Creating movement: the wind in action

Something I mused about for my Processes of Nature series was capturing the motion of the wind in a meaningful manner. On one of my photo walks in Norway recently I was playing around with some ideas. Here I'm going to run through what I was doing and whether I think it's working.

The trick, I reckon, is to get the sense of movement by having some fixed reference in the shot. If everything looks blurry, it might just be camera shake (photog movement) rather than subject movement. So I'm looking for something that resembles the classic sports shot with the subject blurred against a sharp background (or vice versa).

I tried a few things this time, all hand-held as I didn't have a tripod with me:

- Single frame, slower shutters. Using my 17-55 IS, I can handhold pretty slow at 17mm, probably down around 1/4s.
- Couple of frames blended (not very successful here)
- Multiple frames blended in several ways, building on my "virtual ND filter" that I used in an earlier post.

Here are the results

Single frame at 1/8s

Several frames blended using Photomatix Pro

Several frames blended by hand in Photoshop (lots of opacity adjustments)

I think this is showing promise, especially the blends. I don't think the proper effect can be gained consistently with a single frame.

What things would I look for in future?
First up, a longer base shutter speed for blending - maybe around 1/2s. Short speeds are tending to mean too much, or too irregular, movement between exposures.
Second, I like the manual blended; I can control the effect each frame has on the blur. Good point to start is us the base image as one near the centre of the movement range, then progressively decrease the opacity as the movement gets further from that central point. Gives a more natural look. For auto blending I'd probably go with more frames (I used up to six here: 1 fill of the 20D's buffer).
Definitely a tripod, otherwise the fixed reference won't be.

Time for some pics

A couple of recent ones from the pocket cam.

Mont Blanc (almost), Morzine, June 2008

First up a nearly shot of Mont Blanc from my recent holiday. I've visited this spot several times over the last few years and still not got a decent image. It is often hazy (as it was on this day) but even when not, there is huge contrast, high UV, sun - a whole lot of problems. As it's an hour's mountain biking to get to, I'm disinclined to trek a pile of gear with me.

Stairs and door, Kristiansund, July 2008

Second is a bit of playing around I was doing kicking around the house in Norway. The light & shapes in the entrance area are pretty good, so I was trying some abstract shots.

Scope, personality and the camera in your hand

An interesting post from Colin Jago today on how he finds himself going deeper. The linked post on 2007's big theme is also pertinent. So many thoughts hit me from these posts. I've had to write my own thoughts down here.

First up - wide or deep? I'm pretty sure I'm a wide person (and not just the ever-expanding waist line). I haven't yet found a location that I want to get into more and more. I get to a certain point and run out of things that seem to interest me, photographically. But that's not to say one cannot mix and match. Why not go deep in one's own neighbourhood (the "block") yet wide on mountain landscapes? I'm sure there's room for both.

That come down to the second part, personality. As I say, I'm a wide person here and I think that is as much a part of my personality as it is of taking the time and oppotunity. I like to get through a subject and move on. This applies as much to my professional life as my personal one. My own experience tends me to think that one is either hard-wired as a wide person or a deep person, in general (but as Colin points out, this is something of a continuum). This dovetails nicely with the ideas I postulated about belonging with a subject.

Part three of my thinking came from Colin's point that

The more time I spend with a camera the smaller is the list of things that I
want to photograph.

Ah, but which camera, I thought. I'm finding that spending time with anyone particular camera (I'm turning into a something of a collector at the moment) tends me towards certain subjects. I'm not going to be rushing around town photographic candids with my 4x5. More of my wide personality coming through, I presume. Each camera allows me to narrow my focus to certain subjects. As time goes on, I might well reduce the range of equipment I use, as I find the subjects that most belong with me. But for now, I'll continue with my peripatetic ways.

Photographic tension

I had a look at my own potd for today and it put in mind something that has bugged me for a while.

The actual picture is a little off square, not quite aligned. I'm not sure that was deliberate in this case (I don't know, I only shot the thing) but often it is. What I notice is that renders such an image with a certain tension. There is a drawing of the eye off to one side or a desire to try and straighten it up. It strikes emphasis in different places.

Such pictures can really casue me frustration, maybe even a sense of annxiety - I want to line things up but cannot.

Is this just me, am I some kind of nut-job or do others get the same feelings with pictures askew?

The Landscapist: the magazine

I'm a regular reader and fan of The Landscapist. I'm not saying I agree with all of Hobson's writings, indeed it is couterpoint that is as (maybe more) effective in stimulating debate than endless agreement.

Well now, there is to be a print version. Submissions (picture and writing) called for. Of course, one cannot tell what sort of work it will be until published but I'm quite looking forward to it. Just as much, it will be an interesting test of the self-publish model.

FWIW, I totally agree with all of the obseravtions of web versus print. Web content is ephemeral, print material can be cherished.

Just when you had it all decided...

...a spanner gets thrown in the works.

I've finally decided I can't resist the RF temptation any longer. I've been enjoying the whole B&W film thing with my old Canon EOS500, but find it's really too slow and noisy for what I want. Manual focus is not too pleasant with the small primes I'm using. So to a RF set-up.

Body, easy decision: Zeiss Ikon. Looks good, got the large RF base distance, good reports from glasses wearers. Bessas seem a bit clunky in appearance, while being a lot cheaper. Lots of poky out bits as well, not great for stowing. All my opinion. Oh and Leica is ridiculous in price it doesn't get look-in. Had thought about 2nd hand (which introduces a slew of other considerations) but quite frankly can't be doing with the hassle of checking them all out, checking quality etc.

