context.

Im sorry I didnt know it was against forum rules. I apologize for that.

[Roona99]

ok.. Looks like it cant be ghosting either..

This picture also has this kind of shadow, and this definetly isnt ghosting. Though this looks a bit more natural also..
http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/searchpopup?picId=9487263

[Wilt]

ok.. Looks like it cant be ghosting either..

This picture also has this kind of shadow, and this definetly isnt ghosting. Though this looks a bit more natural also..
http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/searchpopup?picId=9487263

And this photo would appear to blow the idea that I had, of it being a photo mural behind...no line between the floor and the wall, in the photo linked!

[Hermes]

maybe the result of a very long lens and a flash extender? like I said, it does look a lot like what you'd expect from a PS job but that doesn't really make sense in the context.

[Roona99]

maybe the result of a very long lens and a flash extender? like I said, it does look a lot like what you'd expect from a PS job but that doesn't really make sense in the context.

It most likely was shot at long focal distance.

If you compare it to THIS (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2009-03/45868348.jpg) photo you can see a quite different looking backround. This could be because it was shot with a long focal distance or it was shot from another angle and the target (Tiger and Caddy) were rotating as they were hugging.

I still dont understand why would a flash extender cast a shadow like this ? I dont quite understand what you mean by that..

[Hermes]

It most likely was shot at long focal distance.

If you compare it to THIS (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2009-03/45868348.jpg) photo you can see a quite different looking backround. This could be because it was shot with a long focal distance or it was shot from another angle and the target (Tiger and Caddy) were rotating as they were hugging.

I still dont understand why would a flash extender cast a shadow like this ? I dont quite understand what you mean by that..

The further away a flash is, the more defined a shadow it will produce and the straighter it will project it. In this case, it could be that the flash was far away enough and overpowered the ambient enough that the shadow was tightly projected onto a distant background (which looks strange to us because it's not something we see very often). Most plausible explanation I can think of.

[Lithian]

It was probably pretty dark so to get any ambient in the shutter speed would have been fairly long, 1/2s or so?

So, you use a flash and that grabs Mr. Woods in the 1/1000th the flash exposes right after your shutter opens... and then he moves... what happens to the area he moves into during the remaining time?

Assuming the ambient is roughly backlighting you will get a silhouette but since there will already be some exposure of the background before he moved it looks like a shadow.

Cunning eh?

[Roona99]

The further away a flash is, the more defined a shadow it will produce and the straighter it will project it.

According to my logic the further away the source of light is the longer the shadow cast on the ground would be.

Something like this. http://www.snapdrive.net/files/508472/flash_distance.JPG

please dont make fun of my sketch.. :D

[Roona99]

It was probably pretty dark so to get any ambient in the shutter speed would have been fairly long, 1/2s or so?

So, you use a flash and that grabs Mr. Woods in the 1/1000th the flash exposes right after your shutter opens... and then he moves... what happens to the area he moves into during the remaining time?



Yes. Like I said, ghosting (or what ever it should be called in this case) is my theory also.

[TMR Design]

That's why I said what I did in my post. The shadow is too uniform for the ground and background distances and perspective.

[Roona99]

That's why I said what I did in my post. The shadow is too uniform for the ground and background distances and perspective.

Exactly.

[Titus213]

I've seen this type of shadow before on the forums. Someone posted a flash picture at the beach and the shadow made it appear as if the BG was phony - it wasn't. Not sure what causes it.

[Hermes]

Yes. Like I said, ghosting (or what ever it should be called in this case) is my theory also.

I thought you said in your posts that it didn't look like ghosting? Either way, I don't think it looks like ghosting - especially if you look at the next pic in the series where his foot is suspended in the air but produces no real shadow/possible ghosting whereas his upper body does. There's also the fact that the dark areas/shadows seem to match the position of the subjects exactly. I still say it's a strange looking flash.

[Roona99]

It was probably pretty dark so to get any ambient in the shutter speed would have been fairly long, 1/2s or so?

