2 movement images help choosing Please !


petekd

Link Posted 22/05/2007 - 21:39
Hi All

Here are two shots I took for my movement grading. It has been desperate and hard to say the least. I have two images but would like help with your points of view which one to send.

Image one is probably more unusual so Im not sure

Any advise welcome as Ive got 3 days to get it in

Cheers Pete

IMAGE 1




IMAGE 2



Wedding & Portrait photographer

golfdiesel

Link Posted 22/05/2007 - 21:48
Image one is nice, if the background was a little more "black" so that the light hitting the background wouldn't distract as much then it would be a really nice image.
But I have to add that I have no idea how to get the background darker without changing the lighting of the subject.
Camera:K20D|Ist*DS|Spotmatic II|MZ-10
Pentax Lenses: DA16-45|DA50-200|50A 1.7
Tamron Lenses: 28-200
Takumar Lenses: SMC 55 1.8
Sigma Lenses: EX DG 50-500 'Bigma'|EX 50mm Macro
Flashes: Metz 58 AF-1|Samsung SEF-36PZF|Pentax AF-220T

HowardJ

Link Posted 22/05/2007 - 21:57
I agree with golfdiesel. The first is the most interesting and unusual of the two. Also like golfdiesel I have no idea how to blacken the background. I'm sure there are PS experts on the forum who could tell you how to do it. (Had to choose my words carefully there )

Good luck with your grading. I assume you are doing a photographic course of some sort.

Howard
Cymru Am Byth

johnriley

Link Posted 22/05/2007 - 22:21
I would have preferred a side-on view and a symmetrical composition for No 1, with the movement from side to side. As it is I don't feel the movement aspect of the image commands enough of the total picture. "Movement" would not instantly hit me as a title for it.

No 2 is very nice though. The small area of movement grabs the attention immediately. The colour is also very satisfying. This is indeed "Movement."
Best regards, John

ChrisA

Link Posted 22/05/2007 - 22:22
I'm intrigued, especially by the first one.

The trajectory of the bright one at the end seems very strange to me, but I could just about imagine that a fixed light could illuminate a different part of the ball as it swung, thus giving the impression of a different path through space than it actually took. So I'm not sure.

I'm also puzzled that the amount of apparent motion from the left hand set of wires is hugely more than from the right hand set of wires, despite the fact that the right hand ones are much more brightly lit than the left hand set.

Knowing your track record, you can guess my suspicions. You're among friends, here, Pete. To what extent is it real, and to what extent is it fake? I won't grass you up... promise.

petekd

Link Posted 22/05/2007 - 22:37
ChrisA wrote:
You're among friends, here, Pete. To what extent is it real, and to what extent is it fake? I won't grass you up... promise.

Chris believe it or not this is 100% as it was took. God knows how it turned out like this. All I used was a tourch and an exposure of 10 seconds in a dark room and a delayed flash I think its called. Anyway the flash went off twice.

BUT it is 100% true not changing in PS except a crop and little sharpening Thats it.

To be honest the printed version doesnt look anthing special but I really dont know my self how to judge it as its not my type of photography.

I might resort to sending this image as a safe back up. Without the border, I have a similar one without the overexposed center water section which is bit better than this one below.

http://www.djblaze.talktalk.net/waterfallnoborder2.jpg
Wedding & Portrait photographer

ChrisA

Link Posted 22/05/2007 - 22:54
petekd wrote:
Chris believe it or not this is 100% as it was took. God knows how it turned out like this. All I used was a tourch and an exposure of 10 seconds in a dark room and a delayed flash I think its called. Anyway the flash went off twice.

Fair play to you, then - as I said, I wasn't sure.

I guess the torch was playing on the left hand side, so getting all the movement there during the 10 seconds... and the flash lit the wires on the right, so getting them not moving. Although when I cranked up the brightness there's a second, much less bright line from the right hand wires.

Which was when I gave up trying to work it out!

As I said, I guess the main bright stripe on the right looks funny because a different part of the ball is being lit as it goes past the torch.

Interesting. As John says, though, I think the flash has frozen the motion a bit too much for it to instantly make you think movement. I mean, we all know what the thing's doing, and it's interesting to work out how the image was produced. But it doesn't quite hit the spot for me.

Is the second one real too?

If so, nice work.

petekd

Link Posted 22/05/2007 - 23:49
2nd one 100% real to

Cheers Pete
Wedding & Portrait photographer

petekd

Link Posted 23/05/2007 - 08:00
Here are a few more similar versions

Which is the best in your opinions ??

Cheers Pete









Wedding & Portrait photographer

johnriley

Link Posted 23/05/2007 - 08:03
Of these three, the first.
Best regards, John

petekd

Link Posted 23/05/2007 - 12:11
Thanks John
Wedding & Portrait photographer

Don

Link Posted 23/05/2007 - 12:34
#1
also a suggestion: have you tried getting on the merry-go-round opposite sides to a child and firing off a shot or two with flash to give a sharp child with a blurred background? use your widest lens to get the merry-go-round, in the frame.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

golfdiesel

Link Posted 23/05/2007 - 13:02
johnriley wrote:
Of these three, the first.

I agree to me it is a small detail which made the difference, the foot which is on the ground and looks stationary.
Camera:K20D|Ist*DS|Spotmatic II|MZ-10
Pentax Lenses: DA16-45|DA50-200|50A 1.7
Tamron Lenses: 28-200
Takumar Lenses: SMC 55 1.8
Sigma Lenses: EX DG 50-500 'Bigma'|EX 50mm Macro
Flashes: Metz 58 AF-1|Samsung SEF-36PZF|Pentax AF-220T
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.