Accomplished using a vertical pan during a long exposure, in a back-lit aspen forest in the Eastern Sierra last year..
I'll be leading a number of Fall colors workshops this year. I'm a little slow getting my new Web site out the door as I focus on completing my book, but I hope to get the workshops announced on my blog soon! (www.JeffSullivanPhotography.com/blog)
Google+: Reshared 31 times
Google+: View post on Google+
Comments
On my!! I love the dancing light!! Gorgeous!!
and looks out of focus . Preserve
WoW
Breathtakingly beautiful, as always!
Very nice abstract work here.
Nice!
I love it 🙂
This is stunning. The effect is reminiscent of fiber-optics, but so much more depth and contrast. The colors are vivid and just beautiful. Wonderful work.
Niccco
Check out the zoomed-in copy I put as my profile header image +George Lowrimore, with aspen leaf stems well-defined at over 100 feet distance (in a moving 1/5th second exposure). It was very sharply focused, but motion blur does blend and blur some of the detail.
Yes, that was the goal +Jenni Espinosa. I had plenty of motion blur shots with a whole lot of blur. So the challenge was to keep the camera still enough for long enough of the exposure to show some sharp detail, then move it to also make the motion blur effect. This exposure was a reasonable good compromise between those two portions of the exposure.
Very creative. Thanks.
Good night, good
Wow that's AMAZING!!!!
Good night, good
José Luis
schn
I'm sorry but I can't see anything good in this picture, I have a lot of these, as I left in my map called "trash". Sorry, but this does not need skills to be capture.
Actually this particular effect, with sharp leaves then transitioning into movement in one direction only to get this specific "fiber optic" appearance took quite a few tries +Ylva Berggren (and most did end up as trash). The partial stillness and the subsequent movement had to occur within a 0.2 second exposure, in addition to the composition, lighting, proper exposure, use of a polarizing filter to cut glare from the leaves and improve color, and the post-processing. So it involved all of the attention to technical details and more attention to creative process than a still photo of the same subject would.
In my observation, photography which completely lacks any sort of influence by the photographer fails to qualify as art, and is valued on par with the output of a copy machine… microstock, pennies per image. (There is some limited market for documentary work of course, but with millions of cameras out there, that niche of the market is saturated unless you're in a unique situation such as a war zone.)
I would get very bored producing art which is so simplistic, so dumbed-down, so lacking in any sort of personal expression that it appeals to absolutely everyone. I do agree that may of the derivatives of blurry work lack attention to detail such as technique, and I think many people get caught up in techniques and post-processing tools and forget the basics such as composition, but 999 poorly-executed attempts don't automatically condemn the 1000th one.
"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
– Ansel Adams
You're completely entitled to your own opinion of course +Ylva Berggren. Abstract work makes up perhaps 1/10th of 1% of my portfolio, so there are plenty of alternatives to the occasional creative diversion.