I’m not sure if this is the right place for this tulip. If not, please feel free to move it to a more appropriate category.
It is not an ICM. What it is, is a technique I have been experimenting with where I move the subject, very slightly instead of the camera.
For this image I exposed for 10seconds and move turn the flower ever so slightly (3 times I believe) to create the movement.
I would like to know if the amount of movement works in creating the sense of motion? Too much? Not enough? It is a studio shot with a single light source. Too dark? Any other thoughts or comments are welcome.
Not much post processing. LR linear profile, hightlight/shadow adjustments.
Nikon Z6ii, f/25, 10sec., iso 100 @ 105mm, tripod and remote release
Linda, yes you are in the right place for this wonderful abstract image. Really well done! The technique you described may be classified as a reverse ICM. This is when the camera stays still but your subject moves either intentionally or un-intentionally (ie by wind).
Yes the amount of movement does convey motion in your final image. You want to try experimenting with 5 or 10 movements to get even more motion. I like the dark background because the main subject stands out more. The tulip has some wonderful shapes to it. Did you consider cloning out the leaf on the lower left? I would also play around with a vertical 4x5 crop to focus more of the image on the tulip. Thank you for sharing your image. I enjoyed it.
Thanks, Alfredo. Definitely need more experimenting with more movements. Currently looking for a more stable turntable, as the one I have is quite wobbly.
I did crop -and removed the extra leaf - as you suggested and like it much better as it does focus more on the movement of the tulip. Thanks again for your thoughts.
This is quite stunning! I love the dark mystical light – even though it’s a single source the movement gives it some lovely sculpting. The multiple exposure idea gives a very different result than movement in a single exposure. Hope to enjoy lots more of these!
This is fantastic! And to answer your first question, this absolutely belongs here! I’m hoping to see more of this creative work. Yes, ICM’s are included in the broad category, but this is NOT just about ICM’s. I’m posting an “Anti-ACM” image next…
This inspires me to try something like this. I’m loving the form that comes thru with this technique. The colors are wonderful and the dark background really makes this one stand out.
The repost is excellent, but also I think your original worked beautifully as presented.
This image is just wonderful and a very good example of creative artisitic photography. In general, there are many possibilities when using this technique, from moving the object very fast (compared to the shutter speed) giving no blur but only “double exposures” of the object to having much blur and everything inbetween. I really like your choice here restricting the movement to only a few giving a perfect combination of sharpness, blur and “double exposure” of the flower.
Also I like how you’ve used a flower with missing petal(s) so we see the inside too. Very creative, Linda. My preference is for your original crop, but with the leaf removed as suggested.
I love this, Linda! It looks like a painting. Are some of the petals of the tulip missing or has the movement made them open to be able to see the inside? I’m just trying to figure out how the inside of the tulip is visible. I really love how you were able to show it. Great work!
P.S. - I just read what Mike said, I guess they are missing, but that’s really neat!
Hi Linda,
You may or may not have read in one of my comments where I state that I almost always study the image before reading anything from the photographer or the commenters, I do that to develop my own impression without any influence and I feel that helps me to be honest about the feedback.
Coincidently, I visited an art shop today so I had a good chance to look at several works of art on canvas (We bought a painting of a dog that looks just like one of ours).
Some of the work I viewed there didn’t look near as good as this.
My impression of your image wasn’t that of motion, it was more of a painted look or the look of a double exposure with film. I think it’s mostly a painted look over a double exposure in the rework version, the original version is more of a double exposure (with the leaf in the scene).
The idea of motion blur from wind didn’t seem to fit together in my limited mind because the blur isn’t linear, it’s radial or rotational. I hope that makes sense to more than just me, sometimes I don’t do so well at expressing my thoughts with written words.
Anyway, the thought is that flowers don’t typically move radially (rotate).
What also caught my attention was the center of the flower, the tulip is mostly all closed up, yet the center is visible. Did you remove a petal or two to achieve that?
I really like it! Sorry I didn’t see it as something in motion, I guess I should try to open my mind a little more.
Maybe try moving the flower from left to right or visa versa if linear motion was your goal? Just a thought on how you might be able to achieve that.
Anyway, I suppose I’ve rambled on with my thoughts way more than I should have.
Thanks so much, Mervin for taking the time to look and comment. My thinking behind this image was exactly to have it move (rotate) to see what kind of energy I could create. So, yes, I suppose flowers don’t typically rotate, but that was the point. I did not remove a petal, it just feel off, which was when I became fascinated with the center of it. It was a fun experiment and one I haven’t had the chance to get back to. . . perhaps this winter will be a good time. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Linda, this is simply beautiful. However the movement is created, the result is just stunning and the colours too. I haven’t had much time lately to look at NPN, but I was scrolling through the recent images just now when suddenly this one of yours just made me stop (in a warm fuzzy way) to look more closely. Your technique here is very interesting. As David commented, I’ll have to try this. Just great. Cheers.
Thanks, @Phil_G, truly appreciate your very kind words and glad you are enjoying it. Hopefully this next year I will have more time to work on this technique.
