The Andrew Mountbatten Shot - Thoughts
Discussion
Any of you pro's got thoughts on the shot of Andrew in the car? Clearly a 'spray and pray' effort, and the guy who took it did very well.
My guess is something like a Nikon Z9, shooting 120 fps .jpg files (or a Canon equivalent model), at very high ISO, allowing the flash to be set to very low power for max burst rate. Pre-focus and just hit the shutter. I'd guess you'd get around 8-10 frames where the flash fires in one second, with the flash being the limiting factor.
That's how I'd attempt it, just set the gear up for the best chance of getting the shot in what was probably a two second window.
When he looked back at the shots and saw he'd got it the feeling must have been incredible.
My guess is something like a Nikon Z9, shooting 120 fps .jpg files (or a Canon equivalent model), at very high ISO, allowing the flash to be set to very low power for max burst rate. Pre-focus and just hit the shutter. I'd guess you'd get around 8-10 frames where the flash fires in one second, with the flash being the limiting factor.
That's how I'd attempt it, just set the gear up for the best chance of getting the shot in what was probably a two second window.
When he looked back at the shots and saw he'd got it the feeling must have been incredible.
A bloke has just been on the radio talking about it.
Apparently there were two cars leaving, they didn't know which car Andrew was in. He took five shots of the first car and one shot of the second. Andrew was in the second car. The only other cameraman there was a videographer.
He was lucky.
Apparently there were two cars leaving, they didn't know which car Andrew was in. He took five shots of the first car and one shot of the second. Andrew was in the second car. The only other cameraman there was a videographer.
He was lucky.
I took a pic that ended up in many newspapers (years ago), The first one added my name (website) and lots then contacted me offering various amounts.
Him being a 'pap' hell have lots of contacts (and probably an agent).
Regarding this one... it would have taken about 30 seconds to get rid of the red eye. I'm guessing they wanted to get it out asap, or couldn't be arsed
Him being a 'pap' hell have lots of contacts (and probably an agent).
Regarding this one... it would have taken about 30 seconds to get rid of the red eye. I'm guessing they wanted to get it out asap, or couldn't be arsed
Edited by GetCarter on Friday 20th February 10:22
Regarding money, it's distributed by Reuters, so I guess that the photographer was a stringer (I think that's the word) for them. No idea if he'll make loads, I somehow doubt it.
As to the red-eye - maybe possible in camera, but yes dead easy on a PC. But, and this is the big one. A soon as you took it you'd have that memory straight out of the camera and copied onto your laptop. You absolutely wouldn't do anything that might risk corrupting the file. (He was probably shotting to two cards at once though, but even so...).
As to the red-eye - maybe possible in camera, but yes dead easy on a PC. But, and this is the big one. A soon as you took it you'd have that memory straight out of the camera and copied onto your laptop. You absolutely wouldn't do anything that might risk corrupting the file. (He was probably shotting to two cards at once though, but even so...).
He is not a 'pap', he is Phil Noble, a senior photographer at one of the best news agencies in the world. And being staff he won't make money from it and newspapers won't have to pay extra for it as they mostly take the Reuters feed on a subscription basis.
Having done car shots myself in the past this excellent photo is a combination of luck to get it of the right person and pin sharp, and the benefit of skill and experience to give yourself the best chance of being lucky. As the old adage goes - the more you practice the luckier you get.
It's an amazing photograph, taken under challenging circumstances and technically superb, and will go down in history as a defining moment in the history of the Royal family.
Having done car shots myself in the past this excellent photo is a combination of luck to get it of the right person and pin sharp, and the benefit of skill and experience to give yourself the best chance of being lucky. As the old adage goes - the more you practice the luckier you get.
It's an amazing photograph, taken under challenging circumstances and technically superb, and will go down in history as a defining moment in the history of the Royal family.
Russet Grange said:
As to the red-eye - maybe possible in camera, but yes dead easy on a PC. But, and this is the big one. A soon as you took it you'd have that memory straight out of the camera and copied onto your laptop. You absolutely wouldn't do anything that might risk corrupting the file. (He was probably shotting to two cards at once though, but even so...).
Nothing to do with speed but all about binding principles of news photography - if he removed the red-eye he'd rapidly find himself unemployed. Shooting for press I cannot edit anything except possibly dust spots etc. I can correct colour / tone / brightness, etc, and crop, but moving any pixels is a massive no no and taken very seriously.tog said:
Nothing to do with speed but all about binding principles of news photography - if he removed the red-eye he'd rapidly find himself unemployed. Shooting for press I cannot edit anything except possibly dust spots etc. I can correct colour / tone / brightness, etc, and crop, but moving any pixels is a massive no no and taken very seriously.
That's interesting.... it's not my world at all, so learned something! 
tog said:
Nothing to do with speed but all about binding principles of news photography - if he removed the red-eye he'd rapidly find himself unemployed. Shooting for press I cannot edit anything except possibly dust spots etc. I can correct colour / tone / brightness, etc, and crop, but moving any pixels is a massive no no and taken very seriously.
Seems odd. Correcting for red-eye doesn't involve 'moving pixels' any more than tone/brightness/colour does. I get that you wouldn't change the nature of the shot, by removing a seat belt for example, but you're a press photographer and I'm not.It may not be moving pixels but is changing the nature of what was captured.
The World Press Photo competition rules have a good explainer of what is allowed for their entries, and most news orgs would be similar.
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/contest/verificati... (Although I can't foresee any occasion when I might want to add grain to a news photo!)
The World Press Photo competition rules have a good explainer of what is allowed for their entries, and most news orgs would be similar.
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/contest/verificati... (Although I can't foresee any occasion when I might want to add grain to a news photo!)
tog said:
He is not a 'pap', he is Phil Noble, a senior photographer at one of the best news agencies in the world. And being staff he won't make money from it and newspapers won't have to pay extra for it as they mostly take the Reuters feed on a subscription basis.
Interesting. I was basing the question on a member of the public taking a picture of Prince William and Kate, and maybe Harry and Meghan too, walking to church one Christmas, and it being reported they made £100K out of it.NDA said:
tog said:
Nothing to do with speed but all about binding principles of news photography - if he removed the red-eye he'd rapidly find himself unemployed. Shooting for press I cannot edit anything except possibly dust spots etc. I can correct colour / tone / brightness, etc, and crop, but moving any pixels is a massive no no and taken very seriously.
That's interesting.... it's not my world at all, so learned something! 98elise said:
NDA said:
tog said:
Nothing to do with speed but all about binding principles of news photography - if he removed the red-eye he'd rapidly find himself unemployed. Shooting for press I cannot edit anything except possibly dust spots etc. I can correct colour / tone / brightness, etc, and crop, but moving any pixels is a massive no no and taken very seriously.
That's interesting.... it's not my world at all, so learned something! Simpo Two said:
tog said:
will go down in history as a defining moment in the history of the Royal family.
But he's not a Royal any more. Whatever Andrew did - no proof yet, just guilty by the media kangaroo court - should not reflect on his relatives.How are you going to change that?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff