| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/21/2009 10:29:55 AM · #1 |
Hi everyone, seems that this has not been asked yet... what do you think that falls within the expression "move your camera"?
The only thing I am sure will "meet the challenge" is panning. What I would like to experiment with, but am pretty sure will be "DNMTC", is zooming in/out during the shot.
Actually the lens is part of the camera, and when zooming I am MOVING it, but I feel that not too many will view it this way.
What's your opinion? |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 10:40:15 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Hi everyone, seems that this has not been asked yet... what do you think that falls within the expression "move your camera"?
The only thing I am sure will "meet the challenge" is panning. What I would like to experiment with, but am pretty sure will be "DNMTC", is zooming in/out during the shot.
Actually the lens is part of the camera, and when zooming I am MOVING it, but I feel that not too many will view it this way.
What's your opinion? |
I think zooming would be fine and I daresay we may see more than a few entries using that effect.. But how about this - holding the lens, slightly longer exposure, and twisting the camera around the lens when holding the zoom ring? It would not only zoom in and out, but also give you a swirly effect as well..
Here is a zooming one I did earlier this year - only resized and neatimaged as it was shot at iso2000
Message edited by author 2009-10-21 10:41:12. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 10:41:28 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Hi everyone, seems that this has not been asked yet... what do you think that falls within the expression "move your camera"?
The only thing I am sure will "meet the challenge" is panning. What I would like to experiment with, but am pretty sure will be "DNMTC", is zooming in/out during the shot.
Actually the lens is part of the camera, and when zooming I am MOVING it, but I feel that not too many will view it this way.
What's your opinion? |
I think that zooming in/out is fine. Beside zooming and panning, I think that "shooting while running" meets the challenge, too.
If you want to do something crazy, you can drop the camera from a cliff to shoot a "flying" photo. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 10:44:39 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Hi everyone, seems that this has not been asked yet... what do you think that falls within the expression "move your camera"?
The only thing I am sure will "meet the challenge" is panning. What I would like to experiment with, but am pretty sure will be "DNMTC", is zooming in/out during the shot.
Actually the lens is part of the camera, and when zooming I am MOVING it, but I feel that not too many will view it this way.
What's your opinion? |
I believe the zoom blur technique would meet the challenge. I have been trying that technique recently without much success. The trick seems to be to have something in focus first then have the zoom blur working to create a dynamic shot. There is a great photo of a sign in the current corner of your world challenge that uses this technique...
Does anyone have any links to some "How To's" on camera movement? |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 10:46:33 AM · #5 |
 ..... 
I used camera movement to get these shots. You can see from the comments that both shots suffered from having nothing in focus. So, if you hold the camera still long enough to get a subject in focus & then move it, or use the zoom technique, it might do well. But panning the camera will get the highest score because it is a traditional, well known technique, and it meets the challenge with the subject in sharp focus.
[eta]
When I google 'camera movement techniques' or even 'still camera movement techniques' I get responses for video camera movement. Tilt, pan, and zoom seem to be the traditional video camera-movement techniques. It's odd that the assumption seems to be that you will not move your still camera.
Even though on the cosmic level and on the atomic level me and my camera are never really still, as  Steef points out.
Message edited by author 2009-10-21 11:07:31. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 10:54:57 AM · #6 |
technically, your camera is moving all the time as the earth spins. the question is, movement with respect to what? :P but seriously, i wouldn't DNMC star trails.
as far as zooming to get those cool popping out at you effects, for me, it would be ok. but i'm sure there are going to be voters who will be upset that the camera itself didn't move. it's just like anything around here, you're rolling the dice regardless |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 11:31:25 AM · #7 |
This is also created with camera movement. Slow shutter speed and a vertical movement of the camera when you press the shutter.
Check out this group on Flickr. There are lots of interesting images.
Intentional Camera Movement, Flickr Group |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 11:38:58 AM · #8 |
The trick to camera motion shots is to experiment.
Try holding the zoom barrel, and rotating the camera instead of the other way around. Try swinging the camera. Move it gently through an arc. Etc. Usually 1/3 to 1/6 of a second exposure is fine. I find colorful subjects work best, but you can try it with anything!
