Sorry to arrive so late to smell the coffee in this thread; I just spent some time reading from the beginning. I've been experimenting with motion blur for about a year now, and I'm still not sure whether or not I'm on to something. Or, rather, I should say we - I hadn't realised so many other photographers were experimenting along similar lines.
Please have a look at my website at
http://www.kingma.nu/ and click on the galleries 'Memories' and 'Motion'. There are also brief 'artist's statements' (click "About this series...").
In these experiments, I usually take a lot of pictures, easily a hundred within an hour or so, while moving the camera. I shoot RAW and select the images that work for me in Adobe Bridge; I then adjust brightness, contrast and saturation in RAW conversion, but not much else. No Photoshop filters.
What I've learned sofar is:
- the images that work best, fairly rigorously adhere to basic principles of composition in the way the various image elements interact in the way they fill the frame;
- they work well in series of images that complement each other, more so than 'traditional' (in-focus) images
- although the object is not to focus on details, it's my experience as well that the images work best when printed large (24"x36"), with a myriad of subtle color transitions to enjoy;
- they are fiendishly difficult to print well because of the very fine and gentle gradations that are easily ruined by dithering patterns or posterization and whatnot.
So please tell me what you think!
Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu[attachment=1232:attachment] [attachment=1229:attachment] [attachment=1231:attachment][attachment=1228:attachment] [attachment=1230:attachment] [attachment=1233:attachment]