# An experiment and a poll



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

Thought I'd play with some intentional camera movement. Tried two shots on the last roll I shot with the Maxxum; this was the better of the two. What do we think?




ICM Trees by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 20, 2015)

I'll go with it's not bad and it's worth it to keep at it. I like intentionally blurred photos but it's really hard to get a good one. You have to shoot a lot for small returns, but when you get a really good one it's worth it. I've made some past attempts but never tried hard enough to get that good one.

Joe


----------



## waday (Jul 20, 2015)

Agree with Joe. It's not bad, but keep trying. Preferably with a digital camera, haha.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 20, 2015)

I can't choose one of your options, because my immediate, GUT reaction was: "Hey, that looks exactly like every attempt I've ever made at the intentional movement photo."

I won't tell you whether to interpret that as a good thing or a bad thing, although it might be significant to note I've never posted one of my attempts on the forum. Or anywhere else online. Or shown them to another living soul. 

Good intentional movement photos are HARD. They require, really, only 3 things to make them work--unfortunately, I don't know what those 3 things are.


----------



## waday (Jul 20, 2015)

This was my second attempt. First attempt was deplorable (but I actually did post it on the forum, haha). I've been meaning to remove that white streak in the lower half of the pole...


----------



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> I'll go with it's not bad and it's worth it to keep at it. I like intentionally blurred photos but it's really hard to get a good one. You have to shoot a lot for small returns, but when you get a really good one it's worth it. I've made some past attempts but never tried hard enough to get that good one.
> 
> Joe



Thanks for the feedback! I've only tried a handful so far and this was the first one that looked like it was at least intentional, so it's nice to know I'm at least starting to get there.



waday said:


> Agree with Joe. It's not bad, but keep trying. Preferably with a digital camera, haha.



Yeah, I might have to concede the advantage to digital when it comes to practicing this  The only digital camera I have, other than the one on my phone, is a point and shoot. I suppose I can still try it with that camera and see what it can do. 



sm4him said:


> I can't choose one of your options, because my immediate, GUT reaction was: "Hey, that looks exactly like every attempt I've ever made at the intentional movement photo."
> 
> I won't tell you whether to interpret that as a good thing or a bad thing, although it might be significant to note I've never posted one of my attempts on the forum. Or anywhere else online. Or shown them to another living soul.
> 
> Good intentional movement photos are HARD. They require, really, only 3 things to make them work--unfortunately, I don't know what those 3 things are.



I will read nothing into it, but will mention that I am bored at work, and that leads to posting new threads


----------



## KenC (Jul 20, 2015)

I seem to have voted with everyone else here.  Agree completely with other comments - I try some of this and it's only on rare occasions that I get anything I'm willing to show.  Keep at it and enjoy!


----------



## Dave442 (Jul 20, 2015)

Created sort of a screen mesh look so more like a texture (just saw you already put Texture in the Flickr tags). That scene says go with vertical motion blur, the difference between the dark trunks and light spaces would increase and the branches would blur out.


----------



## waday (Jul 20, 2015)

limr said:


> I might have to concede the advantage to digital


Come to the dark side...


----------



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

KenC said:


> I seem to have voted with everyone else here.  Agree completely with other comments - I try some of this and it's only on rare occasions that I get anything I'm willing to show.  Keep at it and enjoy!



Thanks, Ken!



Dave442 said:


> Created sort of a screen mesh look so more like a texture (just saw you already put Texture in the Flickr tags). That scene says go with vertical motion blur, the difference between the dark trunks and light spaces would increase and the branches would blur out.



Interesting. Do you mean directly vertical or sort of diagonal like Wade's shot? (And technically, Flickr added the "texture" tag. It's doing that these days, I guess - auto tagging photos. So I can't take credit for the tag.)


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 20, 2015)

Personally, prior to wasting (more  )film. I'd do some research and find some successful images to emulate or minutely examine to see what works and what doesn't work. There are a lot of choices, WA vs Tele, Shallow DOF vs Max. DOF, handheld movement vs tripod/controlled movement, et al ... detailed/cluttered scene vs. clean/minimalistic scene, et cetera.


