Interesting Long Exposure Technique - Fireworks

[mjhoward]

Thought I would share this for those that may not have seen this article or the technique before. I thought it was pretty interesting.

http://www.bangstyle.com/2012/08/david-johnson-long-exposure-fireworks/

Basically it's a technique for photographing fireworks displays that involves adjusting the focus during a long exposure to get some interesting effects.

 

[ronlane]

That is interesting. I was taught this July 4th to use long exposure to get some great fireworks pictures, but never thought about that idea. Hope I don't forget this before I get a chance to try it.

 

[macpro88]

This is cool. I've adjusted focal length during long exposure to get cool stuff but never focus, will have to give this a try sometime!

 

[LizardKing]

Really cool! Thanks for sharing... I wonder other uses for this...

 

[Derrel]

COOL! I really liked example #4, the all-green one! Looked a lot like a dandelion in seed-time! Cool stuff.

 

[pgriz]

Ah! another "wrong" technique to add to my quiver!

Focusing with the shutter open.

Joins:
Changing focal length with shutter open,
Deliberately shaking/moving/twisting/turning camera while shutter's open,
leaving main subject out of focus,
Using the wrong WB,
Using too-thin DOF...

yep, the list is growing.:thumbup:

 

[macpro88]

Ah! another "wrong" technique to add to my quiver!

Focusing with the shutter open.

Joins:
Changing focal length with shutter open,
Deliberately shaking/moving/twisting/turning camera while shutter's open,
leaving main subject out of focus,
Using the wrong WB,
Using too-thin DOF...

yep, the list is growing.:thumbup:

I wouldn't say "wrong" lol maybe "artsy and not to be used for technical photography" lol

 

[amolitor]

Are those fireworks or viruses?

Interesting technique, not sure I'm going to be using it myself, but it's a neat idea!

 

[pgriz]

These types of techniques serve to help us break out of boxes we built for ourselves. Breaking out often inspires a new level of creativity, and even occasionally, insight. These represent the evolution of skill, in that once you understand a "rule" and can make images that conform perfectly to the "rule", you can now set it aside when the artistic need arises.

The human brain is very visually oriented, and we also seek out patterns in what we observe around us. These patterns can be visual, auditory, tactile, temporal, or some combination thereof, but we tend to "connect the dots" and see patterns where none exist. We also like stories and depictions of cause-effect (partly because these serve to create a sense of order, and depending on your political/religious persuation, a sense of purpose).

These techniques cause the viewer to have several reactions:
1) What is this? (recognition)
2) New! Shiny! (novelty)
3) How did this get done? (what's the trick?)
4) What does this remind me of? (association/feeling)

and occasionally

5) How does this help me understand or see? (perspective change/paradyme shift - rare, but powerful when it happens).

I think all of us, as photographers, should have a list of deliberate rule breakers that allow us freedom to explore and try things we've never done before. Most of the time, the end-result won't work. But when it does, it will be because there is a pattern that the viewer can't immediately recognize and explain, and that forces a much closer examination. When the item is ambiguous, the viewer then injects their own interpretation (because we are seeking patterns, causes and effects, a sense of order), and in doing so, may open (inadvertently) the doors to (new) perception.

My way of thinking of it is that a picture that is "complete" can be viewed, but is rarely experienced, but a picture that is "open" or "unfinished" invites the viewer to add their own ending, so to speak, and in doing so, involve them emotionally. As a photographer/artist, I find creating such "open" images to be very difficult - partly because there is such a great temptation to get to the punch-line, or tell the end of the story.

 

[ahcigar1]

It's an interesting technique and never thought of it, but I don't think I really like it after seeing the results. Completely removed the look of fireworks and looks more like some weird science experiment gone wrong. But to each their own.

 

[mjhoward]

Ah! another "wrong" technique to add to my quiver!

I suppose these should use the "right" technique and look like every other firework photograph out there. How boring.

 

[PlanetStarbucks]

Oh hel yeh...so doing this. New Year can't come quick enough

 

[pgriz]

Ah! another "wrong" technique to add to my quiver!

I suppose these should use the "right" technique and look like every other firework photograph out there. How boring.

So, are we arguing or agreeing?

 

[mjhoward]

Ah! another "wrong" technique to add to my quiver!

I suppose these should use the "right" technique and look like every other firework photograph out there. How boring.

So, are we arguing or agreeing?

It's hard to tell because in your one post, it would seem like we were arguing, but in your second post it would seem like we're agreeing

 

[pgriz]

Agreeing in both cases. I find the "wrong" techniques to be useful and liberating. Which is why I put wrong in quotation marks. But it won't be the first time on the internet that intent was misinterpreted. Such is the peril of written text without the backup of non-verbal expression.