Re: On freezing of motion

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:12:08 -0500
>From: "P3D Dr. George A. Themelis" <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: On freezing of motion

>Rob Cruickshank writes:
>>The discussion of freezing motion and the example of the "frozen" horse
>>jumping shot reminds me of one of the few deliberate motion-blure stereo
>>shots I've made. It's of a cyclist passing under a *huge* concrete
>>counterweight for a drawbridge- the supports of the counterweight are not
>>visible and it appears that the block is "frozen" in space over the
>>cyclist, who is blurred. Anyone who's seen a few Roadrunner cartoons makes
>>the obvious inference... I shot another  with a faster shutter speed,
>>and it really lacks the urgency of the blurred one.  

>Another possible option when photographing motion would be to move
>the camera in the direction of the motion, freezing the subject
>and blurring the background.  Many times this looks better than having
>both frozen or the moving object frozen.  Perhaps it is because the
>eyes are used to tracking moving objects?

For me, having the object of interest sharp makes it easier to look at. :-)
Tracking could also be a factor - also if there's a moving object and a
motionless background, they will presumably be at different distances and
the focus may be different - and if you're looking at the moving object
then the rest of the scene is viewed using peripheral vision, which is less
sharp anyway.

In the "continuum" of visual cues I referred to earlier, from strictly
"hardware level" to deliberate conscious evaluation, I suspect that
motion blurring cues applied to still photographs may be more toward
the realm of conscious interpretation. We've seen motion-blurred 
photographs for years, and it may be recollection of previously seen 
photographs that tells us "motion", as much as (or even more than) any 
low-level interpretation of motion based on seeing linear blur in a 
motionless photograph. Similarly for the photos illuminated by multiple 
stroboscope flashes - most of us have seen these before, and when we see 
a new one we immediately know what it's about.

I recently had an official photograph taken, and it made me conscious of
the many conventions we use (and have become accustomed to) in various
types of photography. If the ancient Egyptians had invented photography,
I wonder if they would have posed their subjects the way they're posed
in the paintings. ("That's right - now face your body toward the camera, 
and turn your face and legs to one side, and put one arm elbow bent up
in front of you and one arm elbow bent down behind you..."* :-)   And if 
asked why they did so, would they have responded that it was to make the 
photos look "more natural"? :-) :-)
And would the customers have agreed? :-) :-) :-)

John R

* Disclaimer: Different poses were depicted for different purposes.
In many cases symbolism was involved. I believe this was also
true for many of the early Dutch paintings (and others). We have our symbols
too - though we may not recognize them as such.


------------------------------