----------



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

waday said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I might have to concede the advantage to digital
> ...



Let's not get crazy, now


----------



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

Gary A. said:


> Personally, prior to wasting (more  )film. I'd do some research and find some successful images to emulate or minutely examine to see what works and what doesn't work. There are a lot of choices, WA vs Tele, Shallow DOF vs Max. DOF, handheld movement vs tripod/controlled movement, et al ... detailed/cluttered scene vs. clean/minimalistic scene, et cetera.



Yeah, I hadn't really done a lot of looking around yet. I was mostly going by what I'd seen here - Pixie does a lot of these tree shots and Carolyn has some flowers on Flickr. But there are a lot of possibilities that I should explore.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 20, 2015)

What kind of _TPF Alternate Universe_ have I awakened into this morning? All SIX of us have voted identically? WTF?


----------



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

Derrel said:


> What kind of _TPF Alternate Universe_ have I awakened into this morning? All SIX of us have voted identically? WTF???



It's pretty bizarre, isn't it?

And I must say, it's nice that the agreement isn't that I totally suck!


----------



## Dave442 (Jul 20, 2015)

limr said:


> Interesting. Do you mean directly vertical or sort of diagonal like Wade's shot? (And technically, Flickr added the "texture" tag. It's doing that these days, I guess - auto tagging photos. So I can't take credit for the tag.)



Directly vertical. 
I don't like auto-tagging, they added Chocolate my tostada picture (chocolate ground beef?).


----------



## Dagwood56 (Jul 20, 2015)

I agree its not bad, but keep trying. If you're doing true ICM and you are standing still, but you are moving the camera, trees will almost always work better using slow vertical movements.; preferably from bottom upward so you don't pull too much of the sky into the shot. 

Side note to clarify "true ICM" : most online groups specific to the ICM genre , will not allow blurred images to be posted that are made via shooting from a car, panning, or blurred by zooming in or out when pressing the shutter.


----------



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

Dave442 said:


> Directly vertical.
> I don't like auto-tagging, they added Chocolate my tostada picture *(chocolate ground beef?)*.



Ew.

(I don't like the auto-tagging either, even if it doesn't create gross taste combinations on my photos. It's just creepy. Flickr is going all creepy stalker.)


----------



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

Dagwood56 said:


> I agree its not bad, but keep trying. If you're doing true ICM and you are standing still, but you are moving the camera, trees will almost always work better using slow vertical movements.; preferably from bottom upward so you don't pull too much of the sky into the shot.
> 
> Side note to clarify "true ICM" : most online groups specific to the ICM genre , will not allow blurred images to be posted that are made via shooting from a car, panning, or blurred by zooming in or out when pressing the shutter.



Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## Designer (Jul 20, 2015)

limr said:


> What do we think?



We like the texture and range of tone, but the overall composition is not good in this one.  

I imagine that unless and until you get more experience with the technique, a really good composition is going to be a matter of luck.


----------



## Designer (Jul 20, 2015)

Derrel said:


> View attachment 105257
> 
> What kind of _TPF Alternate Universe_ have I awakened into this morning? All SIX of us have voted identically? WTF?


Amazing!  I voted without looking at the current results, and WHOA! *8* votes in the same choice, and no others!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 20, 2015)

Designer said:
			
		

> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, some dude named _Rod Serling_ is calling me on my iPhone...


----------



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've performed a miracle!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 20, 2015)

We're turning into Stepford TPFers on this one.

I've played with it a little, mostly with my digital camera, but I can get Polaroids with _un_intentional blur - I can give you that! lol Or sports with mumbling to myself blur, not so good.


----------



## coastalconn (Jul 20, 2015)

Uh oh, I went against the crowd... Where is PR


----------



## limr (Jul 20, 2015)

Ah yes, the miracle is over. Most think it's middling and one thinks it's a bit worse than that. A few think it's not bad, and one thinks it sucks. I'll try not to cry too hard at that last one


----------

