If you read the photographer's responses in the comments section he makes clear that there isn't much Photoshop involved. There are lots of ways to create sun/light flares in Photoshop using just the native tools and don't require brushes. Calvin Hollywood has several tutorials showing how to do it; including adding flares by using a simple white brush and/or gradients.
His pics have not been retouched whatsover! Give me a break!
They have been retouched till the cows went home.
Maybe a couple of pics are real cars and the others are 3d. All light - sky - flares - clouds...etc are composites.
Look at this simple retouch done just now on my laptop. The car can easily be masked out and placed in proper position on any track you wish and even in motion while we are at it.
If only people would be straightforward about their photography
While it might be very good retouching, it is incredibly obvious that it is retouched (CGI, HDR, heavily processed, great finishing, etc. if you prefer).
All you have to do is read the key/shadow lighting on the track relative to the key/shadow lighting on the car and corresponding reflections. The shadows are not natural, they are too light, thus were either fill or somehow touched. They aren't natural fill because the falloff is either not present is some, or it is too prominent in others, and the reflections don't match. The list goes on, but suffice to say these are heavily retouched .. very well, but retouched (nothing wrong with that). No way these are remotely close to sooc with only a light touch of PS.
A comment that there isn't much PS involved ... levels and a mask with brush painting on the mask(s) isn't much involved. However, you can do an enormous amount with it. The definition of not much PS involved is rather nebulous semantics. I think it is fine workmanship indeed, but one should be honest about the fact that great finishing is an integral part of the finished product rather than suggest the finishing wasn't that big of a deal to the end result.
Both capture and finishing are integral components (no foul there) ... so why the need to diminish the role of skillful finishing when it is so obvious? Does that make one more or less of a photographer ... maybe we should ask AA?
1- Clouds and Sky
As he claims that only little photoshop was used, it is pretty obvious that although this shot is from the other side of the tower, but there are no Clouds whatsoever in the allegedly original shot!
2- EXIF
The other thing which irks me is that his pics carry the EXIF. He must be the only or the very rare photographer who not only changes his watch time zone when traveling for 2 days but on his CAMERA as well. I suppose the answer is he used a friend camera....blah blah blah.
I guess he changes the time zone on his laptop and Ipad - Iphone - SamsungS3.....etc each time he travels!
What's wrong in admitting that the photos were heavily retouched with clouds - sky - flares...added! HDR, 3d, you name it. And I won't get started that on Feb 5 the moon in Bahrain was at the third quarter which means it was not pitch dark as in the pics and that the sun direction conflicts with the tower shot orientation......
Nobody will care if he just admits that the photos are retouched and he will get applause and kudos, instead of getting dissected as a photo manipulator!
The 'standard' photo in the link above isn't his straight out of camera shot from what I can tell. George said he isn't posting the sooc images.
Here is what the photographer posted on DieselStation:
"I know they might be a bit "over photoshopped" for some tastes, but that's the way I wanted them and the look I wanted. (personally I don't think they're over photoshopped)."
pr4photos wrote:
Heavily edited, but great images all the same
+1 ... my camera work & vision can comprehend the approach to the images, but I'd be lost at how to achieve the level of PS involved here. Not something I'd be able to pull off.
It was good to see the links (Almass & Zaitz) to the sooc as well as the dialogue where he was defending how much work he put into the images in post. I've got no beef with the artistic processing, it is top notch, as is the camera work. The end result is the visionary culmination of the two.
I'd image he has spent many hours if not years practicing and honing his processing in concert with his camera work to develop his artistic style. That is something to be proud of and is admirable. You're not gonna simply click on a preset and make this happen. There is a talent involved in both the camera work and the post production ... why laud one and disavow the other? The were both pertinent to the final outcome.
But much like Oz and airbrushing why do people feel compelled to say things are not what they are. Let the results speak for themselves without a need to lie about the methods. It is the attempted lie to feign the amount of PS that tarnishes things here ... not the results , nor the methods.
You guys are missing the point. The OP asked how to simulate the flair in PS, now how the original photog achieved the flair. He in no way asked how much PP was done, he just wants an adequate way to fake flair that looks like what you see in the link...
... not the results 
, nor the methods. 