The Art of Panning (Without Panning)

[tforonda]

Panning is a skill that I still need a lot of practice. These shots were taken with a high shutter speed. The panning effect done in Photoshop. Comments welcome.

[tforonda]

More

[robam]

These are cool.

What are the steps for doing this in PS?

You can PM them to if you like

Regards

Rob

[Terry66]

No question that panning is an art. I struggle with it to this day. Please share your photoshop technique?!?

Here is one of my favorite panning shots.

http://www.creativesportsimaging.com/Speed.jpg

[tforonda]

Thanks guys.
All I did was:- used the lasso tool around the car, once that's done right click on the car and chose "Select Inverse". This will select everything (the background) but the car. Now you can apply "Motion Blur" on the selected area (background). Play around with slider how much blur you want. Also don't forget to apply some "radial Blur" on the wheels. You may wish to do all this on a duplicate layer. I hope this help, if not, let me know and I'll write it properly and repost or PM.

[tforonda]

No question that panning is an art. I struggle with it to this day. Please share your photoshop technique?!?

Here is one of my favorite panning shots.


Good one Terry. When I get as good as you, I wouldn't have to cheat with Photoshop. Nice shot

[R Mutt]

I can't express enough how much I despise photoshop blur, I don't think it captures the process accurately and you can usually tell it's been shopped.

[myth337]

... was just going to comment on how sharp the cars were for such a fast pan...
and then i read your point about the PS stuff.

either way.. nicely done.

[tforonda]

I can't express enough how much I despise photoshop blur, I don't think it captures the process accurately and you can usually tell it's been shopped.
Thanks for your input. All comments are welcome.

[JPE Motorsport]

i love the technique really enharnces the photo

cheers for that

[tforonda]

... was just going to comment on how sharp the cars were for such a fast pan...
and then i read your point about the PS stuff.

either way.. nicely done.
i love the technique really enharnces the photo

cheers for that
Thank you both for comments.

[Trackday.Net]

It looks great. Next time though, don't blur the calipers.

[Keiffer]

Love it! Excellent shots and very nice ps work. Thanks for the tip on the radial blur for the tires, I probably would have overlooked that one. LOL

[tforonda]

It looks great. Next time though, don't blur the calipers.
Thanks for your comment and thanks for the tip.

[DwightMcCann]

Excellent images ... grand PS technique.

[Dave_G]

Tony - I think they look great but maybe look a bit over photoshopped.

Here are the same two cars (@ Brands Hatch last weekend) panned at 1/100s for the Richard Chamberlain 935 and 1/160s for the Rupert Lewin 996, with only saturation and unsharp mask added :)

http://images12.fotki.com/v211/photos/1/105162/2591051/IMG_3809ps-vi.jpg

http://images12.fotki.com/v217/photos/1/105162/2591051/IMG_3835ps-vi.jpg

[tforonda]

Excellent images ... grand PS technique.
Thanks Dwight.

[tforonda]

Tony - I think they look great but maybe look a bit over photoshopped.

Here are the same two cars (@ Brands Hatch last weekend) panned at 1/100s for the Richard Chamberlain 935 and 1/160s for the Rupert Lewin 996, with only saturation and unsharp mask added :)

Thanks Dave. Your pics looks great. One day I'll be able to produce shots like them without the aid of Photoshop. Thanks again for your input.

[Dave_G]

I think panning is easy...was the first thing I tried with mine....but have had a bit of practice

[pcasciola]

Don't hate me for this, but I actually like the Photoshop'd shot of the silver #16 Porsche a lot better than the real pan. The car looks much sharper and it looks like a 1/60th pan, making the car really pop off that background. Really gives the feeling of speed.

Nicely done Tony.

[Dave_G]

I HATE YOU! not really.

I know what you mean - it pops right out at you.

[Dave_G]

the good thing about digital is you can use PP to correct some of the shortfalls your photos may have - I'm not too good with photoshop so try to get my images as close to how I like them when I take them.

Just some saturation and a little unsharp mask again on this
http://images14.fotki.com/v205/photos/1/105162/2591051/IMG_3811ps-vi.jpg

[KennyG]

My view of using PS to correct or fake in this way is that it does not encourage the photographer to improve his skills. They are easily spotted as fakes and can only be admired for the PS techniques. The difference between Dave's real pan shots and the fakes is dramatic. I am sorry, but they are not truly representitive pictures of cars in action and you could do the same with your car parked on the street.

Panning is an easy skill to learn and you can even do it with a cheap P&S camera given enough practice. I have done pan shots with my wife's Pro-1 for goodness sake. There is no need fake it, just bite the bullet and learn how to do it properly.

[Dave_G]

I managed this with an Ixus 500...like KG says it's an easy one to learn, and like I said the first thing I sorted out
http://images6.fotki.com/v95/photos/1/105162/1152315/s317-vi.jpg

[tforonda]

Don't hate me for this, but I actually like the Photoshop'd shot of the silver #16 Porsche a lot better than the real pan. The car looks much sharper and it looks like a 1/60th pan, making the car really pop off that background. Really gives the feeling of speed.

Nicely done Tony.
Thanks Philip. I appreciate your comment.

[tforonda]

My view of using PS to correct or fake in this way is that it does not encourage the photographer to improve his skills. They are easily spotted as fakes and can only be admired for the PS techniques. The difference between Dave's real pan shots and the fakes is dramatic. I am sorry, but they are not truly representitive pictures of cars in action and you could do the same with your car parked on the street.

Panning is an easy skill to learn and you can even do it with a cheap P&S camera given enough practice. I have done pan shots with my wife's Pro-1 for goodness sake. There is no need fake it, just bite the bullet and learn how to do it properly.
Thanks for your comment. All comments are always welcome.
Whether you like it or not or agree with it or not, the use of Photoshop or any other image software, to manipulate a digital image, is very much part of Digital Photography. Your knowledge and skill is not the only way anymore. Just bite the bullet and accept it.

[Dave_G]

But Ken is right though, the use of post prcessing for this doesn't develop your skills at taking photos, which is why I try to get my shots as near to how I want them as possible when I take them.

[myth337]

seeing as others are posting examples... here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=84438) are some of my natural pan shots that are online... ;)

referring to your PS pan method... I would try not putting too much motion blur in... as that does have a tendancy to make it look a bit unreal.

.. Lee

(372)

[R Mutt]

Thanks for your comment. All comments are always welcome.
Whether you like it or not or agree with it or not, the use of Photoshop or any other image software, to manipulate a digital image, is very much part of Digital Photography. Your knowledge and skill is not the only way anymore. Just bite the bullet and accept it.

Well, I wasn't going to take my comments any further since you were acting civil even if dismissive. But now that the doors open;

Look at your blurring around the autos themselves, you blurred until you got near the car (probably with a brush tool) and than stopped out of fear of...well blurring the car. Knowledge and skill is the way unless you want it to look like crap, even if that knowledge and skill is using photoshop itself, from your image it would seem you can't photoshop or pan. If you're going to photoshop at least take the time to mask the object properly so you blur the entire background and not leave in focus areas all around the car sticking it out like a sore thumb. I'm not sure what you're striving for here but if you think hacking something up in photoshop is going to replace a well done skillfully shot pan you're very mistaken. I'd love to see these images about twice the size and without your gigantic frames, because the closer you get to these the crappier the photoshop work is going to appear.

And I appreciate all comments.

[tforonda]

Well, I wasn't going to take my comments any further since you were acting civil even if dismissive. But now that the doors open;

Look at your blurring around the autos themselves, you blurred until you got near the car (probably with a brush tool) and than stopped out of fear of...well blurring the car. Knowledge and skill is the way unless you want it to look like crap, even if that knowledge and skill is using photoshop itself, from your image it would seem you can't photoshop or pan. If you're going to photoshop at least take the time to mask the object properly so you blur the entire background and not leave in focus areas all around the car sticking it out like a sore thumb. I'm not sure what you're striving for here but if you think hacking something up in photoshop is going to replace a well done skillfully shot pan you're very mistaken. I'd love to see these images about twice the size and without your gigantic frames, because the closer you get to these the crappier the photoshop work is going to appear.

And I appreciate all comments.
I'm sure you're all right!.....I surrender !

[MattyB]

the only comment i can make, is that the photoshopped pan is on the wrong angle.
you're doing a radial blur at 0 angle (dead horizontal) yet the cars motion is going down the hill, so it looks all wrong.
when you add the motion blur, you can change the angle however you want.. try it at 10 degrees (or whatever fits to the direction of the car) and watch how much better it looks.
it'll look alot more realistic.

and R Mutt - stop bring a wanker... there is no need to bite his head off, he took the time and effort to show us an effect in photoshop he thought looked good. - good on him.

i recently invited a friend to join these forums, and he still hasn't posted an image after 2 months.. i asked him why, his response was "they'll hack at me, they're too nit picky. none of my photos are good enough to post yet".
shame on the people who only reply to find faults.

good on ya tony, it looks good. and they're fun photos - keep practising ;)
the upside of R Mutt and others having a go at you is that you'll only get better :) they will always be arseholes.


(sorry for the flamed thread. it doesn't happen very often)

[R Mutt]

I didn't have a "go" until I read this Your knowledge and skill is not the only way anymore. Just bite the bullet and accept it., I didn't mention his work in particular at all my first post. I didn't want to be rude, especially since I'm new here.

However, If you're going to compare some faked panning to the real deal and be smug about it than you better make sure you've done an absolute perfect job. In my defense I only concentrated on the one aspect, I could have gone and pointed out what you did which I also noticed, in fact I can still go on but I think I've said what I fealt was needed ;)

[HJMinard]

Tony ... cool effect ... I'm not convinced that many members would have known it was a fake if you hadn't told them so. (But I certainly think full disclosure is the correct approach.)

Keep working on your panning, but most of all ... do what you enjoy!

[pcasciola]

I didn't have a "go" until I read this , I didn't mention his work in particular at all my first post. I didn't want to be rude, especially since I'm new here.
Your knowledge and skill is not the only way anymore. Just bite the bullet and accept it.If you would have read the whole thread you would see that comment was in response to Kenny's exact same comment. Tony has been very appreciative of all the comments, both positive and negative, and has not been smug in any way, even when words like "despise" were thrown at him early on. I agree with Tony in that Photoshop skills like these are a neccessity in today's world, and he was even kind enough to share the technique.

Whether 100% accurately done or not, I think the so called "fake pan" is a nice effect, similar to panning. There's a difference between art and capturing reality, and I think this is a little bit of both. It gives the feeling of speed, and is nice to look at provided you don't pull out the pixel peeper glasses to prove it's fake. I saw a picture of a race car in a magazine recently where the entire background was exploding off the page in bits and pieces. Anyone care to explain what type of camera can do that?

I hope you keep the pictures and PS techniques coming Tony.

[Croasdail]

Very nice.... love the technique. Some look more real then others... some I'll bet most could not tell they were "shopped" if you had not told on yourself. . I will have to give it a try on some of my shots to see if I can bring them to life.... thanks for sharing.

Sorry - had to edit. Common guys - some of you all are very good photographers and have proven your skills here week in and week out. But there are way too many claims of "straight from the camera" going on here... and to say one person is wrong for using one technique on an image is bad, versus cranking the saturation and use of USM is okay. It is an "enhanced image", he never denied it and should be critiqued as such. Good on all ya who have mastered the cute little panning thing - but don't go around feeling all superior. Help or keep your opinions where they belong.

[DwightMcCann]

I admit to being "fooled" until it was revealed this is a photoshop technique. I still like them every bit as much. I worry about people who get so tense about the way other people do things and feel they must correct and/or denigrate others by characterizing them and their work. It is bullying and I don't understand what brings it out in some guys, sigh.

[malla1962]

Here is some panning without photoshop.:D:D

[Cadwell]

The old "do it with the camera"/"do it in post processing" debate. Both techniques have merit and both have their place. Certainly post processing can be used to "enhance" a photograph. However, I will admit to being a lazy photographer. Heavy post processing as used on the original posts in this thread simply takes too much time for my tastes. I'd rather get it right in the camera - saves effort. Panning is such an easy thing to do... I used to use it with my old point and shoots a lot because that's all that they were capable of doing... so I honestly don't see the point of faking it. Half an hours practice at the circuit will have you panning away nicely with no need to get the photoshop CD out of the box.

