Creative Photography for Lazy People
Last week, I was working in Blairstown, NJ for a couple days, and had much of the day to kill time between my two night shifts. So I decided to take a trip up to nearby Stokes State Forest to go for a hike.
A lot of times I just enjoy being out in nature, well all the time really. Sometimes, it’s really a hassle for me to lug around my camera gear and stop and compose photos everytime I find something interesting. Sometimes I just want to experience being outdoors, with no interruptions and no distractions. Sometimes, when it comes to photography anyway, I get lazy.
This was one of those days. It wasn’t particularly nice out, and nothing looks particularly pretty this time of year in New Jersey, at least when it comes to woodland landscapes. I still don’t have a lightweight tripod for landscapes, and the thought of lugging my five pound all purpose Gitzo around the woods with me was very unappealing, especially when I was unlikely to find anything really worth photographing. So I decided whatever trails I went on, I’d bring my trusty G10 (which I try to have with me 24/7 just in case) and nothing else, save my Camelbak, a trail map, and my ID and car keys.
I did want to do some photography though. I’m one of those people who firmly believe there is natural beauty just about everywhere. Sometimes its obvious, sometimes its discrete, but its always there, you just have to look for it. Stokes is a very pretty place and I had all day until the sun set, so I was determined to do at least a little shooting, even if only because it had been a while since I picked up my 5D Mark II and I was beginning to feel a bit like a failure.
I drove around, G10 pointed out the window, doing a little of what I like to call “drive-by shooting” even though autumn was well past its peak and the foliage wasn’t particularly interesting to look at. I like drive-by shooting because it produces some really unique, creative, and abstract images with minimal effort, and you can incorporate it into any trip without having to create special chunks of time to allow for the process that is making a photograph. As it turns out, drive-by shooting is much more difficult when you yourself are driving and shooting at the same time. You can’t really compose anything if you are looking at the road, and holding the camera and pressing the shutter with one hand while steering with the other is a recipe for disaster. You’re likely to drop the camera out the window, drive off the road, or both. Fortunately, the backroads at Stokes have stretches with good visibility, and my G10 is small enough that I can hold it in one hand, but the lack of a chauffeur really reduced both the safety and productivity of using the drive-by technique, so I soon changed my approach to getting shots for the day.
I began to stop the car at spots that had visual interest and shot from a stationary position, still inside the car, with the engine turned off. I used the car window frame as a brace, leaning against it to get sharp shots without the extra effort of getting a tripod and setting it up for shots that would mostly end up in my Recycle Bin anyway. Sometimes, the time it takes to repeatedly set up, manuever into position, and then break down a tripod for a couple quick photos of something you aren’t really “feeling” to begin with seems like a waste to me. It’s not the physical effort I’m opposed to, and its the time factor. Time is money. Light is aways changing, animals are constantly on the move, and as a photographer who chooses subjects largely based on an emotional attraction to them, its not always worth it to me to invest a lot of time in something that only mildly excites me, especially when there is the possibility that something better is lurking around the corner. In this case, I had a hike I wanted to complete before dark. However, shooting from a car window isn’t particularly desirable and actually greatly limits your angles and composition, and therefore your creativity. The truth is, whenever you can get out of the car (because you won’t damage the surrounding environment, flee your subject, or put yourself or your subject in danger), you probably should. You’ll nearly always get better photos that way.
But who needs a sharp shot anyway? One thing I really enjoy doing is all sorts of blurs and photos that imply movement by using slow shutter speeds and moving the camera during the exposure. This is great for times when you are too lazy to set up the tripod, and using motion-exposure techniques can really inspire your creativity. By eliminating the appearance of hard edges and concrete shapes, you begin to focus on different aspects of the photo like color, general form, and contrast. Shooting this way is very much hit or miss, and the majority of your shots will immediately end up being deleted, but the process is fun and the results can be very interesting when everything comes together.
So, I took advantage of the dull, overcast light and set my camera for slow shutter speeds. Then I played. I walked around with my G10 a bit, whirling and shaking it during the longer exposures. I got out my 5D Mark II, which gave me even more control, and did some vertical pan blurs and other funky shots. I left my tripod in the car. I didn’t need it. This was about having fun.
Because I was hand holding my camera, I got pretty varied results. With hand holding, no composition is ever exactly the same, and when moving the camera during the exposure, you will move it at different speeds and in different directions each time, even if you try to do the same thing twice. That’s okay with me though, as I like the suprise of seeing what each shot holds on the camera LCD.
Here is an example of one of my vertical pan blur compositions. These shot were taken one after the other, but as you can see they are very different. When doing creative motion shots, it pays to take a lot of photos, as you never know which you’ll like best. I’m curious, what do you think? #1 or #2?
In: Recent and Random Photos, Tips and Techniques, Trip Reports
on November 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Permalink
With all due respect (and I love your wildlife photographs) most people’s “motion blur” photographs look too similar to everyone else’s, such that they don’t really interest me anymore.
With that said, I like the second one better. It’s less abstract, and has something for my eye to grab onto. The first one is too much like a thousand other ones I’ve seen.
on November 11, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Permalink
I like em both Kari. Very different images. The first one is nice but not all that unique. I’ve seen similiar shots before and in fact have done stuff like it before. I think the second image is more unique and has a impressionist feel to it. Glad you had some fun. I have been planning on doing some shots like this in the coming days. Hope mine come out as nice.
Drew
on December 1, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Permalink
I prefer the first, the motion is smoother with less detail and more implied geometry. The second has perhaps too much detail in the leaves, although, the more I look the more I like them both!!! No, I still prefer the first!! The second looks a little more like what could be achieved with an artistic filter in PS.. Does that help, or is my ambiguity even more problematic!?
on December 1, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Permalink
Thanks for the feedback guys! It’s always great to get a variety of opinions and you all have made good points.