Halloween time..

BOO!

Concept is there, but the end figure is just tooooo blurred for these eyes of mine!

I agree. Great idea and composition, but Id like to see more of the figure.

hmm, i guess i see the point. boy, it's hard to do well. i could be there all day trying to get the perfect shot. it took me long enough just to get the right shutter speed to get some blur somewhere in the middle. this was about the best i could do w/o really twisting the zoom super fast.

i am wondering about a looonger exposure where i start by holding steady for half a second or so and then really pop it about 50mm, but quickly?

thanks guys.

Try it in black and white, maybe sepia or some other color.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8827604
i am wondering about a looonger exposure where i start by holding steady for half a second or so and then really pop it about 50mm, but quickly?

Same result with more control by superimposing a clean shot layer over this and adjusting transparency...

Pretty cool .

Cheers, Tony

tonydee wrote in post #8832430
Same result with more control by superimposing a clean shot layer over this and adjusting transparency...

Pretty cool .

Cheers, Tony

thanks for the compliment on the idea, tony. but, i dont know where i stand on the digital era in this regard.

i guess i am a purist.....that is slowly coming around.....reluctantly​.

to me, layers, transparencies, multiple image shots, and heavy pp all fall into the category of "faking" an image that didnt really exist. or, using technology to manipulate something that couldnt otherwise be captured with only the camera. so, i have a bit of an issue with all the HDR shots that are all the rave right now. i almost view them as "cheating."

however, when i really start to think about things...technology is a wonderful tool to be utilized, not poo-pooed. we dont still shoot b/w. we dont even shoot film. we dont process our prints anymore. and, even when we did, we dodged and burned, added contrast layers, pushed and pulled film by using "soak times," and used a variety of other techniques to achieve the "look" we wanted. therefore, we always doctored the shots in some way.

and, its funny how we gritch and moan about these things technology provides. the old Burkee machines the newspaper used to "stitch" together the magenta, yellow, and cyan slides for color prints costs thousands more than the future Photoshop ever will. so, technology is making things cheaper, too.

so, in a nutshell, i am coming out of my "purist" shell.....albeit slowly. i guess it comes down to motivating myself to learning new techniques to get the absolute best quality image possible. and, besides, photography is all a matter of personal preferences. we don't have to view HDR, or layer work, if we dont like it....lol.

wow, where did that little rant come from so early in the day? this day may get interesting as heck.

Same thing was done with film: 15 years ago I bought a shot from Malaysian photographer Dominic Sio with a model holding a flower merged with rain splashing in puddles on a road. Worked wonderfully. Photography is a tool that can be used with different objectives: recording reality as faithfully as possible, or creating an evocative illusion for the sake of art (or commercial purposes). Sometimes the two are united: a slow shutter still captures reality, but with movement blurred in a way we can't normally perceive, much as a fast shutter freezes things we can't normally see. Even shallow DOF appears differently to our day-to-day impression of scenes (yes, our eyes need to flicker about to see levels of depth etc, but it happens so fast we're generally unaware). Your spinning zoom streaks in a way that's unrealistic, is that pure? HDR capture is necessary to get a realistic capture of a scene that sensor technology lacks the dynamic range to record, but that creates the problem of displaying it on a screen or paper that can't reproduce the dynamic range either, and some dynamic compression (tone mapping) is necessary, which generally looks pretty artificial but can sometimes be done unobtrusively. Blame screens that can't shine as bright as sunlit white, and sensors with far less dynamic range than the human eye - let alone the scenes frequently about us - rather than HDR itself! Even aiming for reality, sometimes we have to combine technologies - better cameras and post-processing - to get closer to the human perception and experience of the scene. And sometimes exaggerating or isolating something visually redefines our perceptions of the associated reality ever after. Personally, I am more interest in photography as a communication and evocation than a recorder of reality for it's own sake, even though sometimes the strongest communication and evocation is a record of the more interest aspects of reality, so the distinction becomes only a guide to subject selection....

Cheers, Tony

it's pixels. I'm a pixel pusher - no guilt.

what are we looking at? looks like a skeleton dressed up?

a ghoul in a tuxedo.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833109
thanks for the compliment on the idea, tony. but, i dont know where i stand on the digital era in this regard.

i guess i am a purist.....that is slowly coming around.....reluctantly​.

to me, layers, transparencies, multiple image shots, and heavy pp all fall into the category of "faking" an image that didnt really exist. or, using technology to manipulate something that couldnt otherwise be captured with only the camera. so, i have a bit of an issue with all the HDR shots that are all the rave right now. i almost view them as "cheating."

however, when i really start to think about things...technology is a wonderful tool to be utilized, not poo-pooed. we dont still shoot b/w. we dont even shoot film. we dont process our prints anymore. and, even when we did, we dodged and burned, added contrast layers, pushed and pulled film by using "soak times," and used a variety of other techniques to achieve the "look" we wanted. therefore, we always doctored the shots in some way.

and, its funny how we gritch and moan about these things technology provides. the old Burkee machines the newspaper used to "stitch" together the magenta, yellow, and cyan slides for color prints costs thousands more than the future Photoshop ever will. so, technology is making things cheaper, too.

so, in a nutshell, i am coming out of my "purist" shell.....albeit slowly. i guess it comes down to motivating myself to learning new techniques to get the absolute best quality image possible. and, besides, photography is all a matter of personal preferences. we don't have to view HDR, or layer work, if we dont like it....lol.

wow, where did that little rant come from so early in the day? this day may get interesting as heck.

Not all layer work is creative voodoo either. I use layering as a better method of burning and dodging. I get your point about composite imaging, but then again this is a special effect photo anyway.

@chopper

“nothing is new except what has been forgotten.”

http://www.photovision​magazine.com/articles/​uelsmann.html
It's an enlightening article of interview of Jerry Uelsmann, one of my heroes before (and continues to this day) Photoshop days.

For those who get hives looking at the long text, just look at the images. It may be a piece of cake with a Photoshop but those images were created without the use of digital image manipulation.

Now, I'm not saying that digital-pixel-voodoo is bad, but quite the contrary. Image manipulation such as combination printing has been taking place since the 1850's according to the article and it was certainly possible under the Bessler Enlargers when I was a student: I've tried solarization, posterization, paper negatives, burnt images even through a thin sheet of ice, and layering of negatives much the same way layers are employed in Photoshop.

So enjoy exploring tools offered in whatever PP and image processing software - they are extensions of the darkroom, after all.

thank you very much. will read.