How do they do this? - DPChallenge Forums

04/05/2011 08:32:35 PM · #2

They hold the camera real still, while jumping up and down and holding down the shutter at the same time.

I'm kidding. But it could be done that way :)

Many of these shots are simply longish exposures (for example, 1/30 sec) while quickly moving the camera. Add out of focus features, and you have a bunch of stuff like this.

Garry

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/05/2011 08:37:36 PM · #3

Thanks Ursula. So you're introducing the blur by moving camera? I've also read you can do this by zooming in and out during a lengthy exposure. Is this a common way of doing it?

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

04/05/2011 08:40:38 PM · #4

Zooming in wouldn't give you vertical movement, but more of a rays thing, like rays coming in from the edges. You can actually do movement in any direction you want, but since trees are up/down (tall, vertical), the common approach is to pan them vertically.

PennyStreet

Olympus OM-D E-M1

04/05/2011 08:42:44 PM · #5

you posted two very beautiful examples!

fldave

Pentax K5II

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

04/05/2011 08:58:43 PM · #6

Taking camera motion/blur to the extreme is camera tossing as seen in Ryan Gallagher's blog and the Camera Toss flickr group.

GinaRothfels

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

04/05/2011 09:19:28 PM · #7

Some examples of blur created by zooming during a long exposure:

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

04/05/2011 10:14:29 PM · #8

A recent example of my own. A combination zoomblur & spinblur. I rotated the camera around the lens while holding the zoom barrel.

GinaRothfels

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

04/05/2011 10:46:52 PM · #9

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

A recent example of my own. A combination zoomblur & spinblur. I rotated the camera around the lens while holding the zoom barrel.

Very nice. I must try that some time.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

04/05/2011 11:46:38 PM · #10

A rather offal example. ;)

salmiakki

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/05/2011 11:51:53 PM · #11

Originally posted by ursula:

They hold the camera real still, while jumping up and down and holding down the shutter at the same time.

Ha ha Ursula. You are so right. Garry, the other part of Ursula's explanation is the truth, ie longish exposure.

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

04/06/2011 12:37:09 AM · #12

Originally posted by gcoulson:

I've been meaning to try some blur/motion photography like these, but have no idea how they're doing this?

salmiakki

bspurgeon

Lensbaby? Post-processing?

Who cares? It's ugly.

jamesgoss

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

04/06/2011 12:56:53 AM · #13

Originally posted by kgeary:

Originally posted by gcoulson:
I've been meaning to try some blur/motion photography like these, but have no idea how they're doing this?

salmiakki

bspurgeon

Lensbaby? Post-processing?

Who cares? It's ugly.

Wow, is the rudeness - both to the original poster AND to the two photographers - really necessary?

::EDIT,

Originally posted by kgeary on his website:

Part of what�s great about working with me is that I interact as a person, not a company. I like to build relationships. I appreciate a personal touch.

I find it to be ironic that you describe yourself this way, because I think it's quite obvious (by looking at your comment history that this would be stretching the truth. You come off as arrogant and demeaning, and focus more on insults, stabs, or just plain negativity as opposed to being constructive. I'm not sure if you're aware, but many times business comes from word of mouth, and as more and more people become technologically oriented, I'd be cautious as to how I'm presenting myself online. You may be burning bridges that don't even exist yet.

Message edited by author 2011-04-06 01:10:12.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/06/2011 01:02:12 AM · #14

Originally posted by jamesgoss:

Wow, is the rudeness - both to the original poster AND to the two photographers - really necessary?

How else would you gain insight into the attitudes and personality of the commentor?

salmiakki

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/06/2011 03:36:29 AM · #15

Originally posted by kgeary:

Ha. Whatever

Message edited by author 2011-04-06 03:37:15.

MargaretNet

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

Sony FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS

04/06/2011 04:24:26 AM · #16

Originally posted by kgeary:

I guess your idea of ugly is very different to ours. All examples quoted here are high quality photographs taken by artists who were published on 1x. You have to be an outstanding photographer to achieve that. How many of your photographs have been published on 1x.com? What are your credentials and achievements?

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

04/06/2011 08:48:45 AM · #17

kgeary if you smear vaseline over your corneas the world will be less ugly or you can simply look at Ursula's versions. Much more colorful than the two posted.

My image was simply vaseline smeared on a filter. Use the viewfinder or live view (tripod required) to view the result as you rotate the filter or smear the vaseline to get the effect you want.

Message edited by author 2011-04-06 09:05:14.

04/06/2011 02:05:28 PM · #18

There's a lot of god awful "art" hanging in museums and art galleries. It's highly subjective. If you like looking at a photograph of nothing, then that's up to you. But being "published" somewhere doesn't automatically make it magical.

I was simply giving my opinion, which I happen to be an expert on. :) To me, it's a picture of nothing.

And I didn't say the photographers were bad. I was simply commenting on the single photo that was posted. To me, it's ugly. Is that ok?

Message edited by author 2011-04-06 14:06:54.

