This came up today because of a photo I'd posted yesterday. I think I understand but am not sure. When we talk about motion photos, it seems there are three different types...not sure which names apply where:
1. Intentional Camera Movement or ICM -- is that where we are intentionally moving our cameras in order to create a blur from otherwise stationary images, thus making an image more or less abstract. But the camera moves to make a blur.
2. Panning -- is that where we are also moving the camera, but this is to capture something moving that we want to get into sharper focus. The camera moves, but following a moving object to make it appear still but the background -- which had been stable -- now looks blurry.
3. Motion something -- maybe motion capture? Is that where you hold your camera still while photographing something that moves (e.g., cars at night, a train moving) to capture the blur on purpose -- but you aren't moving the camera as the blur is coming from the moving object. OR, is that the same as panning?
It may not be a difference that makes a difference, but I'm curious about the official terms for these three different kinds of motion. Thanks and apologies in advance if this has been covered! I haven't seen a discussion thread on this recently and didn't see one in the archives (but didn't look for very long).
@archaeofrog Thanks Katie. This came up on the motion blur shot I took yesterday of the el (subway but on the surface) and highway car light trails. Some respondents referred to it as ICM, but since my camera was as stable as I could make it, it seemed to be different from ICM.
There does appear to be some camera movement though, if you follow the straight then loop patterns of the lights in the upper corners, but not sure. Agreed that the point was motion blur though, not ICM.
@archaeofrog I think the key point is the word "intentional" as I was using the railing of the bridge as my 'monopod' to keep the camera steady. If you look back at the subway station ramp, it's 'fairly' focused -- not crystal sharp, but not really blurry. I think the camera movement was not intentional -- so that the photo is either a terrible ICM or an adequate motion blur shot! And I was going to re-do it today, but my fingers were too numb after photographing the moon!
@mzzhope Any time! I didn't even think about it until the comments today, and then realized I wasn't confident in my responses to folks about the difference. Either way, worth practicing as I could improve a lot on both motion blur and ICM!
A good topic to bring up Taffy. I took a shot in December that could count as ICM (even though the 'intentional' part can be debated because it was a mistake haha). The tree was obviously stationary but I posted it because the intentional camera movement made it look artsy.
I took this panning shot a few days before and so I guess in a way it could be intentional camera movement because I was intentionally moving the camera for the purpose of blurring the background while keeping my subject sharp. But I still would term it panning.
Which brings me to the photo you took Taffy which, to me, seems mainly a motion capture. However, like Katie said, I do see a slight hint of camera shake because of the way the light of the headlights and streetlights are curved (which do have a nice artsy feel in my opinion). It seems you achieved two types of motion photography in one! We'll call it intentional motion blur camera movement (IMBCM)! haha kidding. In the grand scheme of things I would still term your photo a motion capture, or motion blur. I'm interested in seeing what others have to say about this.
@cjphoto Aha -- you've added the other major term about movement: camera shake! Not only camera movement but accidental -- and not effectively adding to the shot!
Hi! Here's a diptych I did last year - one is panned with George in focus, (following him with my camera moving at a similar speed), the other is motion capture with the 'course' in focus (not following the 'traffic' at all). When I say 'focus' I am obviously using the term very loosely!! :)
When I did a photography course a while back they talked about a number of different techniques - largely in the way that Katie @archaeofrog has described them
1. Panning - where you move the camera 'in time' with the moving image so you end up with a picture where the moving image is in focus but the background is blurred.
2. Using a long exposure on a moving image which will create a blurred image of the moving object but other aspects of the picture (buildings etc) should be in focus
3. Using a short exposure on a moving image which will freeze the action (e.g. catching someone in the air in the middle of a jump)
4. I hadn't really heard of ICM until I joined the site and was challenged to try it for get-pushed. My understanding is that in ICM you intentionally move the camera to blur the image. So related to panning but with panning there is always the aim to get the moving object in focus.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I would call the third one "motion blur" if the idea is to capture the blur of a moving object while keeping the camera still.
There does appear to be some camera movement though, if you follow the straight then loop patterns of the lights in the upper corners, but not sure. Agreed that the point was motion blur though, not ICM.
I took this panning shot a few days before and so I guess in a way it could be intentional camera movement because I was intentionally moving the camera for the purpose of blurring the background while keeping my subject sharp. But I still would term it panning.
Which brings me to the photo you took Taffy which, to me, seems mainly a motion capture. However, like Katie said, I do see a slight hint of camera shake because of the way the light of the headlights and streetlights are curved (which do have a nice artsy feel in my opinion). It seems you achieved two types of motion photography in one! We'll call it intentional motion blur camera movement (IMBCM)! haha kidding. In the grand scheme of things I would still term your photo a motion capture, or motion blur. I'm interested in seeing what others have to say about this.
1. Panning - where you move the camera 'in time' with the moving image so you end up with a picture where the moving image is in focus but the background is blurred.
2. Using a long exposure on a moving image which will create a blurred image of the moving object but other aspects of the picture (buildings etc) should be in focus
3. Using a short exposure on a moving image which will freeze the action (e.g. catching someone in the air in the middle of a jump)
4. I hadn't really heard of ICM until I joined the site and was challenged to try it for get-pushed. My understanding is that in ICM you intentionally move the camera to blur the image. So related to panning but with panning there is always the aim to get the moving object in focus.