Then there's the lens. 35mm, for sure. I like the view it gives, wish there was a compact one for the Canon.

here's the catch - was all set on the CV 35 1.4 Nokton - that seemingly magic bullet: small, light, cheap, fast, right focal length. But reviews aren't to sharp and I'm not really sure how much I'll need the 1.4 (right now I'm quite happen at 2.0 or even slower).

So then there's the others to consider, all Voigtlanders: the 1.7 Ultron, 2.5 Colour Skopar (bit slow, though), 40 1.4 Nokton. Don't want to stretch to a Zeiss - heck I could add a 75 for the extra money. Decisions, decisions. Again, Leica have priced themselves out of this one.

Of course I'm trying to justify this as more than G.A.S. but I'm pretty certain it'll be a nice addition for travelling.

What is photogenic?

I was lying on the sofa last night wondering what makes an image worth making, what subjects are worth photographing? And from that, is this an inherent property of the subject or more a function of the photographers eye?

I had been half-minded to go out and o some more photography around town but in the end felt I wasn't going to get anything from it. Possibly a bit of general malaise thrown in. I did take a few snaps around the house and tried a few odd things in focus and composition. All on film so I'll have to wait for results.

The point to my thinking was, however, that photographers all around the world seem able to make good or compelling images of almost anything that might happen along. That is not to say, however, that every photographer seems able to make all subjects into good images. And of course there is the hit rate to consider - take a thousand shots and there is bound to be a good image in there somewhere.

As ever with this sort of thinking, no firm answers came to me. I am leaning towards the notion, however, that it takes a particular combination of subject and photographer to create a compelling image. This is not just a matter of application - banging away at an unsuitable subject will not yield results. Each photographer has, in this respect, subjects that "belong" with (not to) them. I think it is one of the skills of a photographer to recognise ones own subjects and work assiduously on those.

Thoughts without pictures

I was all set to post some pictures I'd taken recently but to no avail. Seems the work servers are just getting in the way (hey, if i have to work the weekend, I'm going to get in some blogging in between times).

So for now, thoughts without the pictures. Check out potd for piccies, and for today a 2-for-1 special (as I bodged the schedule dates).

Megapixel mania

So Hasselblad have launched a new monster. Woohoo. I don't think I'll be rushing to the bank quite yet at those prices. (Although, apparently they've now got an "affordable" offering.)

However, far more interesting to me, was the parallel announcement of a new tilt-shift adapter. Now that, coupled with the super high resolution, could start moving into the territory larger LF formats. I've always thought the lack of movements was the biggest weakness in MF equipment.

Personally, though, I'd rather any number of Mike Johnston's suggestions would come to fruition.

Photography: some economic realities

I've just read a post by Doug Plummer from his trip to the MS Pro Photo Summit regarding stock selling. (On this note, you may also have been reading Howard Grill's Advetures in Microstock.) There is a really interesting point in there

Lise's [Gagne] old boss didn't want to spend money for photography, period.

This led me off on 2 thoughts.

First, there is an economic principle in here about value and pricing that seems to be dominating many business decisions, photogrpahy amoung them. It is this: sellers wish to sell on a value basis - i.e. at a price that reflects the cost to the buyer of doing it themselves or the value they will generate from the product. In the case of photography, it would relate to the cost of a company hiring a photographer themselves to get the work they want (photographers selling based on the costs to them of doing the work is a derivative of this idea). Buyers, on the other hand, want to buy based on the inherent value they see in the product. In the case of photography that would be based effectively on the direct cost of printing or transmittal or whatever. Premium gets added for quality and consistency of product etc (the service element) which is all part of the same thing.

Thus we have the gap between the value sell price and the cost buy price. With digital photography, I believe that the cost being associated with photography is ever decreasing (digitial comes for free). Hence the attitude demonstrated in the quote.

On a related note but different tack (nice mixed metaphors!), there are the huge numbers of photography contests/submissions on-going. Most seem to have rights-grabs attached (I saw one just this week, forget where and I'm not going to publicise wrong-doers). Typically they are requesting: send us your pics, oh, and by the way, we own them once you do. Tough luck on your copyright.

When you can get suckers to send all your photography needs for free, why should you ever want to pay for it?

It seems in today's world the only way to have your time valued is to sell it directly. Maybe all photographers need to move to a consultancy model: we'll sell you hours of effort, for which you get a given product. Tell us the product, and we'll tell you how much effort it takes to produce it. It's the way engineers have been working for years, works for us nicely and we don't have to worry if we're going to get paid at the end of it.

Monsters are human, too

I think this has been mentioned in web-land before, but there is a length review of the Auschwitz album, and its context, over at The Daily Telegraph. Chillingly interesting stuff and proving to be a very useful historical record. Not much more I can add that isn't written over there.

A downside of technology

We've all become used to auto this, auto that, digital everything. I ran right into the downside last night: power, or lack thereof. Having failed to put new batteries in my pocket camera, and failed to bring a charger with me, it died. Bit of a pain, as I've been shooting a series of shots with it as a sort of mini-project for the week.

And of course, as our devices become fancier, they need ever increasing amounts of power. Why hasn't someone designed a modern, slimmed-down camera that will take about 10,000 frames with a single charge of a small battery?

This is one of the things I love about my large format camera: no batteries required (apart from the meter, but I could guess that).