Sony FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS

04/06/2011 02:13:56 PM · #19

Originally posted by jamesgoss:

Originally posted by kgeary:

Originally posted by gcoulson:
I've been meaning to try some blur/motion photography like these, but have no idea how they're doing this?

salmiakki

bspurgeon

Lensbaby? Post-processing?

Who cares? It's ugly.

Wow, is the rudeness - both to the original poster AND to the two photographers - really necessary?

::EDIT,

Originally posted by kgeary on his website:
Part of what�s great about working with me is that I interact as a person, not a company. I like to build relationships. I appreciate a personal touch.

I find it to be ironic that you describe yourself this way, because I think it's quite obvious (by looking at your comment history that this would be stretching the truth. You come off as arrogant and demeaning, and focus more on insults, stabs, or just plain negativity as opposed to being constructive. I'm not sure if you're aware, but many times business comes from word of mouth, and as more and more people become technologically oriented, I'd be cautious as to how I'm presenting myself online. You may be burning bridges that don't even exist yet.

There are some parents, who when their kid spreads their own feces on the wall, call it a masterful work of art. Sometimes, there has to be someone around who will just tell it like it is so the nonsense stops.

I'm not saying that these photos are similar to feces on the wall, but the point is that sometimes art gets so subjective (beyond a tipping point) that it begins to dilute reality so that nothing is special anymore. When everyone stands around and applauds random abstractness, that dilution starts to tear down true greatness.

Perhaps you can explain why these photos are so artistic?

Message edited by author 2011-04-06 14:14:43.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

04/06/2011 02:16:56 PM · #20

Originally posted by kgeary:

To me, it's ugly. Is that ok?

Yup, of course it is. It wasn't the thought that folks reacted negatively to. It was the delivery. Brusque, dismissive, rude.

MargaretNet

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

04/06/2011 02:46:44 PM · #21

Originally posted by kgeary:

How do you think your opinion helped Garry with his original question? He came here for help on a common photographic technique and got your harsh dislike of photos using this technique instead. Not very helpful.

I thought that DPC members accept that there are various trends in art and they do not have to like them all. I personally dislike any image that shows blood but I do not dismiss them as "ugly". I say I find them disturbing which correctly describes my feeling. You used "ugly" to describe specific photos. That's a big difference.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

04/06/2011 02:54:32 PM · #22

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by kgeary:
To me, it's ugly. Is that ok?

Yup, of course it is. It wasn't the thought that folks reacted negatively to. It was the delivery. Brusque, dismissive, rude.

I get that. Perhaps someone could explain what's so artistic about the shots to help me out?

Basta

Nikon D4

04/06/2011 03:01:48 PM · #23

Originally posted by marnet:

Originally posted by kgeary:
There's a lot of god awful "art" hanging in museums and art galleries. It's highly subjective. If you like looking at a photograph of nothing, then that's up to you. But being "published" somewhere doesn't automatically make it magical.

I was simply giving my opinion, which I happen to be an expert on. :) To me, it's a picture of nothing.

And I didn't say the photographers were bad. I was simply commenting on the single photo that was posted. To me, it's ugly. Is that ok?
How do you think your opinion helped Garry with his original question? He came here for help on a common photographic technique and got your harsh dislike of photos using this technique instead. Not very helpful.

I thought that DPC members accept that there are various trends in art and they do not have to like them all. I personally dislike any image that shows blood but I do not dismiss them as "ugly". I say I find them disturbing which correctly describes my feeling. You used "ugly" to describe specific photos. That's a big difference.

I kind of like salmiakki's photo.
And I like kgeary's comment, sounds honest, that is something DPC is missing. There is more than enough rear end kissing and fake politeness , some honesty is a nice for a change.

04/06/2011 03:03:09 PM · #24

Originally posted by kgeary:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by kgeary:
To me, it's ugly. Is that ok?

Yup, of course it is. It wasn't the thought that folks reacted negatively to. It was the delivery. Brusque, dismissive, rude.

I get that. Perhaps someone could explain what's so artistic about the shots to help me out?

It is a different way to look and interpret the world around us, one that concentrates on shape and colour more so than on actual content, one that uses distortion, blur, movement, shallow dof, to try and abstract the essence of the subject rather than to record the actual look of the subject.

It is beauty for beauty's sake, shape, colour, line for the sake of enjoyment of shape, colour, line. But it is more than just visual enjoyment. It is a way to get to the essence of what makes a subject what it is. For example, a tree, let's say a ponderosa pine: what is it that makes a ponderosa a ponderosa, what makes it "speak" so to say, what is the spirit of that tree so that you could show as little as possible of it and yet know, with certainty, that it is a ponderosa?

That is what makes it art, thinking about the subject, getting to know it, showing it in ways that people might never imagined seeing it and yet are able to recognize it for what it is, for its spirit. In some ways, these photos provide much more character than representational photos. That's what makes it art.

Message edited by author 2011-04-06 15:04:39.