• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Must I be hyper creative?

Sherlock77

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
When my photography is far more documentary in focus, and there is nothing wrong with that

Tonight?

Camera Club meeting, and there was a brief talk about "intentional camera movement", for those who don't know it's basically using intentional movement of your camera (even your cell phone camera) as you are taking a photo, it is a real thing people do... The lady presenting is someone I know quite well, and was talking about how much it adds fun to her photography

Me? Documentary, I admire people who are so incredibly creative, what I do is based mostly on observation... The club then did an outing to a nearby downtown area to practice ICM, I just didn't feel motivated (there was no pressure from anyone), I really don't see how ICM fits into any of my photography, and ultimately I'm less experimental than some people, and that's fine with me and it works for me too in my own

So I just went home :cool:

ICM you ask? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...mera-movement-photography-part-1-introduction Some of you might like it...
 
I have a sharp eye for a well taken photo and to me any type of blur is an error. I can only think of one area where that would be acceptable - I was at a V8 Supercar race and I tracked a few cars as they came past me, so I had photos of cars that were perfectly still and in focus but everything else was motion blurred. That was back before digital cameras though so I didn't waste too much film doing that.

If it's ugly and expensive it's probably called Art. :)
 
I have a sharp eye for a well taken photo and to me any type of blur is an error. I can only think of one area where that would be acceptable - I was at a V8 Supercar race and I tracked a few cars as they came past me, so I had photos of cars that were perfectly still and in focus but everything else was motion blurred. That was back before digital cameras though so I didn't waste too much film doing that.

If it's ugly and expensive it's probably called Art. :)

What your describing is panning, what I'm describing as ICM is different
 
When my photography is far more documentary in focus, and there is nothing wrong with that

Tonight?

Camera Club meeting, and there was a brief talk about "intentional camera movement", for those who don't know it's basically using intentional movement of your camera (even your cell phone camera) as you are taking a photo, it is a real thing people do... The lady presenting is someone I know quite well, and was talking about how much it adds fun to her photography

Me? Documentary, I admire people who are so incredibly creative, what I do is based mostly on observation... The club then did an outing to a nearby downtown area to practice ICM, I just didn't feel motivated (there was no pressure from anyone), I really don't see how ICM fits into any of my photography, and ultimately I'm less experimental than some people, and that's fine with me and it works for me too in my own

So I just went home :cool:

ICM you ask? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...mera-movement-photography-part-1-introduction Some of you might like it...
Wasn’t aware of ICM, but interesting idea. From what I’ve seen of your work, the crisp starkness is the most arresting feature; draws you in to see the subject. Do what you do.
 
Definitely admire your point of view on this one. IMO it seems like the majority would be on your side in a situation like this, but I could be wrong.

I'm pretty much the exact opposite though and now I want to try this myself. Sounds like a lot of fun! :D

Remind me of wasting a session in adult education photo class doing deliberate double exposures.

At the risk of sounding even more cringe than I already do, this also sounds awesome
 
At the risk of sounding even more cringe than I already do, this also sounds awesome

Nowadays even a one-eyed-monkey could do it with Photoshop.

However back then with a manual SLR it was a bit tricky. Where you'd take your first shot, then manually rewind the film so the second shot would be on top of the first shot. All done "blindly". But it was just something I really had no interest in doing on a regular basis. Just a one-time exercise in my photo class.

Not sure if this was a true double exposure done or not...but I recall taking this 80s print running VHS video (with its 220 lines of paltry resolution) from my 80s tv set and may have shot two images only a few frames apart, but rewinding the second image on top of the first. Trying to make one image "blend" into the other. LOL...the print looks considerably better. In any event it's the only print in my collection that had such an effect.

Double Exposure.jpg
 
Last edited:
Definitely admire your point of view on this one. IMO it seems like the majority would be on your side in a situation like this, but I could be wrong.

I'm pretty much the exact opposite though and now I want to try this myself. Sounds like a lot of fun! :D



At the risk of sounding even more cringe than I already do, this also sounds awesome

Then try it, you can do it with any camera... And you could do it in Photoshop, but you know that you didn't :)
 
ICM, is just a techique. Like any other technique, it is one tool that can be used to pursue creativity. It, in itself, is not creative.
 
Too bad the instructor didn't spend the class time on something else, such as slow shutter-speed photography. Not quite the same, but the artistic results can sometimes be impressive.

 
Nowadays even a one-eyed-monkey could do it with Photoshop.

However back then with a manual SLR it was a bit tricky. Where you'd take your first shot, then manually rewind the film so the second shot would be on top of the first shot. All done "blindly". But it was just something I really had no interest in doing on a regular basis. Just a one-time exercise in my photo class.

Not sure if this was a true double exposure done or not...but I recall taking this 80s print running VHS video (with its 220 lines of paltry resolution) from my 80s tv set and may have shot two images only a few frames apart, but rewinding the second image on top of the first. Trying to make one image "blend" into the other. LOL...the print looks considerably better. In any event it's the only print in my collection that had such an effect.

View attachment 120798

I love this look so much!

One of my personal favorite methods to replicate this is going down to the code level and messing with the pixel array. Sometimes just stretching an R, G, or B channel or offsetting them in unique ways really brings out that VHS vibe, and occasionally, with an interesting twist as well! Even reversing them with specific conditions can make it look like a warped tape, too!

Also, trying to replicate those 'lomo' cameras can be a heck of a lot of fun, too! But I'm sure there are plenty of people who also don't like that look, since it's usually very blown-out and lo-fi. I don't blame them one bit, but that crazy vignette and washed-out color palette is so cool to me.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom