Portraiture

[jjj]

Love the shot; illustrates exactly why slightly wide lenses were so popular in fashion photography during the 60s/70s: 'different' take on reality, but still within the bounds of not creating ugly. My then choice was the 2.8/35mm Nikkor.

Ta.
Never thought of that sort of shot as beings 60s-ish, but I think you are spot on there now you mention it. Shot at 16mm on my 16-35mm lens

[Rob C]

Might as well hang up the only other shot I though okay. The two were shot in about three minutes; the sister had about thirty, and we got zilch. Which yet again underlines the value of what's in front of the lens being worth at least 50% of the credit. Or blame. But, in this case blame was mine 100%: sister no.1 told me it wouldn't work before we did the shoot. Shows you; never too old to be misled by a fine pair, even after a career of them.

Getting caught via a honey trap should be banned from all court proceedings: it shouldn't count, there's no defence against it.

;-)

Rob

[Antonio Correia]

This is not from the sixties is it, Rob ? 

It is nice and spontaneous !   

[Rob C]

This is not from the sixties is it, Rob ? 

It is nice and spontaneous !   

No, both were shot somewhere between 2005 and 2009, though I'd have to check out the RAWs to know exactly when.

I was thinking the other day about the passage of time, and how it changes with your age and circumstances. My wife died almost exactly seven years ago, and my stay in India was also seven years long. It seems like I'd lived in India about half of my life, but that it's like yesterday that I lost my better-half. I also seem to remember endless summer days in Scotland, where I'd cycle to school and then cycle back to town later in the evening to spend time in the local café and feed the Bal Ami... I'm sure the reality is that summers were far from endless, that it was just a very relaxed state of mind that seemed to make time pass slowly and sweetly.

Like VND filters - illusions abound: never owned one (ND, not illusions - owned many of them) until last week when one came in through the post. I wanted it in order to play with slow shutter speeds and people walking in public places - trying to make them turn into rivers through canyons... I went out to the local market today to find crowds, there's a gale blowing - and trying to hold anything still at a 1/15th of a sec (the speed I'm trying for my first experiments hand-held; no tripod will get used) in a gale is difficult. Also, disappointingly, the paperwork with the filter tells me that using it at maximun light-cutting power will induce crosses that can't be removed. Didn't read that anywhere before I bought!

An added problem: when people see you pointing a camera in their general direction, their polite reaction is to duck out of your way, the opposite of what I want them to do, which is to keep on walking straight ahead. (Obviously, we get a better class of tourist here: nothing much for them to do except take trips elsewhere for the day.) Also, it's surprising how slowly people in markets actually move; I may have to try hand-holding at a half!

Rob C

[jjj]

Also, it's surprising how slowly people in markets actually move; I may have to try hand-holding at a half!

Find a wall or something solid like a lam post to hold camera against. I did a 2sec shot like that and was nice and sharp

Getting caught via a honey trap should be banned from all court proceedings: it shouldn't count, there's no defence against it.  ;-)

[Rob C]

Find a wall or something solid like a lam post to hold camera against. I did a 2sec shot like that and was nice and sharp
 

Well, I ran the stuff through the computer just now and it's hopeless: far too quick a shutter speed (1/15 sec) and yet far too slow for my hands - in a gale (my only consolation thus far!). I have a light tripod that works reasonably well with two legs extended as better than a monopod, and with the two feet kept at about a foot apart, small enough to avoid traffic, good enough to give some rigidity in one direction. I'll try that next time, but I think it'll need at least 1 sec.

I tried a shot of the sea, too, leaning against a palm, but it was in motion as much as was I! Perversely, the sea looked normal desìte the spray. Not one of my better days.

Rob

[jjj]

Find a vantage point where a tripod can be used would be the best solution.

[Rob C]

To point out the failure at slow speeds: this was actually at 1/10th sec. at f11 in a hope to get some depth within which to place the blurs... not what I got! Might have worked, with the couple the only crispies.

Oh well, next time.

Rob C

[GrahamBy]

Find a vantage point where a tripod can be used would be the best solution.

I can imagine the problem... hard to look inconspicuous with a tripod. It may even be unconscious, people register a camera on a tripod as an obstacle they will need to avoid tripping over. A man with a camera and a short lens still has the silhouette of a man. Be interesting to see how you get on with the mono/bi-pod.

