Quick Justin Bogle Interview about Pro Debut

Nerd
Profile picture for user Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
Nerd
Edited Date/Time 1/26/2012 8:00am
http://www.motocross.com/features/interview-justin-bogle/
|
txmxer
Profile picture for user txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX US
txmxer 8/19/2011 10:12am
8/19/2011 10:12am
this was almost a great picture...definitely right time and place.

markmon88
Profile picture for user markmon88
Posts
34
Joined
7/6/2011
Location
Dayton, OH US
markmon88 8/19/2011 10:20am
8/19/2011 10:20am
That kid is fast, he will be a contender for sure.
Nerd
Profile picture for user Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
Nerd 8/19/2011 10:32am
8/19/2011 10:32am
txmxer wrote:
this was almost a great picture...definitely right time and place. [img]http://www.motocross.com/files/2011/08/Bogle-Unadilla-Cox-2011-020.jpg[/img]
this was almost a great picture...definitely right time and place.

Almost? What do you mean?
ocscottie
Profile picture for user ocscottie
Posts
69092
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Redding, CA US
ocscottie 8/19/2011 11:51am
8/19/2011 11:51am
Guessing it being a tad blurry? of course nothing 2seconds in PS wouldnt fix, but who wants to do that for every damn pic?

Rad shot regardless...

The Shop

See All »
ocscottie
Profile picture for user ocscottie
Posts
69092
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Redding, CA US
ocscottie 8/19/2011 11:53am
8/19/2011 11:53am
btw: i liked his answer to the last Q. Cool
Nerd
Profile picture for user Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
Nerd 8/19/2011 11:57am
8/19/2011 11:57am
ocscottie wrote:
Guessing it being a tad blurry? of course nothing 2seconds in PS wouldnt fix, but who wants to do that for every damn pic? Rad shot...
Guessing it being a tad blurry? of course nothing 2seconds in PS wouldnt fix, but who wants to do that for every damn pic?

Rad shot regardless...
It's motion blur. It's not out of focus. It was shot at 1/160th or 1/200th of a second while panning. It's supposed to be "blurry" to show the motion in the photos. Yes, I could've shot it at 1/3200th if I wanted to, but he would just be hovering motionless over the ground with nothing to indicate how fast he was going, or anything like that.

But tell me, how do you "fix" that in Photoshop in "2 seconds"? I'd love to know this...
kongols
Profile picture for user kongols
Posts
24220
Joined
9/22/2009
Location
Riga LV
kongols 8/19/2011 12:00pm
8/19/2011 12:00pm
Nerd wrote:
It's motion blur. It's not out of focus. It was shot at 1/160th or 1/200th of a second while panning. It's supposed to be "blurry" to...
It's motion blur. It's not out of focus. It was shot at 1/160th or 1/200th of a second while panning. It's supposed to be "blurry" to show the motion in the photos. Yes, I could've shot it at 1/3200th if I wanted to, but he would just be hovering motionless over the ground with nothing to indicate how fast he was going, or anything like that.

But tell me, how do you "fix" that in Photoshop in "2 seconds"? I'd love to know this...
Just click "autofix" and you`re done. You`re welcome.
GuyB
Profile picture for user GuyB
Posts
35722
Joined
7/10/2006
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
GuyB 8/19/2011 12:05pm
8/19/2011 12:05pm
kongols wrote:
Just click "autofix" and you`re done. You`re welcome.
It's "autofix"? I guess I've been doing it wrong. I use the "make it better" button.
peelout
Profile picture for user peelout
Posts
18334
Joined
1/6/2011
Location
Ogden, UT US
peelout 8/19/2011 12:29pm
8/19/2011 12:29pm Edited Date/Time 8/19/2011 12:33pm
GuyB wrote:
It's "autofix"? I guess I've been doing it wrong. I use the "make it better" button.
?maybe i could show you how to take pictografs at the SLC supercross next weekz!
dkg
Profile picture for user dkg
Posts
1883
Joined
9/12/2010
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA US
dkg 8/19/2011 1:17pm
8/19/2011 1:17pm
Nerd wrote:
It's motion blur. It's not out of focus. It was shot at 1/160th or 1/200th of a second while panning. It's supposed to be "blurry" to...
It's motion blur. It's not out of focus. It was shot at 1/160th or 1/200th of a second while panning. It's supposed to be "blurry" to show the motion in the photos. Yes, I could've shot it at 1/3200th if I wanted to, but he would just be hovering motionless over the ground with nothing to indicate how fast he was going, or anything like that.

