´óÏó´«Ã½

World Cup 2006 Blog

From our reporters in Germany

How to get a head (shot)

In his latest guest post, photographer Ross Kinnaird reveals how he tries to liven up stock media conferences with a more creative approach.

DavidBeckamGetty140606_2.jpg


I’ve been attending quite a few press conferences and training sessions in the build-up to the next England match tomorrow (Thursday) and this image is just one of many I’ve been having some fun with – capturing static head shots can be quite soul-numbing for a sports photographer after a few days so I always like to experiment!
It took me four or five attempts to get this effect, using a 70 - 200 mm lens, shot at a 15th of a second F8 (no flash allowed at the conference). My biggest challenge was to get the camera to swivel on a central and static point. Any lateral movements blur the whole image.

Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 03:46 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Thomas Coulson wrote:

omg how do you get it to do that, it's effective, but I'm not sure many newspapers will be printing it!

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 2.
  • At 03:57 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • wrote:

Absolutely fantastic shot, Ross.

Love it.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 3.
  • At 04:01 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Oliver wrote:

It looks interesting, though to me it looks more like you've been going mad with photoshop...

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 4.
  • At 04:16 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • brendan wrote:

its a crazy picture, makes my eyes go all blurry.......cool pic though:)

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 5.
  • At 04:16 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Sharon wrote:

Clever use of a camera

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 6.
  • At 04:21 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • stuart moore wrote:

effective way of capturing and varying the effect of a static image
Did you use a special tripod?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 7.
  • At 04:35 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Dan wrote:

The thing is, is that it's not in Photoshop, it's a natural photo.

Bloody Photoshop.

Nice one.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 8.
  • At 04:41 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Paul D wrote:

Nice picture but couldn't you have got the same effect using photoshop?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 9.
  • At 04:50 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Jonny wrote:

It looks good but its just photoshoped with a radial blur i think

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 10.
  • At 04:57 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • JamesK wrote:

I can get the same effect if I use a bear glass attached to my lens.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 11.
  • At 05:06 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • P wrote:

What's a "bear glass"?

A glass for a bear?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 12.
  • At 05:09 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

Cool effect, similar to a German photographer called Schlegelmilch? who does shots of F1 cars using much the same technique. Easy when you know how, takes lots of practice and a steady hand though...

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 13.
  • At 05:15 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Adam wrote:

Bloody sceptics!
That's really cool, how did you prevent lateral movement and why is is face not twisted?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 14.
  • At 05:28 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Claire Stocks, assistant editor wrote:

We will get Ross to give you the definitive answer at some point but my information is - absolutely no Photoshop was involved in creating the image.
In the process of adding it to this blog I cropped it to 430 px x 310 px (to reduce k size) and a black border added (as is our style). C'est tout.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 15.
  • At 05:31 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • mk1 wrote:

Whats the point? Doesn't look that great either... (I'm honestly not trying to be offensive here).

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 16.
  • At 05:32 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Mark Palms wrote:

That really is not a very good photo. Waste of time if you ask me. You weren't asking me? Oh, ok. I'm off to take photos of Zinadine Zidane's bald-spot from outer space then.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 17.
  • At 05:37 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Nick wrote:

Cool picture, but why does the subject not get distorted, as well as the background?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 18.
  • At 05:56 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • David Bailey wrote:

So you didnt use photoshop but you must have used the tripod collar on an L lens in order to eliminate any other movement blur. Which is out of the price range of your average point and shooter.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 19.
  • At 06:05 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • paul wrote:

Surely the interesting thing about a photo of Beckham is Beckham. This is the sort of thing I do to make my gran a little more interesting as she's nodding off after christmas dinner. Looks better with the odd candle about the place too. 3/10

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 20.
  • At 06:10 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Rahul wrote:

Dan, Why so hot under the collar at the mention of Photoshop?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 21.
  • At 07:01 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • ceri wrote:

The photograph is really interesting... why do people always assume its done in photoshop!!! photographers can produce amazing shots with out the use of a computer.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 22.
  • At 07:10 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Stevo wrote:

Love it lads, good work.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 23.
  • At 08:20 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Saqib wrote:

Might be a nice pic, but obviously not nice for the eyes which are the only 'things' we have to view this pic with!

