« Me and My D3 | Main | O.T.: R.I.P. »

Wednesday, 12 September 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df351e888f883400e54ef080cc8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Random Excellence: There Goes the Camera! (Jesse Milan):

Comments

5s reaction to picutre: wow, great shot.

After reading the whole post: nice idea, but flawed optics. If the ball was indeed being captured in flight to create the effect, the blur should extend along the axis of travel. Looking close enough one can see that it's stationary.

What it demonstrates is that indeed we can often create a wonderful effect, and we can use creative setups to make it easier and safer. But you can't ignore physics in doing so. Having said this, the difficult part is having the creative idea - most of us can fix the execution, having enough ideas only fewer of us rank well for.

If you want to see camera's destroyed - or at least camcorder's - you need to watch "America's Funniest Home Videos"

Not to nitpick or anything, but shouldn't the swing be farther along if the ball was really that far away? It looks to me like his swing is where it would be as he was hitting the ball...

Question: Not to bring up another dead horse, but would anyone here classify this photo as being manipulated? It could just as easily have been created in Photoshop, right? It certainly wasn't a depiction of what was *really* going on at the time the shot was taken, right?

So, Mike, are you for or against this kind of photography?

Jack

The believability of photography suffers when images are made that imply reality, but were "faked". The fact that the photographer disclosed how it was done mitigates the issue, but for me at least this is a "reality shot", and I feel misled when I see it, then read it was not the real thing.

How is suspending the ball on a string any different than photoshopping in a ball? I don't think there's any practical difference; both are at odds with what actually occurred.

Unless you're dealing with news photography and photojournalism, I see no problem with 'faked' setups.

Some of the most creative and interesting editorial photography has been created by modifying reality, either with props, lights, chemicals, or Photoshop.

@Jack: As for being 'manipulated', you could argue that any photo where the model is placed in a specific spot is manipulated. Any photo where someone is asked to look at the camera is manipulated.

I'm for this kind of photography; unless you're doing photojournalism. But as art or editorial, this is awesome stuff.

@Lloyd: If you want actual 'reality shot' camera destruction photos, try these two:

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/5140/blast_destroys_camera_flash_card_survives

And thanks for the link Mike :) It's very much appreciated!

You guys are being a bit curmudgonly about a slick little photograph. I could care less how it was made. I like it and might just like it more knowing the context behind it.

Mike, perhaps you should have just posted the photo with no comments at all. I suspect you would have got very different responses like:

"wow, great shot!"
"amazing!"
"wow, he must have great reflexes!"
"love it"

Stating how this photo was achieved just gives fuel for criticism.

Steve

@Andrew:

I like the photo, too.

But I also don't see the big deal with Photoshop manipulations either, like some folks do.

Consistency is supposed to be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a little consistency here would seem more than fair.

Jack

@Jack:

Hahaha, I hadn't heard that expression about consistency before. I like it!

A little consistency would be fair, I definitely agree.

As for manipulated or not, I'd classify it as manipulated except that I don't like the negative connotations of the word. Modified might be a better categorization.

I'm quite surprised at how many responders to this cute, innocuous article seem to display little or no sense of humor. Geez fellas, time to take a step back, take a few deep breaths, and just let yourself have some visual fun. Photography is just not that damned important.

> The believability of photography suffers
> when images are made that imply reality,
> but were "faked".

Does the credibility of language suffer due to all the lies being told?

Since I take photography too seriously and I have no sense of humor (cough) just thought I'd add one more note. He could have easily overcome the motion blur complaint by making the shot with a shutter speed capable of stopping the motion of the swing. Then there could be no complaint about the ball because it would simply be blurry because it's not in focus.

The way I see this shot (and I did see it this way before reading the text) is... great idea - 1 stop short of being followed through flawlessly. That was a double pun, by the way. ;]

Come to think of it, that was actually a double puntendre. Or would that make it a triple?

"Does the credibility of language suffer due to all the lies being told?"

I certainly believe it does. Whether it's euphemism (remember "terminate with extreme prejudice" from the Viet Nam years?), or obfuscation (consider Enron's tactic of hiding the truth in plain sight, but stated so obliquely and buried so deeply that it couldn't be detected), or willful malapropism and restatement of the obvious (two of George Bush's favorite methods of evasion), lies and strategic untruthfulness leach the language of vividness and forcefulness and contributes to a general fuzziness of thinking. Deliberate misuse can destroy words, and debasing appropriations (often, but not always, for advertising) can strip the poetry right out of them. (If encountering the word "gay" from a time before it was a synonym for homosexual hasn't convinced you of this, try using the word "ludicrous" in conversation with a young person and you'll see what I mean.)

Mike

Wouldn't the ruse have been more convincing if the batter's feet and shoulders were in line with the camera? Why simulate a late swing and a foul ball?

There are other problems besides those already mentioned in earlier responses. If you were able to read the seams of the ball, the batter's hands would be frozen. Never mind DOF issues. As images like this become increasingly popular, whether done digitally or using setups, we will learn to pay less and less attention to details in a photograph because they will confuse or disappoint rather than clarify.

I like this shot, but I wish you could see the bat better. This technique is not original though. I have seen many similar photos with this technique. The most famous of which is of a boy throwing a snowball. All were "faked" the same way.

Mike - point taken, but looking at it objectively you are merely describing evolution, not devaluation.

Yes, it would be nice if the meaning of words would not be bent or abused and carried the same meaning as in the 'good old days' [another term fraught with the implication that you are an old fart unwilling to accept change - just teasing you here]. However, language is always in flux and today's not "better" or "worse" than in the past. I am too young to remember Vietnam terminology, for a start, so hearing it for the first time, the quoted expression is its original meaning to me.

Anything that's in evolution is ... alive. We should celebrate that photography is alive and evolving in complete freedom, which includes the freedom to abuse and bend it. It's a good thing, although we may not always like the twists on the way. It is a reflection of society and the same applies.

Think it is always better to get the timing right, there is no substitute for the real thing! Here are three examples all taken at baseball games.

1 - http://www.abovo-media.com/index.php?showimage=1905
2 - http://www.abovo-media.com/index.php?showimage=1470
3 - http://www.abovo-media.com/index.php?showimage=1351

Enjoy

Victor

Interesting post...I won't get into the physics argument, but cool nonetheless. Pretty creative in my opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.