Post #242

You are currently only viewing posts within the category: Photo
You are here: Home → Archive → Photo → 2004 → February → 11th → this post

Poppies everywhere

11th February 2004, early evening | Comments (31)

I went out for a walk with the dog, and managed to get this photo of her:

Poppy on some round hay bales

Jump up to the start of the post ↑

Comments (31)

Jump down to the comment form ↓

  1. Anon:

    Was that a typo? I see no poppies.

    Posted 36 minutes after the fact
    Inspired: ↓ Jack Hetherington, ↓ Dunstan
  2. Jack Hetherington:

    lots of dogs though.

    Posted 43 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Anon
    Inspired: ↓ Dunstan
  3. Jim Reverend:

    Wow!

    What a great photograph. But I have to know how you did it!!

    If I'm not mistaken, there is only one Poppy. And, again, if I'm not mistaken, every dog seen in the photograph is indeed Poppy.

    I've done multiple exposures before... but, in those cases, each exposure was taken at a fraction of the required exposure time so that, when added together, they would look proper. In this photograph, that doesn't seem to be the case. If it were, all the dogs would be slightly faded, or the hay would be very bright.

    So.. please. Do tell. How'd you do it?

    Posted 46 minutes after the fact
    Inspired: ↓ Dunstan
  4. Dunstan:

    The dog is called Poppy.

    Sorry, I forget not everyone reads this blog on a regular basis :o)

    Posted 47 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Anon, ↑ Jack Hetherington
  5. Dunstan:

    I just take a bunch of photos of her running around (without moving the camera), then cut out the dog from each photo (you don't have to do that very carefully either because as the camera hasn't moved, the backgrounds will match) and stick them all together.

    I've made a few photos like this before:

    http://www.1976design.com/photography/medium.php?searchterms=58+123+152+153+172

    It gets trickier when things overlap, but in this case I just chose 'frames' where that didn't happen :o)

    Posted 57 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Jim Reverend
    Inspired: ↓ Jim Reverend
  6. Jim Reverend:

    Amazing work, and a great method for making photographs like this. I believe I may try my hand at this technique in the near future.

    I was already green with envy at your weblog and all of its very well thought out features, incredible design, and strict adherence to standards. Now that I've seen your photography section. I'm even greener.

    You, sir, are top notch.

    I'd love to sit down and talk to you for few hours. Maybe, if I ever make it to Europe, as I have been telling myself I would for 3 years now, it'll be possible.

    Posted 2 hours, 10 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Dunstan
    Inspired: ↓ Dunstan
  7. Jon Hicks:

    That title wouldn't be spoofing 'Teletubbies Everywhere' now would it? ;o)

    Posted 2 hours, 15 minutes after the fact
    Inspired: ↓ Dunstan
  8. Sian:

    Creative as always :)

    Posted 2 hours, 28 minutes after the fact
  9. Dunstan:

    Thanks Jim!

    I don't know where you live, but I'm going to be in San Francisco for about three months (May - July), if you're anywhere near there :o)

    Posted 2 hours, 29 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Jim Reverend
    Inspired: ↓ Jim Reverend
  10. Dunstan:

    Give that man a Magic Windmill!

    Posted 2 hours, 31 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Jon Hicks
  11. Dunstan:

    Out of interest, are people getting that they can click on the photo to get a larger version?

    I'm wondering if, in cases like this where there's no text, some kind of symbol on the image is needed, or if people naturally wave their mouse over the photos to see if it's a link to something else?

    Posted 2 hours, 33 minutes after the fact
    Inspired: ↓ Jim Reverend, ↓ Sken, ↓ Karen, ↓ Owen, ↓ S T E F, ↓ Sian
  12. Jim Reverend:

    I think it might be clearer (for the... browser-ly challenged) to include a nice little magnifying glass or something, next to the image that does the same thing as clicking on the image (maybe down by the +lightbox +cart stuff). But, as it is, I've had no trouble realizing that clicking on it makes it bigger.

    Posted 2 hours, 38 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Dunstan
  13. Jim Reverend:

    I'm in Texas. (our cows are bigger than yours, neener. Heh. Like I care.) It's unlikely that I'll be anywhere near San Francisco then, but... my wife and I have been talking about going to California... so it's possible, I guess. I'll let you know. :)

    Posted 2 hours, 39 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Dunstan
    Inspired: ↓ Dunstan
  14. Sken:

    I always wave my mouse over picture to see if they are clickable.. but that's just me.

    And what a great photograph, I'll be trying it out as soon as I can. :)

    Posted 2 hours, 44 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Dunstan
  15. Karen:

    I, for one, figured out about clicking on the photo for a larger version. But then, I click on anything with a pulse.

    Amazing photo! What kind of camera do you use? My husband's been trying to find a nice digital with all the right accoutrements.

    Posted 2 hours, 53 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Dunstan
    Inspired: ↓ Dunstan
  16. Dunstan:

    Ah. I've been to Colorado, and Arizona, but not quite made it to Texas.

    But if I ever find myself on the run from the Law, I'll head your way and you can hide me in your church. (Or behind one of your huge cows.)

    That's what Texas and Mexico are for - runnin' from the law ;o)

    Posted 3 hours, 6 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Jim Reverend
  17. Dunstan:

    It's a digital SLR, Karen - a Canon 10D:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/

    Posted 3 hours, 8 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Karen
    Inspired: ↓ Owen
  18. Tony:

    Dunstan,

    Did I read somewhere that you're thinking of *moving* to San Francisco? Is this true? Just think of all the new images you'll have to create for your panoramic!

    I'm only an hour and a half from SF (and venture in for concerts now and then), so drop me a line if you'd like to grab a pint or something while you're there: tony at tcervo dot com

    -Tony

    Posted 4 hours, 22 minutes after the fact
    Inspired: ↓ Dunstan
  19. Pedro:

    And here I was thinking your blog couldn't get any cooler :D

    great photo.

    Posted 5 hours, 3 minutes after the fact
  20. Dunstan:

    Hey Tony,

    Yes, end of May through to the 20th of July. I'm sure I'll be posting about it nearer the time (and during the trip) so bung me an email when I'm actually there :o)

    As for the panorama - that's staying as Dorset, or I'd spend my whole trip stuck into front of the computer drawing the SF skyline!

    Also, it's nice to know what's going on at home :o)

    Posted 5 hours, 9 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Tony
  21. Mathieu 'P01' HENRI:

    ^__^ Poppy went crazy.

    Posted 6 hours, 29 minutes after the fact
  22. Justin Blanton:

    Very, very cool. I can't wait to try this technique. Thanks.

    Posted 12 hours, 8 minutes after the fact
  23. Owen:

    I typically move the pointer over photos like that to see if they're links; using Safari 1.0 the image border changes subtly, but the cursor does not. One day I'll get around to sending you fixes for the stylesheet (things like the post number and name overlapping, still a problem on this browser).

    And, I'm insanely jealous of that camera but it's gigantic so I'll wait a while before purchasing one...

    Posted 15 hours, 55 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Dunstan, ↑ Dunstan
  24. Richard Rutter:

    > Out of interest, are people getting that they
    > can click on the photo to get a larger version?

    Only just sussed that out, but I've never actually wanted to enlarge a photo before as they are quite big anyway. I suppose I thought, 'Hmm I want a closer look at that, I wonder if the image is a link?'. And it was. Easy.

    Posted 16 hours, 13 minutes after the fact
  25. S T E F:

    Didn't guess at all that the photo could be enlarged.

    Of course as a silly web dev I always move the mouse around like mad looking for design tricks :)

    Anyway, to conclude: it isn't easily guessed that it can be enlarged.

    Posted 16 hours, 43 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Dunstan
  26. Chris Neale:

    Grammar Fascism : "Poppy's everywhere"

    Poppy IS everywhere : P

    Posted 18 hours, 41 minutes after the fact
    Inspired: ↓ Dunstan
  27. Dunstan:

    Ah, but look at Jon's comment (#7):
    "That title wouldn't be spoofing 'Teletubbies Everywhere' now would it?"

    Yes, it is :o)

    Posted 19 hours, 14 minutes after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Chris Neale
  28. Sian:

    When reading blogs I automatically assume that there are larger versions of photographs available and tend to click them anyway. Secondly, if this was my first visit to the site I would have realised anyway as I'm a trigger happy mouse user and would have either clicked or hovered over the photo.

    Perhaps a statement for first time users could be useful as it never occured to me that there would be readers out there unaware of this.

    Hope this helps.

    Posted 1 day after the fact
    Inspired by: ↑ Dunstan
  29. Ingrid:

    Dunstan, Found your site by googling for blogs around the Dorset area, where I live. Enjoyed your site, especially this post - and the one about your panaroma. Will blog a link to them when my computer's fixed. Bye for now.

    Posted 2 days, 20 hours after the fact
  30. Aaron Martin EPHS:

    This is a very simple photo, i don't know whats so amazing about it. all he did was take a lot of pictures of "poppy" at that same seen and use photoshop to cut the dog out of each photo, than he put all the dogs into the 1 picture using layers. So, its not a very difficult photo after all. If i owned a Digital Camera i could make this anyday, and im 14...

    Come to think of it, all the dogs have shadows, now thats a little harder, first outline(Lasso Tool) the dog than create a new layer for the shadow to go on. Next go to Select> Feather and set feather to 10 or More to make the shadow look "fuzzy". Than go to Edit>Transform>Destort. This will allow you to move the shadow to the correct angle of light and line up the parts.

    Posted 9 months, 3 weeks after the fact
  31. Dunstan:

    Aaron, you're right, it is a simple picture, in fact it's much simpler to make than even your explanation. The neat part is the photo itself, not how it was achieved.

    Posted 9 months, 3 weeks after the fact

Jump up to the start of the post ↑

Add your comment

I'm sorry, but comments can no longer be posted to this blog.