I"m with you on that glatt. It was exactly what I was thinking as I was looking at it.

if the first pic is actually a frame from a film rather than a still shot, the effect of the boats seeming to be so close could be adjusted through the depth of field. In effect, making what seems a long way off, much closer. (or vice versa if that's what you want to show)

That is correct. That's how you get the subject sharp and in focus and blur the background. Used heavily in automotive racing photography. If you use a slower shutter speed and pan the camera with the subject, the background will be blurred while the subject remains sharp, giving the photo a sense of movement and speed instead of what looks like a car just sitting on the track.

Is it a plane flying low or a speed boat skimming a bit high? :p

On closeness and blurred backgrounds:

Almost all sports photography and most spectator event photography uses telephoto lenses to bring the action close while the photographer is safely distant. Telephoto lenses see things differently than the standard 35mm lens (which is the closest approximation to the human eye). Telephotos "flatten" the image. That is, a distant object does not appear to diminish in size as it would seen through a standard lens. This elimination of linear perspective generally goes unnoticed by the public.
It can be used to great effect artistically, often employed for certain shots in film to give a specific feel- as in a HUGE setting sun. (The best example I've ever seen of this is when, in Poltergeist, Jobeth Williams looks down the hall to her children's door- the cameraman pulls focus while switching FROM telephoto, giving the illusion of a lengthening hallway- brilliant!)
The photographer's lens is reason the plane looks so close to the boats. Since I've spent years looking at sports photographs (sculpting from them) I've gotten pretty good at judging distances. The plane IS close, but not THAT close.

The blurred background is very likely an unintended consequence of following such a rapidly moving object. It can be done for dramatic effect (as mentioned, in making a car appear to be moving fast), but I believe that in this case it is most likely due to the extreme speed of the jet- even the fastest shutter speed couldn't freeze the background while panning the camera that fast. Nascar cars don't exceed 200 mph- WELL within any camera's ability to take a crisp, unblurred photo. Those photographers are probably doing it for dramatic effect. This jet is moving at about 1100 fps (750 mph) - tough to freeze the action.

And that's all I have to say about that.


(Damned Photoshop has ruined the simple appreciation of great pictures!)

I agree... which is why I'm curious as to how you can pan fast enough, and accurately enough, to freeze the plane. (Also I note that in almost al of the other shots--the ones linked by glatt for example--both the plane and the accompanying scenery are--this effect is not present.)

I'm not saying it was 'shopped.. I'm legitimately asking, as a pretty green photographer, how it was accomplished.

Practice. Follow it in from far away (when you have to move less) pivot at the waist for smoothness (I just know someone's going to jump on that). Use a pro camera like the Cannon EOS 1D Mark III- fire off 10 frames per second.

Looks like the photographer is farther away. That's my guess. Otherwise he'd have pulled in tighter on the jet. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he's maxed out his zoom. That would put him so far away he only needs to pan very slowly.
Or, when the plane is come toward or going away from the photographer, he doesn't need to pan at all- as in the close-up ones of takeoff and approach.

...off to work.
Later Gents.

From now on I am referring to passed gas as pulled vapors.

Right on Adam. There are a great number of things to consider when working with telephoto and looking at a telephoto image.

Another thing to consider SteveDallas is that a general rule of thumb for telephoto lenses is that you need a minimum shutter speed of whatever mm length you are "zoomed" to in order to create a sharp, non blurry image of something stationary to begin with, let alone freeze action. Cameras can only have so high of a shutter speed (unique to each camera, example my Nikon D50 DSLR has a high of 1/4000th of a second, my previous Panasonic FZ7 had a high of 1/2000th). So if the photographer was far away using say a 300mm lens, which is a somewhat common telephoto length, then he/she needed to use a minimum shutter speed of 1/300th of a second in order to first have a non blurry image of anything, and then go up from there in order to attempt to freeze the plane in motion. Combine panning with that and the jet moving ridiculously fast and it becomes hell of hard to get a sharp image.

The reason why some of the other images do not appear to be as shaky is because the photographer was not using such a long telephoto length (closer to the action and/or simply cropped the original photo) and thus has much more control of the image.

Imagine trying to follow a moving object with your eyes from 200 meters, and then the same object moving at the same speed at 10 meters and you'll get what I'm saying. Just like how when you are driving your car, the grass is all blurred whizzing by but the mountains in the distance are nice and clear.

Yeah that would help a little too haha. Oh my poor 2.5 frames per second :neutral:

only about 760 mph

Flickr is cool because many of the pictures there have the EXIF data for each picture listed.
for example, the picture below was taken under the following conditions:
Camera: Canon EOS 30D
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 200

You can see the jet is pretty crisp, but the sailboat masts have some slight blur from the panning. The jet is coming more head-on here, so there isn't so much panning action as the original IotD photo at the top of the thread, where the jet is flying by. The large version of the image really shows this.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2417/...0ee9575df9.jpg

Here's my claim to fame. No water vapor but these are from my son's graduation from the US Naval Academy. I was shoooting with a 50-500mm Sigma zoom on my Canon 5D

That actually is water vapor around the fighter. :) It is created by the sudden extreme drop in air pressure behind the compressed shockwave. Since the pressure suddenly drops, the air cools instantly, and because cool air can hold less moisture than warm air, the moisture condenses into visible water vapor, but only for an instant.

When the shape of the object travelling through the air is faster than the speed of sound in the air, the compacted air has no time to dispand and the shockwave stays. That front does not break apart as it expands from the object - if it would, there would be no sonic boom.

I hope this explanation is comprehensible..

There is an interesting analogy to Cherenkov radiation. :)