So, you use a flash and that grabs Mr. Woods in the 1/1000th the flash exposes right after your shutter opens... and then he moves... what happens to the area he moves into during the remaining time?

Assuming the ambient is roughly backlighting you will get a silhouette but since there will already be some exposure of the background before he moved it looks like a shadow.

Cunning eh?

I forgot [url=http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/searchpopup?picId=9487263] this photo again. This would suggest this cant be the case

You can see a "gap" between the arm and the "shadow". If it was ghosting (or what ever it should be called) there would be no gap between the less exposed area and the flash exposed subject.

You see what I mean ?

[Roona99]

I thought you said in your posts that it didn't look like ghosting? Either way, I don't think it looks like ghosting - especially if you look at the next pic in the series where his foot is suspended in the air but produces no real shadow/possible ghosting whereas his upper body does. There's also the fact that the dark areas/shadows seem to match the position of the subjects exactly. I still say it's a strange looking flash.

Yes. I forgot the other photo :oops: And you are right I think.

[DennisW1]

What is a dead ringer ?


the opposite of a live ringer :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Roona99]

Still a complete mystery...

I sent Hans Deryk some mail. Lets see if he has something to say on it..

[DDCSD]

Probably a 500mm lens with a better beamer on the flash. Still looks fake as can be though, although I'm convinced that it is real now. :(

[Hermes]

According to my logic the further away the source of light is the longer the shadow cast on the ground would be.

Something like this. http://www.snapdrive.net/files/508472/flash_distance.JPG

please dont make fun of my sketch.. :D

Just spotted this. Your diagrams have the sort of shadow that you'd expect from a high light source like the sun whereas the light source in the photos would have been lower, thus throwing the shadow straighter and further. The sketch also assumes that the floor is perfectly flat, the camera perfectly level, and that there are no hills, valleys, e.t.c. which provide a background for shadows to be projected onto. I suspect that in the photo, the OOF terrain in the background is rising or the camera is pointed downwards providing a surface for the shadow to project onto. Like I said, this requires a lot of distance between the flash and subject which would suggest an extender.

[Roona99]

Just spotted this. Your diagrams have the sort of shadow that you'd expect from a high light source like the sun whereas the light source in the photos would have been lower, thus throwing the shadow straighter and further. The sketch also assumes that the floor is perfectly flat, the camera perfectly level, and that there are no hills, valleys, e.t.c. which provide a background for shadows to be projected onto. I suspect that in the photo, the OOF terrain in the background is rising or the camera is pointed downwards providing a surface for the shadow to project onto. Like I said, this requires a lot of distance between the flash and subject which would suggest an extender.


yes. My diagram is far from perfect, but IMO it still does illustrate roughly the difference between a shadow from a light source close to the subject and far from the subject.

Ofcourse the golf green is not perfectly flat but this doesnt explain why the shadow looks like it is cast to a wall very close to Tiger and his caddy. Even if there was a huge mountain or what ever hill behind them it shouldnt look like this IMO

[runninmann]

There were a lot of photographers, shooting from different angles, many with flashes. Could this be a factor? I remember watching it on TV and thinking to myself that I'd never seen a flash during a golf tournament before.

[Hermes]

yes. My diagram is far from perfect, but IMO it still does illustrate roughly the difference between a shadow from a light source close to the subject and far from the subject.

Ofcourse the golf green is not perfectly flat but this doesnt explain why the shadow looks like it is cast to a wall very close to Tiger and his caddy. Even if there was a huge mountain or what ever hill behind them it shouldnt look like this IMO

Have a look for some shots taken at high focal lengths with a flash extender as the main light source (particularly ones used on high brackets). You'll see effects similar to this.

[Roona99]

Have a look for some shots taken at high focal lengths with a flash extender as the main light source (particularly ones used on high brackets). You'll see effects similar to this.

Some examples would be greatly apprechiated.

[Ukuleleman]

A 'Dead Ringer. is something, or somebody that/who looks so like another thing/body that it could be that thing/body (If you get my meaning):)

[k_strecker]

yes. My diagram is far from perfect, but IMO it still does illustrate roughly the difference between a shadow from a light source close to the subject and far from the subject.

Ofcourse the golf green is not perfectly flat but this doesnt explain why the shadow looks like it is cast to a wall very close to Tiger and his caddy. Even if there was a huge mountain or what ever hill behind them it shouldnt look like this IMO

what hasn't been proposed yet is the whole concept of perspective

Plus, the diagram's completely wrong. I'll make one to show how in a minute :)

Do this. Pull out a flashlight, throw light on the wall, cast a shadow on the wall with your hand 12 inches from the flashlight, and then 12 inches from the wall. Which situation spreads your shadow out the most?

The shadow will get bigger as it recedes, but it will also converge towards the vanishing point on the horizon. It's not hard to imagine a situation where those two factors could make a square shadow appear to remain parallel as it recedes. Especially is the photographer is further back using a longer lens and a focused flash.

[k_strecker]

Okay, new diagram!

top-down view

light source upper-left. White line is a circle equidistant from the lightsource showing the relative sizes of the shadows cast at a given distance from the light source.

telephoto lens with focused flash will result in the skinniest shadow of all

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m317/khs6/diagram.jpg

[PacAce]

Maybe it's a reenactment of shot #4 here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/golf/bay-hill-arnold-palmer-invitational/orl-bay-hill-invitational-golf-photos,0,7356699.photogallery

Don't think it was a reenactment. Both pictures were taken at about the same time by two different photographers. :)

[EDIT: Looks like someone already said the same thing. :|]

Anyway, although the shadow does, indeed, not look natural, there's really nothing unnatural about it. The flash used was very near the camera but off to the left so the shadow cast by it would lookly exactly like it does in the picture when viewed from just off the side of the flash. It really wouldn't look long and enlongated until you moved farther away from the flash and towards side of the subject as shown in Roona99's illustration.

[DDCSD]

Just to clarify, one of the reasons I figured it was a photoshop job was that the image was simply posted and it was asked how it was shot. It looks so strange and so much like a bad PS job, I assumed someone had cut Tiger and the caddie out of an image and pasted it on some BG and added a shadow in for some reason.

Had it been identified as a Reuters photo from the beginning ( and, no, that doesn't mean there is no way it was manipulated), I would have at least considered the fact that is was an unedited photo.

After thinking about it and doing some research, It looks like it was shot with a 400mm+ lens and obviously with a flash. The shot was originally vertical, but was cropped to be a landscape shot, which explains the shadow on the right side of the subjects. It was shot a good distance away and the background is a good distance away and is sloped upwards. All of this combined for a very strange looking shadow that is almost the exact perspective of the subjects.

[Roona99]

Okay, new diagram!

top-down view

light source upper-left. White line is a circle equidistant from the lightsource showing the relative sizes of the shadows cast at a given distance from the light source.

telephoto lens with focused flash will result in the skinniest shadow of all

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m317/khs6/diagram.jpg


I agree with the diagram you made. This however is different thing than what my diagram is. Yours only illustrates how "defined" the shadow will be.

My diagram (or what I was trying to roughly illustrate) is about how long the shadow will be. If you take a picture of a person standing and you have the flash at his chest level and it is 2 feet from the subject, the shadow of his legs will be very very short but the shadow of his torso and head will be very very long...

[GenuineRolla]

This is what they did:

Took that shot, added fake bokeh and then did a heavy drop shadow, which creates that shadow behind tiger.

[Hermes]

I agree with the diagram you made. This however is different thing than what my diagram is. Yours only illustrates how "defined" the shadow will be.

My diagram (or what I was trying to roughly illustrate) is about how long the shadow will be. If you take a picture of a person standing and you have the flash at his chest level and it is 2 feet from the subject, the shadow of his legs will be very very short but the shadow of his torso and head will be very very long...

that's the point we've been trying to make - it doesn't matter how long the shadow is. As long as the flash is powerful enough and far away enough to project the shadow straight, it will look like it does in these images from the camera's perspective. The shadow in the original image may well be hundreds of yards long but this isn't apparent because the lens is on roughly the same axis as the light source.

