The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
On the one hand, these type ICM’s might becoming a bit redundant with the motion that I’m doing. This one here, although maybe not obvious, includes a reflection. The bottom third or so is the reflection and if you maybe study hard enough you can tell it’s a reflection. So I think in maybe some small way, this new and a bit different.
This was captured of course in Yosemite and the reflection the Merced River. Come to discover, this is same exact location as the image posted by new member @deborah kalas “Amber Glenn” in the Processing Challenge Gallery. In fact, her image was even featured on the recent Nick Page Post Processing Challenge. My image is the same scene, although I believe I was down river just a few dozen yards or so, and captured a week or so later. Anyway, you get a good look at what the non-ICM scene looks like. I love Deborah’s image too and Nick did a great job - I highly recommend watching.
Hmmmm, we can’t do linking here, so I’ll paste the entire URL
Deborah’s image:
Nick Page Post Proc Challenge:
Specific Feedback
I’m quite unsure about this ICM image. Yeah, the backstory is fun and interesting, but I’m just not sure about this image. Your feedback and suggestions are most welcome!
As always, comments, feedback on color, WB and processing in general are appreciated.
Technical Details
Nikon D800E, 28-300mm @50mm f/16 1/4s iso 200, CPL. Single ICM frame, verticle + horizon swipe motion
Lon, your ICMs are anything but redundant or repetitive!! The motion you are using is evocative of a gentle breeze, which fits the soft colors so well. And to catch a reflection really brings it up a notch or ten. I love the lighter area on the “horizon”, which is evocative of mist on the water.
My only suggestion here is print and hang. In a gallery!
It was very interesting to see "the real thing"and it dramatically points out the artistry of ICM. Oddly, my computer wants to open that raw format in PixInsight – an astro processing program.
Just to show how much the subject of an abstract is in the eye of the beholder, while @Diane_Miller saw a gentle breeze, I see a forest fire ( a bit more contrast to darken the trunks and maybe a subtle hue and tonality change to the foliage and you’re there). Definitely not repetitious as the same motion (which I’m sure you don’t repeat exactly each time) has a much different effect with different subject, focal lengths and distances, not to mention shutter speeds.
Lovely, Lon. The combination of swooping, fine lines and the (more or less) fixed tree trunks is very appealing. I did get the idea of a reflection. I get a very energetic feeling from this - more of a stiff wind than a gentle breeze.
Lon, I really like this image! I knew it was a reflection immediately and I especially like the tones and colors. I’m a newbie to NPN, but find this type of artistic expression to be a great way to expand our possibiities as photographers. I’ve played with ICM a little myself, but never tried moving the camera horizontally. It’s interesting to me that the main tree trunk seems not to show any horizonatal “distortion” compared to the rest of the image. Was there something you did intentionally to make that happen?
That’s pretty much how I feel. I’m not dedicated to this genre, but I do enjoy the creativity and possibilities these techniques can produce.
Excellent observation Ron - and you made me have to think about this. Of course I can’t remember the exact motion I took on this image, but I think I can describe some examples of the motions and what I think I did in this case.
Won’t get in to all the endless combinations of motions, but there are 2 main categories for consideration. And for these to keep it simple, let’s just talk about a single, say vertical motion with no secondary action. The first type of motion is a continuous motion. In other words, you start moving the camera, then click the shutter during that movement when your viewpoint is covering the scene you’re capturing. The second type is something I only discovered in the last year or so… and that is you start your exposure with the camera stationary. In other words, you start the motion simultaneously with clicking the shutter. In this second type of ICM, you get a momentary snapshot of the static scene (hence the tree trunk with no horizontal movement) then you get the motion blur. Now the length of the blur part of the exposure is a bit longer than the static exposure. Not sure if that makes sense, but again, two different types of ICM movements.
Back to this image, I believe I started the exposure with the camera still (hand held) then moved up and diagonally to the right in a quick motion. (has to be quick, it’s only 1/4 of a second!
Thanks for asking… I could foresee someone doing videos capturing these motions for illustration… hmmmmm…
Lon, thanks for the detailed explanation of a process that is hard to describe! I’ll give your “second type” a try the next time I’m in an ICM frame of mind.
Lon, thank you for the detailed explanation on your technique. I love resulting image! The square crop is a winner as it gives the scene a nice balance. The motion you capture is fantastic. One can get lost in the detailed bits of motion but the essence of the subject is still there, appearing like a ghost. Perhaps it’s a harbinger of what we stand to lose if we do not care for our natural world. That’s the impression that I get from your fine image. And to answer your question, these ICM images are not repetitive. Each one tells a story. Thank you.