The motorsport pro photographers stance on this issue is understandable. It's not a technique that would work for them in any way. The amateur photographer needs to process one or two shots per event and can lavish a great deal of time and effort on them. A working pro will be dealing with hundreds. Getting it right in the camera is really the only way for them to do things.

[PaulEY]

I was told last week a photo I took at Brands Hatch looked fake :( It wasn't though annoyed me a bit though so I know why people get a bit heated with things like this, I prefer to develop my camera skills rather than waste more time in front a computer than I do at the moment.

[Pixel9ine]

the only comment i can make, is that the photoshopped pan is on the wrong angle.
you're doing a radial blur at 0 angle (dead horizontal) yet the cars motion is going down the hill, so it looks all wrong.
when you add the motion blur, you can change the angle however you want.. try it at 10 degrees (or whatever fits to the direction of the car) and watch how much better it looks.
it'll look alot more realistic.
I was about to make that same comment.. the motion blur angle doesn't match the direction the car is moving in.

In defence of Photoshopping, I have to say most of my "keeper shots" get worked on, even if it's only brightness/contrast adjustments. I'm just not able to get the shot perfect right out of the camera.. maybe in time I will.

Also, certain effects are just not possible with conventional photography (at least, not within my abilities/budget). Example:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b41/1Fine89/PIC036.jpg

Thoughs?

[Dave_G]

that one is obviously photoshopped :)

we're talking primarily about panning and adding motion blur - your pic - while very clever - isn't really representative of "motion blur" is it?

good effect though, but that's all it is, an effect.

[andrewc]

I'm a newbie around here, and I can say that everyones been really friendly. I haven't posted any images yet, but thats simply because I haven't got round to it yet, not because I'm afraid of any critique I may get.

I have posted some of my pictures here: http://omicron.uk.com/php/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=16

I prefer to try and get it mostly right in the camera, but knowing that some tweaking can be done in post processing, to rescue some images and enhance others. Photoshop is a remarkable tool and I have lots of admiration of those who can get the best out of it. I'm not at that stage yet, apart from correcting image defects and so on.

[Pixel9ine]

we're talking primarily about panning and adding motion blur - your pic - while very clever - isn't really representative of "motion blur" is it?it's actually called "zoom blur".. but I digress. The point of my post and the included picture was that photoshop effects shouldn't be villified-- properly used, they can accomplish a purpose.

That being said, I have to agree with the comment that professional sports photographers don't have the time to edit every single picture-- they're good enough at what they do to nail it straight from the camera.

Photoshopping a picture is the long, drawn-out way aspiring amateurs attempt to mimic the pros, myself included.

[Keiffer]

Why do so many people have a problem with using an effect in PS? When everyone one of us adjust most if not all our shots in PS, Because if we didn't they would lack certain qualities that the cam did catch(or the photographer). Go lightly boys, It's all about presentation and as long as it's not totally obvious, I see no prob.

[SolPics]

Great job in Photoshop. I'll have to try this in my horse racing shots.

[MattyB]

anyone who shoots in RAW is a fake!!!! ;)

[Buddy Thomason]

This thread has been interesting to read and think about. Thanks to Tony for kicking it off by putting his work out there for others to see. There is one piece of pseudo-logic that gets regularly repeated and it really ought to be exposed for what it is; 'fuzzy thinking.' It is completely incorrect to state that using a software photo editing program to adjust, fix or otherwise process images impairs one's progress toward mastering the basic principles of photography. In fact the opposite is true. Noting the type and amount of work one must do in post-processing to create an acceptable photograph is part of a powerful learinig feedback loop that reinforces all the basic components of 'getting it right in the camera.' Anyone who has the energy, interest and intelligence needed to use an image editing program - who actually processes image after image after image using their computer can't help but improve their 'get it right in the camera' skills. To claim otherwise is as silly as claiming that use of a flash will prevent a person from understanding and mastering the principles involved in working with natural light.

[webcase]

I like the job Tforonda has done with the alterd pics .The first one looks very good .At the end of the day as long as you the photographer are happy with the pic is all that matters . Personally i get no joy making a pic look panned in photoshop . Maybe because for me 3/4 of the fun is getting it right in camera .