[runninmann]

Don't think it was a reenactment. Both pictures were taken at about the same time by two different photographers. :)

[EDIT: Looks like someone already said the same thing. :|]

Anyway, although the shadow does, indeed, not look natural, there's really nothing unnatural about it. The flash used was very near the camera but off to the left so the shadow cast by it would lookly exactly like it does in the picture when viewed from just off the side of the flash. It really wouldn't look long and enlongated until you moved farther away from the flash and towards side of the subject as shown in Roona99's illustration.

I should have included the :rolleyes: . I was referring to all of the talk about it being a Photoshop job.Yeah, I know.

[Roona99]

that's the point we've been trying to make - it doesn't matter how long the shadow is. As long as the flash is powerful enough and far away enough to project the shadow straight, it will look like it does in these images from the camera's perspective. The shadow in the original image may well be hundreds of yards long but this isn't apparent because the lens is on roughly the same axis as the light source.

I guess you may be right. This seems like the most plausible explanation. (though it still looks kind of weird)

The flash definetly is more then just a few feet to the left of the camera, if it was shot from long distance. I wonder if it was this photographer who set up the flash to the left or could this be lit by another photographer ? The fact that there were two photos moreless lit the same way suggests that it was this photographers own flash located somewhere to the left.

[DDCSD]

I guess you may be right. This seems like the most plausible explanation. (though it still looks kind of weird)

The flash definetly is more then just a few feet to the left of the camera, if it was shot from long distance. I wonder if it was this photographer who set up the flash to the left or could this be lit by another photographer ? The fact that there were two photos moreless lit the same way suggests that it was this photographers own flash located somewhere to the left.

I can all but guarantee was on-camera. There's no way he had off-camera flash in what I'm sure was a sea of photographers and happened to have it pointing exactly where tiger was going to be after making the putt.

It is simply the distances that are causing the illusion.

[Wilt]

I can all but guarantee was on-camera. There's no way he had off-camera flash in what I'm sure was a sea of photographers and happened to have it pointing exactly where tiger was going to be after making the putt.

It is simply the distances that are causing the illusion.


It could have been a flash that is positioned to the SIDE of the camera on a bracket which is mounted to the camera base, like this one...

http://www.adorama.com/MZ54036.html?searchinfo=flash+bracket

...although the angle of the lens axis vs. flash axis would seem wider that this bracket could provide, judging from the apparent angle of the shadow to Tig'er body.

[DDCSD]

It could have been a flash that is positioned to the SIDE of the camera on a bracket which is mounted to the camera base, like this one...

http://www.adorama.com/MZ54036.html?searchinfo=flash+bracket

...although the angle of the lens axis vs. flash axis would seem wider that this bracket could provide, judging from the apparent angle of the shadow to Tig'er body.

Looking at the other shots that the photographer took, this is a portrait shot cropped to landscape. Thus the flash was likely mounted on the camera.

[Wilt]

Looking at the other shots that the photographer took, this is a portrait shot cropped to landscape. Thus the flash was likely mounted on the camera.

In that case, the on-camera flash is still too narrow an angle!

It could be a conventional flash bracket with an extension that elevated the flash even farther from the lens axis, so that it would be farther to the side if the flash was not rotated but left in its normal position (relative to the pentaprism). But even that would seem to be not wide enough of an offset to create the shadow position seen in the photos!

I wonder if a Kleig light was being used the illuminate the champion, during the post-game ceremonies?!

[Roona99]

I dont understand what exactly makes it more likely there was an on camera flash if it was horisontal composition rather than vertical ?

Do you really think there would be a difference with the direction of light when you shoot 200-500mm and you tilt the camera sideways and suddenly the oncamera flash was a few inches to the left ?

[DDCSD]

I dont understand what exactly makes it more likely there was an on camera flash if it was horisontal composition rather than vertical ?

Do you really think there would be a difference with the direction of light when you shoot 200-500mm and you tilt the camera sideways and suddenly the oncamera flash was a few inches to the left ?

