sense of motion

[Frank Fremerey]

How can a photo create the sensation of movement if actualy nothing moves?

Comment with a photo.

[rosko]

Comment with a photo.

Frank, I am not sure whether you are expecting :

# We criticize your images, as you posted them in the critique thread;

# We post images like yours and that would be a new thread.

 

Cheers, Francis.

[Frank Fremerey]

Both.

[rosko]

Right, ok !

How can a photo create the sensation of movement if actualy nothing moves?

I am tempted to say : actually only the camera moves. .

The image below also shows a sensation of movement while even the camera was still. But something had to move : the zoom's optical block.

Anyway, I think this kind of images needs a main subject to tell you something as any background implies  a subject. Otherwise, the gaze gets lost in the image...

[Frank Fremerey]

rosko: Yes this is kind of sucks-you-into picture. The movement is into the picture not panoramic...

[HCS]

Let me share my try, with Jakov's heligon during our NG trip in Sept.

[rosko]

I agree.

As a matter of fact, all is about relativity.

Relativity between the combo (camera/lens)  and the scene.

# In your 2 first pictures, we can notice that the optical axis is almost perpendicular to the plan of subject. i guess you were in a vehicle when you took this pics.

# in the following ones, I am not sure what you did with your camera, perhaps both in a vehicle and moving your cam randomly.


# In my image the optical axis is still perpendicular to the scene, but the mobile glasses of the zoom went back and forth.

If I had rotated the camera in the same time I would have obtained a spiral like shape.

Below : nasturtiums with nikkor 14mm f/2,8 (prime). the curves are due from wide-angle lens. The rotating axis of camera movement was parallel to the scene.

[Airy]

Not a zen riddle, but - the above aptly suggest motion using blur (with at least three different techniques: camera blur, subject movement, zoom FL variation). How to suggest motion without blur ?

Some obvious responses : display non-equilibrium (an apple in the air) or instable equilibrium (a ballerina doing pointes, or simply a walking attitude). I won't even bother illustrating.
Less obvious responses may reside in perspective arrangements, or multiple exposers representing a sequence of stable Position...

Here I'll have to browse my archives, not sure to find good examples.

[HCS]

Not a zen riddle, but - the above aptly suggest motion using blur (with at least three different techniques: camera blur, subject movement, zoom FL variation). How to suggest motion without blur ?

Some obvious responses : display non-equilibrium (an apple in the air) or instable equilibrium (a ballerina doing pointes, or simply a walking attitude). I won't even bother illustrating.
Less obvious responses may reside in perspective arrangements, or multiple exposers representing a sequence of stable Position...

Here I'll have to browse my archives, not sure to find good examples.

I asked myself the same question, i went with the subject should be stationary.

An object mid-air doesn't convey sense of motion, it implies it. I know this is splitting hairs in this context, but that's why i made my choice as mentioned.

I don't know which direction Frank wants to take this thread, but for me any of the ways mentioned by you should do it and give us some nice images.

[Frank Fremerey]

The sense of motion is about a shot that shows something in motion. Definition is enough in the opening post.

A static camera is not so much what I have in mind and archive shots not.

I love to add an aspect to your perception for a while.

Think motion.

shoot motion.

create a sense of motion.

post you thoughts and you results.

[Peter Connan]

Not a new concept, just "a bit less".

In this case, it was the focus ring that was moved.

[Peter Connan]

And in this case, the zoom ring.

However, in both cases everything was left alone for about 1/3rd of the exposure, to give a "base line" to work from.