±«Óãtv

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

Absolutely fantastic shot, Ross.

Love it.

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

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

Clever use of a camera

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

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

Bloody Photoshop.

Nice one.

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

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

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

What's a "bear glass"?

A glass for a bear?

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...

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Love it lads, good work.

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

well cool technique

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Why D. Beckham and Not John Terry or Lamphard?

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.

Where can I buy your amazing product?

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.

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 !

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.

" 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.

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

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.

I don't like it

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.

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:

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

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.

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:

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:

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?