[Rob C]

Graham:

yes, you're right; they already get out of the way just because I'm standing there looking through the camera in their general direction. But apart from my current problem with it, it was exactly the same decades ago when I wanted to make 'normal' pictures of resorts etc, for travel companies: people still tried to avoid the evil eye! It looks so wrong to see empty lanes within a pedestrian traffic flow!

Keith:

yes, I did consider that option and even tried some shots in the hope of making the people look more phantasmagorical as they fled (slowly) across my vision, but the problem then was thinness of stream. To catch what I was looking for requires a thick flow of people that wasn't there. Actually, jjj was right about the elevated vantage point, and the Sunday market, in contrast with the local option, offers that, even if only the added height of a stone bench at the edge of the market area. Thing is, it means getting up at 7.30 a.m. just to find a parking space! Remember it all too well from when Ann used to go shopping each week. Also, it could all be in vain, because the stalls employ overhead plastic sheets to keep off rain, and also umbrellas in summer, so the likelihood is lots of plastic tops with little humanity on show! But the honest bottom line is this: to rise early or not to rise early! I'm not sure it's worth the sacrifice!

But here's a funny thing: when I have tried the occassional 'street' kind of image, I have always felt a bit unhappy about doing it; but, trying to get a specific 'look' into a shot removes that entirely - it's like being absolved of some sort of guilt! How peculiar the workings of the mind: I never felt any such qualms doing anything in public as a pro...

The best illustration of what I'm after is to be found in a shot of a huge Bombay railway station of many years ago by Frank Horvat; I think HC-B did the same thing - or perhaps it was the other way around. It's from on high and some people are frozen, the rest in motion.

Rob

[GrahamBy]

Might be worth some arithmetic: I'd say top walking speed in a markey, unless you've just stolen something, is about 1m/s... so if 25cm is blur is absolute minimum and 50cm is just starting to get interesting, 1/4 - 1/2s are going to be minimal shutter times.

It could be interesting to try rattling off multiple exposures and stacking them, but you'd still have the problem of keeping some reference points fixed. There was an article somewhere by a travel photographer explaining how he did the now obligatory blurred water shots without a tripod, by shooting at 5fps then using some PS tool to align the images. It's at least a decade since I've bought a copy of PS, so I can't help with details...

[Antonio Correia]

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Ouch! This guy needs a wife to carry all those sacks on her head for him.   

[jjj]

yes, you're right; they already get out of the way just because I'm standing there looking through the camera in their general direction. But apart from my current problem with it, it was exactly the same decades ago when I wanted to make 'normal' pictures of resorts etc, for travel companies: people still tried to avoid the evil eye! It looks so wrong to see empty lanes within a pedestrian traffic flow!

Here's a thought, why bother trying to keep cameras still at all. A way of solving many problems like this is to turn things around and make the problem a solution, with creative stuff make the 'mistake' so obvious it looks deliberate. Slightly out of focus or slightly blurred usually looks like bad technique.
So use a really low/long shutter speed and move yourself too.

For example and to go back to portraits....

.

[Rob C]

Ouch! This guy needs a wife to carry all those sacks on her head for him.   

Have a heart - she's already carrying Atlas!

Rob C

[Rob C]

Well, I could have saved myself the expense, and certainly the too early morning reveille I have yet to heed.

All it takes is some PS - and a king's ransom in patience. Maybe the filter's easier after all...

Rob C

[Rob C]

Here's a thought, why bother trying to keep cameras still at all. A way of solving many problems like this is to turn things around and make the problem a solution, with creative stuff make the 'mistake' so obvious it looks deliberate. Slightly out of focus or slightly blurred usually looks like bad technique.
So use a really low/long shutter speed and move yourself too.

For example and to go back to portraits....

.

Like those two shots, but they are not the same thing that I was trying to get. I had a specific thing in mind, and I accept that the only way to get it will be to use a tripod. Unfortunately. I really wanted something a little less predictable than using the Vaseline, yet doable hand-held.

Cheers,

Rob C

[jjj]

Like those two shots, but they are not the same thing that I was trying to get.

They weren't mean to show the motion that you were after,  just examples of how very wrong can be seen as deliberate. As opposed to slightly wrong, which will be viewed as a mistake.

[Antonio Correia]

[Antonio Correia]