There are lots of examples in my portfolio, but here are a few of my favorites. On the down side, these don't usually score well!
  
  
|
|
|
|
10/21/2009 11:43:49 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
On the down side, these don't usually score well! |
And that in itself is a real pity. You have some amazing images. Maybe, just maybe, in this specific challenge they will score well though! |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 11:45:13 AM · #10 |
Although this didn't score too well in the challenge I entered - this was done with the camera on tripod, and zooming out ....makes me think if something like this will work because the camera actually did not move, it was just the lens zoom factor that changed!
 |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 12:15:54 PM · #11 |
This is quite cool ... but it must be done with a compact.
 |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:02:32 PM · #12 |
I think zooming during a long exposure is not what is meant by this challenge. Otherwise they would have said something like zooming technique or zoom burst. There are groups dedicated to this type of zoomming out on Flickr:
//www.flickr.com/groups/zoom_explosions/pool/
//www.flickr.com/groups/zooming/pool/
The challenge means (IMHO) that the camera itself must be moving relative to the photographer, or as some call it, "camera toss" or "kinetic photography".
|
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:08:56 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
I think zooming during a long exposure is not what is meant by this challenge. Otherwise they would have said something like zooming technique or zoom burst.
The challenge means (IMHO) that the camera itself must be moving relative to the photographer, or as some call it, "camera toss" or "kinetic photography". |
I think that as long as the camera (zooming included) is moving, then it meets the challenge. It would be really cool to see a large variety of interpretations for this challenge. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:25:32 PM · #14 |
 This one is done by panning backwards in a moving a car. Fun little experiment.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:36:47 PM · #15 |
This was shot in infrared (converted camera- not an external filter) camera trying to pan with the trees as we drove past in a car. Probably get points off for not being sharp enough! Joe's shot reminded me of it. Thought it looked like a forest fire so I played up the red a bit on it.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2009 07:39:59 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I used camera movement to get these shots. You can see from the comments that both shots suffered from having nothing in focus. So, if you hold the camera still long enough to get a subject in focus & then move it, or use the zoom technique, it might do well. But panning the camera will get the highest score because it is a traditional, well known technique, and it meets the challenge with the subject in sharp focus.
[eta]
When I google 'camera movement techniques' or even 'still camera movement techniques' I get responses for video camera movement. Tilt, pan, and zoom seem to be the traditional video camera-movement techniques. It's odd that the assumption seems to be that you will not move your still camera.
Even though on the cosmic level and on the atomic level me and my camera are never really still, as Steef points out. |
You could use long exposure with a flash- maybe try a rear shutter sync if you can (flash fires at end instead of beginning of shot)- that will freeze part of it while the rest blurs. That will give you at least some of it sharper.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2009 09:59:25 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
You could use long exposure with a flash- maybe try a rear shutter sync if you can (flash fires at end instead of beginning of shot)- that will freeze part of it while the rest blurs. That will give you at least some of it sharper. |
I could. And I will. It's about time I took up my DSLR & had some oob fun with it. I had a look at the ICM group on Flickr & got some further inspiration. Thanks! |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 07:28:10 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Hi everyone, seems that this has not been asked yet... what do you think that falls within the expression "move your camera"?
The only thing I am sure will "meet the challenge" is panning. What I would like to experiment with, but am pretty sure will be "DNMTC", is zooming in/out during the shot.
Actually the lens is part of the camera, and when zooming I am MOVING it, but I feel that not too many will view it this way.
What's your opinion? |
You're not technically moving the camera when zooming in or out. The glass elements are moving, yes, but the camera isn't. |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 08:00:50 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Hi everyone, seems that this has not been asked yet... what do you think that falls within the expression "move your camera"?
The only thing I am sure will "meet the challenge" is panning. What I would like to experiment with, but am pretty sure will be "DNMTC", is zooming in/out during the shot.
Actually the lens is part of the camera, and when zooming I am MOVING it, but I feel that not too many will view it this way.
What's your opinion? |
You're not technically moving the camera when zooming in or out. The glass elements are moving, yes, but the camera isn't. |
I think that will be my stance when shooting and voting on this one, too. The camera itself NEEDS to be moving, NOT FIXED.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2009 08:31:02 AM · #20 |
So this one wouldn't qualify?
Actually I was walking when I took the photo, so in 1 second the camera did move too. But the zoom blur hides that fact, therefore it would attract the DNMC vote.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2009 09:52:07 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by gattamarta:
Hi everyone, seems that this has not been asked yet... what do you think that falls within the expression "move your camera"?
The only thing I am sure will "meet the challenge" is panning. What I would like to experiment with, but am pretty sure will be "DNMTC", is zooming in/out during the shot.
Actually the lens is part of the camera, and when zooming I am MOVING it, but I feel that not too many will view it this way.
What's your opinion? |
You're not technically moving the camera when zooming in or out. The glass elements are moving, yes, but the camera isn't. |
I think that will be my stance when shooting and voting on this one, too. The camera itself NEEDS to be moving, NOT FIXED. |
Moving relative to what? |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 09:58:55 AM · #22 |
is the lens not part of the camera? i mean, i know you can change them, but the camera itself isn't functional without a lens. in my left hand i have a camera body. in my right i have a camera lens. neither is going to take a photograph until you mate them. so who is to say that moving the lens isn't moving the camera as a complete unit? remember, when you move your camera, you are moving the body and also moving the lens that is attached to it. why doesn't it work the other way around?
i should double check the description to see if it says anything specifically about moving the camera body. my guess is no.
Message edited by author 2009-10-22 09:59:28. |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 10:10:42 AM · #23 |
This is only going to get more interesting. Wait until voting starts - then the sparks will really start to fly! |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 03:32:48 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Steef:
is the lens not part of the camera? i mean, i know you can change them, but the camera itself isn't functional without a lens. in my left hand i have a camera body. in my right i have a camera lens. neither is going to take a photograph until you mate them. so who is to say that moving the lens isn't moving the camera as a complete unit? remember, when you move your camera, you are moving the body and also moving the lens that is attached to it. why doesn't it work the other way around?
i should double check the description to see if it says anything specifically about moving the camera body. my guess is no. |
It only says the camera must move, not part of it. The camera body is still called the camera without a lens. Under that definition, isn't the mirror moving or the shutter opening and closing as much movement as the lens moving?
If I put my car on a jack, noone would consider rotating a tire to be moving the car. Maybe a better description would be to say whatever is holding the camera must move, hands or whatever mount the camera is attached to (movement of the cosmos of course not considered as valid 8-)
So let me try a new definition:
Take a picture where the cameras relative position is altered from the opening to the closing of the shutter.
Note: I threw in relative bit to handle the movement of the planet, solar system and galaxy!
Message edited by author 2009-10-22 15:33:56. |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 03:36:07 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by rcollier:
Originally posted by Steef:
is the lens not part of the camera? i mean, i know you can change them, but the camera itself isn't functional without a lens. in my left hand i have a camera body. in my right i have a camera lens. neither is going to take a photograph until you mate them. so who is to say that moving the lens isn't moving the camera as a complete unit? remember, when you move your camera, you are moving the body and also moving the lens that is attached to it. why doesn't it work the other way around?
i should double check the description to see if it says anything specifically about moving the camera body. my guess is no. |
It only says the camera must move, not part of it. The camera body is still called the camera without a lens. Under that definition, isn't the mirror moving or the shutter opening and closing as much movement as the lens moving?
If I put my car on a jack, noone would consider rotating a tire to be moving the car. Maybe a better description would be to say whatever is holding the camera must move, hands or whatever mount the camera is attached to (movement of the cosmos of course not considered as valid 8-)
So let me try a new definition:
Take a picture where the cameras relative position is altered from the opening to the closing of the shutter.
Note: I threw in relative bit to handle the movement of the planet, solar system and galaxy! |
hahaha, but the challenge description doesn't say that :P
your analogy is better than mine, i was just trying to present the other side of the argument. i concede to you :)
but, i seriously think that star trails should count as camera movement. it's not the stars that are moving, right? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 12:48:00 PM EDT.
