A fast shutter speed is not always the anwer to movement...

[pgriz]

No it's not.

In fact, it may even be overrated.

Blatantly copying (uh, I think the term is emulating.. ) some members on this forum, I decided to try a set of experimental shots to see what would happen when you combine motion with panning with a slow shutter speed. A lot of the shots have been sent to the pixel recycling centre, but a few survived. What do you think of this one?

 

[480sparky47 47]

Truthfully, it doesn't do a thing for me. I can't decide if you are falling over, or your car is about to head-on with a steamroller.

 

[MLeeK]

Panning is awesome when you want the blur in there. I am not sure why we want the blur in this image, but if it expresses what you wanted it to express, then it's great.
Which brings us back to
Know the rules. Then know when and how to break them.

 

[Derrel]

I like the feeling, the movement, the swirly-ness of this. The subject matter though is kind of boring...an old pump house and some kind of corn or grain transport bin or whatever??? "Ehhhh." Maybe if there were a more fascinating subject, the shot would actually "sing"? I think so, actually...something more visually compelling, like say a tractor, or a combine, or 'somethin' more appealing and more varied than the shack and the bin-on-wheels thing.

I myself am fascinated by movement and blurring, panning, zooming while making long exposures, time exposures, and so on...after taking one million SHARP and CLEAR pictures, a guy finds that hey, there really *is* a place for blurriness, movement, and a sense of movement, of time, of motion portrayed fluidly, and not just in BORING, plain, old-fashioned stop-motion.

 

[pgriz]

Yeah, I agree, the subject was/is boring... but what I found neat was that the blurs were not all in the same direction but rather swirly and very different from what I was expecting. As to why? Hey, you got to put in your share of clunkers before it starts coming together... And this was, I agree, a clunker. But with promise. Can't ignore the promise. And Derrel, I promise to look for some more worthy subject that can be fluidicized with this new technique (well, new to me that is). Thank you all for looking and commenting.

 

[Tee]

I think you're on to something. The image is clear enough to define what's in it yet shows movement. Will be interested to see what you produce with a more appealing subject.

 

[Derrel]

One thing I have noticed on the iPhone 4 is that movement often takes on a very odd, distorted rendering, due to some factors that I really do not fully grasp. Windshield wipers appear bent...airplane props appear bent...photos shot from a moving car can take on very weird "slants", for lack of a better word. I am sure there must be people here who can clarify how these oddities occur.

 

[pgriz]

Could it be that the reading of the sensor is occuring while it is still recording? So in effect the sensor would be capturing the movement of the item in motion in different time slices?

 

[PixelRabbit]

Darn! I'm on my iPod so just a quick reply. Yay Paul! Nice to see you playing with this I'm in the close but no cigar camp but isn't it fun ?!?! The shots fascinate me.
The best way I can describe why things go in different directions like they do is think about your plane of focus, it is spinning as you shoot so the centre of your plane spins slower and it remains most static, foreground will go in one direction because it is most effected by the forward motion of the vehicle while background follows the spin of the plane of focus.
Gosh I hope that made sense!

 

[Tony S]

I think the old Ford pickup hit too many bumps as you took this shot.... it's not working for me as there is no central point or motin to focus on and as an abstract it's not abstract enough.

 

[Derrel]

Could it be that the reading of the sensor is occuring while it is still recording? So in effect the sensor would be capturing the movement of the item in motion in different time slices?

Well, that was my impression of what the issue was...that the sensor was exposed in a line-by-line basis, and that the movement of rapid subjects (OR rapid movement of the camera in relation to subject location, as when I am driving along and shooting out the window) caused some "displacement" due to the actual delay in imaging the scene, across the entire length or width of the sensor...I am assuming this is similar to the old-time photo shot by Jacques Henri Lartigue jacques-henri-lartigue-old-race-car-zoom.jpg His image was shot using a very large-format camera that used a large, and relatively slow-moving focal plane shutter.

 

[pgriz]

I think you're on to something. The image is clear enough to define what's in it yet shows movement. Will be interested to see what you produce with a more appealing subject.

Thank you, Tee! My "normal" style is to have the camera on a tripod, mirror lockup, remote trigger, etc., all the things to avoid inadvertent camera shake. So doing this was is a departure for me, and truth be told, quite liberating.

Darn! I'm on my iPod so just a quick reply. Yay Paul! Nice to see you playing with this I'm in the close but no cigar camp but isn't it fun ?!?! The shots fascinate me.
The best way I can describe why things go in different directions like they do is think about your plane of focus, it is spinning as you shoot so the centre of your plane spins slower and it remains most static, foreground will go in one direction because it is most effected by the forward motion of the vehicle while background follows the spin of the plane of focus.
Gosh I hope that made sense!

Thank you, Judi! You're being generous - this one is in the "not really close" camp. But as you noted, the technique is fascinating. Now to learn how (and when) to use it effectively.

I think the old Ford pickup hit too many bumps as you took this shot.... it's not working for me as there is no central point or motin to focus on and as an abstract it's not abstract enough.

Hi Tony! Yep, everything you say is true. But this was more a case of posting something of exploration. Very far from being a "finished" product. But what was interesting for me to discover, is that using both vehicle motion AND panning, you get a combination of blurs that are not even across the image. in some places where the panning followed the roadside object the image is almost sharp, while in others the varied motion created a whole slew of blur patterns. Also, where there are visual lines that align with the motion, there is almost no blur, whereas with lines perpendicular to the motion the blur is quite strong. And lastly, it appears that I also rotated the camera a bit while I panned, so there is also motion blur resulting from that. Now the objective will be to practice this until it becomes almost predictable - and used with a suitably interesting subject, of course.

 

[mishele]

Hey pgriz!! Congrats on stepping out of your comfort zone!! :hugs: Sometimes that's half the battle. (I know...lol)
I agree w/ Tee, you are on to something here. It almost feels like you have a swirl of motion. The bottom has movement that is going to the right and the yellow grass feels like it's moving to the left. =) Very cool.
I have an idea for ya...I'll PM.

 

[Frequency]

Liked it

 

[invisible]

If you forget the slow-shutter trick for a moment and focus on composition, I think you'll agree that the frame doesn't look balanced. In my opinion, it needs more room to the right of the truck, and also less sky (or maybe sky with some clouds, because right now the top looks like a lot of negative space). I suppose that creating a balanced composition is a challenge with a moving camera

Other than that, I'll go against the grain and say that I find the image intriguing, and wonder where this experiment is going to lead you.