Dave, I think you need to check your lens. Is it auto-focusing properly? If you're Claude Monet you can get away with slap-dash fuzzyness, but with a camera, uh uh. The color's nice, but. . .
There are a number of well-known photographers who've made very good livings using techniques such as this.
I very much like the look, and I suspect that it does nicely capture some impression of the summer wildflowers.
However, it's much more a texture than a picture. There's no hierarchy of elements, no composition to speak of at all, mainly on account of there being no actual objects of masses to arrange. I think you can do much better than this, without losing the impressionistic flavor.
This image makes me smile. As a consumer of beautiful things, I love it. As a photographer, I am trying to figure out what it is? photo, painting, motion blur....etc....
...but it doesn't matter. It made me smile and that is enough.
I like the shapelessness of the image -- I am curious as to how you achieved it.
That would be nice, as it is a really easy technique to do - I will be rich!!!
Dave
Yeah, but what do you do when the wind isn't blowing? ;) Then you're gonna have to get creative. ;D
Don't know about you Bob, but it seems that whenever I want to take shots of things such as flowers etc, the wind always seems to be blowing ::)
Oh and I forgot, you will also need to do this using a tripod, because even though the end result is a sort of dreamy blended image type of thing, there are elements of sharp edges within it that perhaps you can't see in this small version. I have tried this idea hand holding, or moving the lens about and zooming in and out etc, but the image generally turns to colourful mush, not always but mostly. But I must admit this time the wind really was blowing hard and so perhaps it was a little too much, but maybe it will kinder to me next time.
Dave
Check out Michael Orton's latest work. Also Tony Sweet, Freeman Patterson, Stephen Patterson (no relation), Andre Gallant and Bill Neill's Impressions of Light series. Lots of handheld stuff in there. Depends on the look you want, of course. The Impressionism galleries on my site also have examples.
Yes Bob, I can see from your web gallery, that Tony Sweet has definitely had an effect on your work ;D
Here is another one, from a few days earlier than the first one I posted above and with a little less wind to affect the outcome - the almost perfectly in focus flower in the foreground has not been 'shopped in, it just came out like that in one of the stacked shots, which is quite odd really, because if they were all moving about, then why not that one so much? Who knows.
I have saved this image a little larger in size, so you can see that there is in fact quite a lot of sharp detail within the image.
Dave
That shot is very effective. Unfortunately, people won't believe that your single in-focus flower wasn't photoshopped-in. Funny how we can make honest image captures that are so amazingly unlikely that our jaded modern sensibility automatically believes it to be a fantasy.
I was already fine with the first crop. The sharp flower ruins it.
Harald
Yes Bob, I can see from your web gallery, that Tony Sweet has definitely had an effect on your work ;D
Here is another one, from a few days earlier than the first one I posted above and with a little less wind to affect the outcome - the almost perfectly in focus flower in the foreground has not been 'shopped in, it just came out like that in one of the stacked shots, which is quite odd really, because if they were all moving about, then why not that one so much? Who knows.
I have saved this image a little larger in size, so you can see that there is in fact quite a lot of sharp detail within the image.
Dave
I was doing this kind of stuff long before I knew who Tony Sweet was. ;D Actually, my original inspirations for this type of imagery were Freeman Patterson and André Gallant (2 fellow Canadians).
Sorry Bob, no disrespect meant, perhaps this is where Tony got his ideas from :)
Dave
- the almost perfectly in focus flower in the foreground has not been 'shopped in, it just came out like that in one of the stacked shots, which is quite odd really, because if they were all moving about, then why not that one so much? Who knows.I have used a very similar technique on barley and other arable crops - and noticed the same thing - a single almost motionless ear in a sea of movement, which is hard to explain - but I guess in a chaotic system, there must be some calm spots.
They are different images Harald, so not cropped from one file.
Isn't it odd how what one person likes another dislikes?
But Hey, that's what makes the world go round I suppose ;D
Dave
They are certainly different and all the better for it. I liked them. Trying to do things differently is the way to go. Some work and some don't and that is how someone progresses. It was a pity the first reply was a snide remark about checking your lens. :(
...Trying to do things differently is the way to go. Some work and some don't and that is how someone progresses...
Dave, if you're going to try to do Monet, get a brush, some canvas, and some paints.
If you don't fancy painting then keep doing the photography. You are good at it and I don't think you should give it up...yet. ;)+10.
If you don't fancy painting then keep doing the photography. You are good at it and I don't think you should give it up...yet. ;)
If you don't fancy painting then keep doing the photography. You are good at it and I don't think you should give it up...yet. ;)
I'll buy that. But you can't really do Monet with a camera. You need a brush.