[LMP]

I quite like the effect and admire what went into it, even if other can easily find fault with it I'm not exp enough to pick out the errors. Some of the images work better than others for me. My initial thought on #2 was that it looked a bit OTT. The car looks very much like it has been cut out and stuck on the background compared to the other shots posted by you.

[byso]

The silver car looks sensational. So sharp it almost gives me motion sickness just looking at it.

[vwpilot]

I have to agree with one of the other posters, it looks fake and is easy to tell its not for real. I would bet that as you get closer to a full size image its even easier to tell. Usually getting the wheel blur consistent with the background blur is the most obvious aspect of it. If the background was truly blurred as much as you have it blurred, the wheels would also be much more blurred to the point of not being able to tell what king of wheels they were to begin with.

Also, look at the photo of the orange Porsche. The background is blurred in a different plane than the car is moving in. Totally fake looking.

Also at the angles the cars are at, if you were truly using a slow enough shutter to get that much blur in the background, you would never be able to acheive a perfectly sharp car from front to back. Its physically impossible due to the different parts of the car moving in different speeds relative to the camera lens. Unless the car is a perfect side shot 90 degrees to the lens, you would get blur on some portion of the car.

Basically, you cannot emulate true motion blur perfectly in photoshop no matter how good you are, its just not possible as the rules of photoshop are different than the physical rules of light the camera deals with.

Take the time you spend teaching yourself how to do it in Pshop and spend it actually panning and you will have it down and never have to fake it in Photoshop again.

[vwpilot]

Why do so many people have a problem with using an effect in PS? When everyone one of us adjust most if not all our shots in PS, Because if we didn't they would lack certain qualities that the cam did catch(or the photographer). Go lightly boys, It's all about presentation and as long as it's not totally obvious, I see no prob.

The difference is that most agree that using Pshop to enhance a photo in the same way that you can in a true darkroom is something that is accepted and used to make a photo better.

But to use Photoshop to create an image because you didnt do it in the camera is just not right in my eyes.

In other words, in a darkroom you could do things like adjust for contrast and color and brightness and exposure. Same things that are done in photoshop all the time. Also, you could do things like crop and rotate images as well to enhance a photo.

But you would not do things like clone out parts of the photo, create background blur while keeping a subject stationary, put in a completely different background than what was taken, or completly change a photo and basically make a fake photo. These are things that I think are frowned upon by many and I agree with it.

Take the photo right the first time and only use minor tools to enhance the look of it in the computer. Altering a photo completely from its original design is not photography, its graphic art.

[Croasdail]

Take the photo right the first time and only use minor tools to enhance the look of it in the computer. Altering a photo completely from its original design is not photography, its graphic art.

And I guess that is the crux of the discussion here. Perhaps if the author hand just said look at the cool techique - doesn't it look cool, we wouldn't have everyones hair in knots. But since it was represented as an alternative way to reproduce a photographic technique... that's where we have everyone all bothered.

If we back the conversation back off from a photo journalistic representation of an event, and view it as simply "art" of some kind... are we all good then? We could really get all pulled into a rat hole here... like are filters okay... media uses gradient filters all the time on golf shots making the sky more dramatic... is that okay? But that is a whole other discussion for another day. Let agree this is just another form of art... not "true" photography. Cheers.

[vwpilot]

Sure, if it comes down to making an "art print" and you are happy with the way that it looks, who cares, go for it.

But do not try to pass it off to another as "look at this awesome photo I took" because you didnt take it, you created it.

I have a friend that goes by this. He likes to produce "art" for himself and will often use Pshop techniques to do things to his photos to make them what he has envisioned in his mind, whether its cloning out things or using filters to create things or whatever. But he is doing it for himself to produce posters that he likes and enjoys, fine.

In this case however, I would have to say though that making fake blur is a little more obvious than cloning out a telephone pole or something like that. But if it makes YOU happy, who am I to say you shouldnt do it.

I would just hope that you dont go on somewhere and post the photos as shots that you took and panned for, cause that is just plain lying and passing off something for what it is not.