What to do with those shots taken at 6.3 fps

[c.cloudwalker]

Moose? :lmao:

wow :lmao:

So, you Big must be mini-Moose :lmao:

Perfect nick name for someone that big in NH.


I was trying to find this thread that was posted recently that would give you an idea on how else to use those shots but I can't find it. It had a video in it about the OP's trip to Europe using a lot of shots like you have. Either that or he used the technique I use. Video and take out some frames.

If I ever see it again I'll pm you.

 

[Big]

Moose? :lmao:

wow :lmao:

So, you Big must be mini-Moose :lmao:

Perfect nick name for someone that big in NH.


I was trying to find this thread that was posted recently that would give you an idea on how else to use those shots but I can't find it. It had a video in it about the OP's trip to Europe using a lot of shots like you have. Either that or he used the technique I use. Video and take out some frames.

If I ever see it again I'll pm you.

Haha ya, we're quite the pair when we're together, especially when my other brother is like 5'6 and 170 lol

BTW, thanks for looking, hope you find it sometime. No rush though.

 

[Derrel]

Just because your camera can shoot at 6.3 frames per second doesn't mean that you need to show/present/display each and every image. Unless you're trying to create a video-like motion effect, it is probably better to select only the images which have all the right aesthetic and technical ducks in order.

When shooting a baseball game, I often take 700 to 800 frames. Baseball is a game of inches and split-second timing; I would never expect my audience to want to look at anywhere NEAR 700 to 800 frames.

In a portrait session, it makes sense to eliminate the "similars",and show only what are commonly called "the selects".

 

[Big]

Just because your camera can shoot at 6.3 frames per second doesn't mean that you need to show/present/display each and every image. Unless you're trying to create a video-like motion effect, it is probably better to select only the images which have all the right aesthetic and technical ducks in order.

When shooting a baseball game, I often take 700 to 800 frames. Baseball is a game of inches and split-second timing; I would never expect my audience to want to look at anywhere NEAR 700 to 800 frames.

In a portrait session, it makes sense to eliminate the "similars",and show only what are commonly called "the selects".

Oh I understand completely, I took the shot of him flailing out of the tube in the first collage and made it look nice. I'm planning on printing it up for him. I was just wondering what else I could do with the other shots I have that's all.

 

[itznfb]

Generally those burst type shots are used in manual focus and you'll take 3-4 shots where the subject is moving toward you and 1 of them will be in focus. Obviously you would delete the other ones.

However, the collage idea is probably the only one I can think of that would be useful if your intent was actually to end up with a group of "keepers".

 

[pmcbrier]

Lots of ski magazines use burst photos to show a sequence of a skier going off a cliff. I don't know how they do it, but the frame of the shot stays the same, and they put the picture of the guy going off the cliff on the same frame, so it looks like a sequence of the guy going off in one pic. Hope it makes sense.

 

[Big]

Lots of ski magazines use burst photos to show a sequence of a skier going off a cliff. I don't know how they do it, but the frame of the shot stays the same, and they put the picture of the guy going off the cliff on the same frame, so it looks like a sequence of the guy going off in one pic. Hope it makes sense.

Like this right?

 

[pmcbrier]

exacatically^^^^^

 

[Big]

exacatically^^^^^

I would imagine they used a tripod and then stacked the shots, kinda like star trails.