But tell me, how do you "fix" that in Photoshop in "2 seconds"? I'd love to know this...
Nice picture. What lense, aperature? Ever tried the fast exposre and introduce blur in photoshop.
Nerd
Profile picture for user Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
Nerd 8/19/2011 2:09pm
8/19/2011 2:09pm
Nerd wrote:
It's motion blur. It's not out of focus. It was shot at 1/160th or 1/200th of a second while panning. It's supposed to be "blurry" to...
It's motion blur. It's not out of focus. It was shot at 1/160th or 1/200th of a second while panning. It's supposed to be "blurry" to show the motion in the photos. Yes, I could've shot it at 1/3200th if I wanted to, but he would just be hovering motionless over the ground with nothing to indicate how fast he was going, or anything like that.

But tell me, how do you "fix" that in Photoshop in "2 seconds"? I'd love to know this...
dkg wrote:
Nice picture. What lense, aperature? Ever tried the fast exposre and introduce blur in photoshop.
I know it was the 70-200 lens. Don't know the settings off the top of my head.

And yes, you can do it in Photoshop, but at that point you become less a photographer and more developer.

There's nothing wrong with the picture. Some people don't like motion blur, and that's cool, but the picture is good.
txmxer
Profile picture for user txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX US
txmxer 8/19/2011 3:32pm
8/19/2011 3:32pm
Nerd wrote:
It's motion blur. It's not out of focus. It was shot at 1/160th or 1/200th of a second while panning. It's supposed to be "blurry" to...
It's motion blur. It's not out of focus. It was shot at 1/160th or 1/200th of a second while panning. It's supposed to be "blurry" to show the motion in the photos. Yes, I could've shot it at 1/3200th if I wanted to, but he would just be hovering motionless over the ground with nothing to indicate how fast he was going, or anything like that.

But tell me, how do you "fix" that in Photoshop in "2 seconds"? I'd love to know this...
dkg wrote:
Nice picture. What lense, aperature? Ever tried the fast exposre and introduce blur in photoshop.
Nerd wrote:
I know it was the 70-200 lens. Don't know the settings off the top of my head. And yes, you can do it in Photoshop, but...
I know it was the 70-200 lens. Don't know the settings off the top of my head.

And yes, you can do it in Photoshop, but at that point you become less a photographer and more developer.

There's nothing wrong with the picture. Some people don't like motion blur, and that's cool, but the picture is good.
Isn't the bike/rider supposed to be crisp?
Nerd
Profile picture for user Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
Nerd 8/19/2011 3:36pm
8/19/2011 3:36pm
dkg wrote:
Nice picture. What lense, aperature? Ever tried the fast exposre and introduce blur in photoshop.
Nerd wrote:
I know it was the 70-200 lens. Don't know the settings off the top of my head. And yes, you can do it in Photoshop, but...
I know it was the 70-200 lens. Don't know the settings off the top of my head.

And yes, you can do it in Photoshop, but at that point you become less a photographer and more developer.

There's nothing wrong with the picture. Some people don't like motion blur, and that's cool, but the picture is good.
txmxer wrote:
Isn't the bike/rider supposed to be crisp?
I don't know. Can you show me that sort of stuff in the rulebook of photography?

Post a reply to: Quick Justin Bogle Interview about Pro Debut