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 24.
  • At 08:30 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • dave wrote:

well cool technique

how do you prevent the middle bit blurring ....
cheers
dave

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 25.
  • At 09:08 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • John Walker wrote:

I'm not convinced. Surely the centre of the photo should have a little blurring in rotation. This seems conveniently sharp in the centre.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 26.
  • At 09:10 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • John Walker wrote:

I'm not convinced. Surely the centre of the photo should have a little blurring in rotation. This seems conveniently sharp in the centre.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 27.
  • At 09:10 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Bash wrote:

Fancy effects do not make a good photograph, whether you're using photoshop or not.

A good photo captures a moment or a mood, and ideally has good composition. This has nothing. A 'zany' angle that just serves to irritate, Becks looking slightly moronic as he scratches his chin, and all viewed from far too far away. It needs much tighter cropping.

Sorry, but with all due respect to Ross, this is a terrible photo.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 28.
  • At 09:13 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • wrote:

With all the media attention that Beck's gets, this must be how his life must feel at times! Great pic.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 29.
  • At 09:15 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Bash wrote:

It's not blurred visibly in the centre because that's the centre of rotation... it hardly moves there in comparisson to the outer part of the circle. If we were able to zoom into the middle of the pic, we'd see slight blur on Becks' face too.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 30.
  • At 10:11 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • iYcE wrote:

wateva dats a fake.. lol... good joke though................bekhams ugly as it is dont make him look worse (although thats hardly possible..)

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 31.
  • At 10:45 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • RobW wrote:

A little note for anyone under 30 -

Photoshop is a useful and clever tool, just as electronic keyboards make a very nice sound, for home use, but if you're at the Albert Hall, you kind of expect your pianist to have a grand piano.

Photoshop simply attempts, electronicly, to mimic the effects photographers have been using for the last 100 years or so. It does a good job, but the subtle differences are immediately apparent to most in the publishing industry.

... and as far as the comment "not many papers would print it" goes, there speaks a voice of complete ignorance regarding the publishing world. Sport is extremely dull, head-shots even more dull, almost as dull as the town mayor presenting something to someone. It's a perfect shot as an illustrative picture for any (non-sport oriented) newspaper or magazine with an article on any aspect of Beckham the star, (rather than Beckham the footballer !)

It's a very good pic, with very good commercial potential - which is EXACTLY what a photographer working for the premier agency should be coming up with. A good day's work Ross.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 32.
  • At 10:55 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • Jezza wrote:

Ooh, a sycophants club: how do I join? Not a very good photo unfortunately.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 33.
  • At 11:20 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • xpelair wrote:

It doesnt say anything to me apart from someone used a preset on Photoshop, its not interesting attall because it doesnt actually tell me anything or say anything.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 34.
  • At 11:46 PM on 14 Jun 2006,
  • wrote:

I thought I read lots of photography technique books, yet I've never seen anything like that. There's so much movement, it's amazing that it's a photo. A shot by a real professional and artist.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 35.
  • At 12:12 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • Yusuf Prince wrote:

Why D. Beckham and Not John Terry or Lamphard?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 36.
  • At 12:16 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • wrote:

So if I took the exact same shot without the rotation, then added it as radial blur in photoshop, achieving exactly them same end result, would that be "a very good pic, with very good commercial potential"?

I think not.


Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 37.
  • At 12:18 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • david wrote:

Where can I buy your amazing product?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 38.
  • At 12:20 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • reemer wrote:

as an avid reader of both online and printed sports publications i can safely say that photo wouldn't make the cut.

perhaps the technique used is clever and technically difficult to pull off but as a "sports photograph" the effect serves little or no purpose to the image itslef.

unless the idea is that beckham is soooo dreamy as to make you dizzy.

i guess i'm not seeing al that merits the praise being lavished on this particular photo.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 39.
  • At 12:33 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • wrote:

amazing ! the rotating effect triggers the spectator into a vortex-like experience. I feel that the artist wanted to express how much he defies the superficial illusions of the world cup circus but yet doesn't fail to show his utmost love and respect for the subject, caught as an illuminating icon in the calm of the storm. A true stroke of geniosity !

