Posted by Lon Overacker on October 22, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Not everyone's cup of tea, but every once in a while I give this old motion blur a try. Most recently at the fall gathering on the east side and as you all know the color wasn't at it's best that weekend. On my last day up there I took the wife and pooch up Lundy canyon and things were starting to progress. The backlighting in this grove right in the campground looked pretty good and I thought it was a nice set up for the technique, so I figured what the heck...
I'm curious as to your thoughts. Whether you like the technique or not, which of the two do you prefer. The second is simply a crop of the original, plus an added curves layer to bump up the contrast some.
I cropped mostly because I didn't like the bright brown patch at the bottom.
Anyway, just thought I would toss this one out there.
Thanks!
Lon
oh yeah, 4x5, the usual.
Posted by Lon Overacker on October 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM
I love the 1st one. The light emanating from the tree is epic. Very brave of you to try this technique with film!
Posted by Paul Duval on October 22, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Lon,
What amazes me about the image above the colors and otherworldly quality is the fact the trunks almost appear in focus. We can't push art ahead without experimentation, your pushing in your own direction. I forsee others following.
What a great interpretation. Takes photographic art to the next level. Love it!
Posted by Eric Good on October 25, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Honestly Lon, this is very cool. While I do like panned shots when done effectively, this also has a look to it that separates it from other forms of this technique. I'm not quite sure what it is, but it looks almost like a combination of two separate images instead of the blur being applied globally to one image at a specific time. I know there is no trickery here, that's just how I perceive it. It's like a pattern overlay was merged behind the trunk forms. Very interesting results.
I prefer the original post, if you're keeping tabs.
Posted by Lon Overacker on October 26, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Thanks for the comments folks.
Sometimes a little daring with film Benjamin, but a crap shoot none the less.
" looks almost like a combination of two separate images " - Eric
Been thinking about this since a couple comments were made in this regard. I'm guessing that because the panning motion wasnt a true vertical, up-n-down motion. there still remained a nearly stationary focal plane in the image. In other words, the camera/lens combo was moved up and down using the pan/tilt tripod head - but more accurately, the camera/lens is actually rotating around a fixed node - the tripod head itself. So I think there are actually points of focus here (mainly the grasses at the bottom) that show through as nearly in focus - as some of you have pointed out.
Anyway, quite an interesting result and I will leave the math calculations to someone else. Thanks for the comments!
Print it! I think both images are really nice, but I prefer the horizontal one. It has a wonderful balance of shape and tone that I find very pleasing.
Your experiments of late are inspiring, Lon. I'll have to give this a try.
Discussion
9 repliesI'm curious as to your thoughts. Whether you like the technique or not, which of the two do you prefer. The second is simply a crop of the original, plus an added curves layer to bump up the contrast some.
I cropped mostly because I didn't like the bright brown patch at the bottom.
Anyway, just thought I would toss this one out there.
Thanks!
Lon
oh yeah, 4x5, the usual.
What amazes me about the image above the colors and otherworldly quality is the fact the trunks almost appear in focus. We can't push art ahead without experimentation, your pushing in your own direction. I forsee others following.
Both work very well, but I like the first better. Nice job with the film. These digital guys will burn 200 frames to get one of these.
I prefer the original post, if you're keeping tabs.
Sometimes a little daring with film Benjamin, but a crap shoot none the less.
" looks almost like a combination of two separate images " - Eric
Been thinking about this since a couple comments were made in this regard. I'm guessing that because the panning motion wasnt a true vertical, up-n-down motion. there still remained a nearly stationary focal plane in the image. In other words, the camera/lens combo was moved up and down using the pan/tilt tripod head - but more accurately, the camera/lens is actually rotating around a fixed node - the tripod head itself. So I think there are actually points of focus here (mainly the grasses at the bottom) that show through as nearly in focus - as some of you have pointed out.
Anyway, quite an interesting result and I will leave the math calculations to someone else. Thanks for the comments!
Lon
Your experiments of late are inspiring, Lon. I'll have to give this a try.
-P