# DJ Pictures



## CHOSEN (Nov 4, 2009)

I've been searching the web for cool pictures of DJ's "doing their thing". I came across 2 pictures and I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on how the photographer got the pictures to look the way they do.
The first image:
Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected
I think this image was photoshopped. I hope he wasn't just standing still the whole time while the photographer used a slow shutter speed. 

The second image:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected
I'm wondering if this was done with a wide-angle lens....or if some type of distortion effect was done in photoshop.

Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
Thank you for your time...
[/FONT]


----------



## Garbz (Nov 5, 2009)

1. He doesn't need to stay still long. Say 1/2 a second would have done it. But likely it was helped by a technique known as slow sync or dragging the shutter, where by you light a dark background with a long shutter speed, and then freeze your subject in place using a quick flash burst.

2. Wide angle lens, could be a 10mm.


----------



## battletone (Nov 5, 2009)

CHOSEN said:
			
		

> Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected
> I think this image was photoshopped. I hope he wasn't just standing still the whole time while the photographer used a slow shutter speed.





Garbz said:


> *1. He doesn't need to stay still long. Say 1/2 a second would have done it.* But likely it was helped by a technique known as slow sync or dragging the shutter, where by you light a dark background with a long shutter speed, and then freeze your subject in place using a quick flash burst.
> 
> 2. Wide angle lens, could be a 10mm.



At 33 1/3 rpms, at 1/2 a second the record would have done right around 1/4 of a revolution.  My best guess from the text on the label is that it hasn't gone much over 10deg or so, which at most would be about about 1/32nd of rotation...if even that.

So I am not the best at math, but at 33.3/60 you get .555 rotations for a second.  So for a rough guesstimate of shutter speed you could figure the time is twice the rotation....1/32nd rotation = 1/16th time. -minimum.

Was that photo taken at 1/10, 1/13, 1/15, 1/20, etc, shutter speed?  That is for better photographers to decide.  Can the background have that much universal motion blur at those speeds?  I don't have the experience to know.    But that is my gesstimated of what the turntables were captured at...if not much faster.

*Time*    Rotation
*1*    1/2
*1/2*    1/4
*1/4*    1/8
*1/8*    1/16
*1/16*    1/32
*1/32*    1/64

EDIT:
Just looking at the photo closer again, it looks like there is only two tracks on that record, so it would probably stand to be at 45rpm and not 33.  So the time would further shrink to closer to the rotation, giving an even faster shutter speed. But then even that could all be pointless if he slowed the speed way down.  So maybe this is all in vain.


----------



## Garbz (Nov 6, 2009)

Given the position of the hand how do you know he didn't just stop the record and it's currently spinning very slowly, this is a DJ of course 

I'm just screwing with you. Good work doing the maths. You're right, and at 1/15th you will still get quite a bit of blur. Remember where these people are. It's unlikely they are standing still. Given the right mix of alcohol and designer drugs you may get motion blur at 1/100th too


----------