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 40.
  • At 12:47 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • wrote:

Simply put, this is the crowning achievement of the photographers art.

Our eyes are led from the frame to the central subject in a dizzying whirl reminiscent of Beckham's own career. The distortion of the sponsors logos is a cutting commentary on the place of commerce in sport today. The juxtaposition of Ferdinand and Owen above Beckham's head - seperated by the just legible "official partners" text - subtley hints at a three way partnership those in the know have often suspected.

Frankly this is the best photograph ever taken by human hand, and I will happily suck the juices from anyone who says otherwise.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 41.
  • At 01:31 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • i am not from humhum wrote:

" Sport is extremely dull, head-shots even more dull "

yeah that's true I mean nothing ever really happens in sport and there has never been a whole picture gallery in London dedicated to portraits

This photo is rubbish - sure it is competent in the sense that it took some thinking and spinning to get the effect outside of Photoshop but even composition wise it's awful.
Just because something is possible or tricky to do it doesn’t make it an artistic achievement – you can take a shot through many methods and quirks not all hold merit.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 42.
  • At 03:19 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • Ravi wrote:

mr. i am not from humhum, i second him.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 43.
  • At 08:56 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • ectomorfo wrote:

I like the angle and blurred background detail and applaud the idea, executed in difficult conditions, but, for me at least, the head is nowhere near sharp enough for the shot to be considered successful.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 44.
  • At 09:44 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • cold alex wrote:

I don't like it

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 45.
  • At 10:22 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • vincent wrote:

Yea.. sorry mate. The photo is rubbish. Serves no purpose. Does not look cool.

So you decided to do a 5 second photoshop effect the hard way. Hope it was fun. Now get back to work.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 46.
  • At 10:23 AM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • Thomas Coulson wrote:

RobW, when it's put on a mag or newspaper show me!

I'm not deniging its a good shot.

Picture can be downloaded at a cost around £300 i think:

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 47.
  • At 01:00 PM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • BridgetC wrote:

Hello there, I'm blog editor for the day. Good to see all your comments here. There's a lot of talk about Photoshop so here is some further info from the photographer, Ross.

""Photoshop is a wonderful tool which is used by photofinishing houses throughout the industry, but ALL staff photographers at Getty Images strictly adhere to limiting the use of Photoshop to just basic colour correction and removal of dust and scratches. The manipulation of images is a big no-no at Getty Images and many other agencies. All other techniques seen are the photographer using their skills and imagination."

Hope this helps with clarification.
Thanks
Bridge

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 48.
  • At 03:20 PM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • Mike wrote:

Effect for effect's sake, pretty pointless and not the 'artistic expression' claimed by some. It actually says nothing about the subject or the situation, therefore doesn't tell it's story and is fundamentally pointless.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 49.
  • At 07:08 PM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • wrote:

No Photoshop is required at all. And nor is a tripod. You just need to select a shutter speed of around 20 or 30 and press the shutter as you rotate the camera, trying all thw while to keep the centre of what the camera sees reasonably true. I've been doing this for ages, although it is easier with the flash, so that the foreground can be kept sharp. Check out my example self-portrait:

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 50.
  • At 07:08 PM on 15 Jun 2006,
  • wrote:

No Photoshop is required at all. And nor is a tripod. You just need to select a shutter speed of around 20 or 30 and press the shutter as you rotate the camera, trying all the while to keep the centre of what the camera sees reasonably true. I've been doing this for ages, although it is easier with the flash, so that the foreground can be kept sharp. Check out my example self-portrait:

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
  • 51.
  • At 11:42 PM on 16 Jun 2006,
  • wrote:

Sorry but that is such an awful effect I can't see why anyone is thinking it's great.
For an amateur who has just discovered Paint Shop Pro, it might be fun, but for a pro photographer I'd be embarrassed to submit that.
And he works for Getty Images?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 

Post a comment

Please note name and email are required.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

Required
Required (not displayed)
  Your email address will only be held by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and will be used for the purpose of administering this blog site. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ may also contact you to further inquire about issues raised in mails posted to the blog. If you would like further information, please read the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s privacy policy
    

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

´óÏó´«Ã½.co.uk