If the flash was above the lens, the shadow would not be on the right side of the subjects like it is here. With the distances that we are talking about, it would be a significant difference.

[Wilt]

I dont understand what exactly makes it more likely there was an on camera flash if it was horisontal composition rather than vertical ?

Do you really think there would be a difference with the direction of light when you shoot 200-500mm and you tilt the camera sideways and suddenly the oncamera flash was a few inches to the left ?

I certainly don't! The angle bewteen flash and lens axis is verrrrry narrow when used with a long FL at a long shooting distance.

[Roona99]

If the flash was above the lens, the shadow would not be on the right side of the subjects like it is here.

yeah.. and thats why I said earlier that it looks like the light was off camera and positioned camera left. (much more than just a few inces)

[Hermes]

yeah.. and thats why I said earlier that it looks like the light was off camera and positioned camera left. (much more than just a few inces)

I would say that the flash is, at the most, on a bracket. Remember that if the shadow is being projected over hundereds of yards, even the slightest discrepancy between the positions of the lens and the flash will be enough to move the shadow noticeably off-centre in the final image

[Roona99]

I would say that the flash is, at the most, on a bracket. Remember that if the shadow is being projected over hundereds of yards, even the slightest discrepancy between the positions of the lens and the flash will be enough to move the shadow noticeably off-centre in the final image

I disagree. Only at very close distances to the subject small positional differences between the flash and the lens are noticable. When the subject is very far away, small positional difference becomes meaningless.

[Hermes]

I disagree. Only at very close distances to the subject small positional differences between the flash and the lens are noticable. When the subject is very far away, small positional difference becomes meaningless.

I'm talking about the distance between the subject and the background, not the distance between the flash and the subject.

No offence, but I suggest you go out and actually try some long-distance flash photography and see the results for yourself rather than trying to imagine and speculate. You'll pretty quickly see how shots like this are possible without the flash being off-camera, even if the example you posted is a particularly strange looking one.

[Roona99]

ok. You are entitled to have your opinion.

However, like Wilt also said in the previous page "The angle bewteen flash and lens axis is verrrrry narrow when used with a long FL at a long shooting distance."

I consider it pretty obvious also.

[howzitboy]

heres what i think it is. one photographer far away with strong flash fires his shot. second photographer shoots his shot with his flash less power then the first photographer but nuff to erase the shadows from guy hugging tiger!

[eeeksNYC]

other photographers' flash?

[DDCSD]

other photographers' flash?

I thought that at first, but there are 3 shots with almost identical shadow characteristics in the Reuters gallery I linked to earlier. No way he caught someone elses' flash 3 times.

[Curtis N]

Leo is right.

That's all I'm sayin'.

[howzitboy]

ah missed that part of the chat.. then was there a spot light aiming at them? strong one from far away?

[Roona99]

On another forum someone provided a similar photo.

http://www.hmltarmo.org/2006/gallery/sm-rata2/images/_DSC6172.jpg

The photographer told he used 1/320 f/2.8 and it was shot as vertical with SB-600 on the hotshoe. Focal lenght was 105mm with 1,5x crop body and the distance was about 50m. I find it suprising how small offset with the flash and the lens can cause the shadow to cast to the side so much even if the distance is 50m.

However, I think mystery solved.

[DDCSD]

On another forum someone provided a similar photo.

http://www.hmltarmo.org/2006/gallery/sm-rata2/images/_DSC6172.jpg

The photographer told he used 1/320 f/2.8 and it was shot as vertical with SB-600 on the hotshoe. Focal lenght was 105mm with 1,5x crop body and the distance was about 50m. I find it suprising how small offset with the flash and the lens can cause the shadow to cast to the side so much even if the distance is 50m.

However, I think mystery solved.

Good find. I'm glad you'll finally be able to sleep now! :lol:

It is amazing how pronounced the effect can be in the fight conditions. I actually tried to replicate it outside last night, but I couldn't get nearly the same effect. It w looked a little bit the same, but not nearly as pronounced.