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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
@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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It may be honest, and heartfelt, but it was said in a rude and dismissive manner. Honesty does not need to be rude or dismissive.
