Photo by Martin Kimbell, used with permission
I have a flickr account, but comments aren't working over there right now, so I couldn't ask Martin how he does this. It's great to see new 'spins' on old ideas, and PetaPixel is doing us proud in that respect this week. The bouncing recipes still get my vote for idea of the week though. :-)
This is how he do it: http://news.justtom.com/photography/story/687997/portfolio-martin-kimbells-light-paintings
It is a nice collection although it would be nice to learn his technique to make such a beautiful innovative creation with lights.
I keep asking myself how he managed to get some of the shots. Therefore I think it is really innovative!
Extremely interesting and innovative, but not images I would put on my wall
Where is the Q&A?
It's the questions and answers which we've pulled out in the captions under the various images in the slideshow.
Many photographers at some point experiment with a light source(s) as a means of mark-making or drawing within the frame of a photograph, ala Picasso's Centaur (technique actually dates back far earlier - first probably Frank and Lillian Galbreth, 1914); but, for most photographers, it is a quick check-off phase, often arguably unrelated to the primary arc of their development. In contrast, I am always interested to see certain artists take off their coats and stay for awhile.
I largely enjoy Kimbell's work here. Taken on an aesthetic level some images work better than others. Once one considers the means of production, the associations for me become performative - I quite like thinking about the ritualistic quality of throwing these DIY constructions repeatedly into the frame, suspecting/directing outcomes until the film is processed. And sloppy as it might be not to provide a better explanation, I do see these as more appropriate to or compelling within a film methodology.
But to summarize...meh
What really differentiates you from the others are your well-considered and excellently-articulated responses.
not to my taste, it's like when you try light painting for the first time (much more elaborated in this case of course) but after a while you don't feel anything anymore
Clever, creative, fun, and looks great - especially the symmetrical one that looks like a temple of sorts.
Before reading the article, I guessed he was using lights on a quad-copter. Hula-hoop is simpler and adds a lot of variability to what you'll get -- very well done!
So very coooool!
I'm not sure any of this is real...I tried it and could not get the light columns to behave. Maybe I have too much dust on my D800 sensor.
So he uses a film camera. To avoid being cheap.
Comments here crack me up.
Martin Kimbell: Here is some of my work.DPR Forum Users: I don't know what you're doing, so I don't like it.
You are so right. It's like if one watches the show of David Copperfield and is disappointed, becuase he is not revealing his tricks.
Anyway, I think it really would have been a real upgrade to the article if there would have been added such explanations.
You can get better results with camera toss...meh.
Really? Camera tossing will create full frame distortions, and infinite visual variety exists, but they often feel reduced to screensaver fodder to me. I find this work more interesting.
Certainly far more thoughtful.
I meant to say full frame *abstractions*.
No lights used, he just uses "erase" in Elements. :-)
Why outside in the bush? I think the setting is distracting. The symmetrical lights belong against a city scape or a more simple background like a beach. While there was some technical effort to be acknowledged I don't see what is report worthy about it.
Best UFO shots I ever seen:-)
Where's the interview??
@Sal18: Click through the photos. The text under each is the interview.
@Rob - hard to call that an "interview".... no details about the technique or anything!
@fuego6 Are you blaming me for the content?
Lol.. obviously not but yea.. I can see how it looked that way. Sorry about that.. it was more a point in general!
Film!?! and how the hell does he just "throw" the hoop that high in the air? Terrible "inteview"...
Yeah, I'd like to know more - lots more!
some photos show the hoop from the ground and the loop appears to getting bigger as it go up but never seem to lost momentum. Can't be that simple.
My guess is the hoop is dropped from the sky or thrown from a distance not shown. I can't explain the size change though.
Guessing the size change is from throwing it towards the direction of the camera from a distance.
I think he uses a bilateral launcher for the hoop...otherwise there is no possible way the lights would remain in the sky King enough to scan.
I would suppose... he's obviously using wide or ultra wide angle lenses. Throw hoop from camera and it will appear much larger than where it actually hits the ground. The height is an optical illusion from the ultra wide lens.
I don't know for a fact this answers your question.
Yeah.. so to sum things up - Cool photos... Neat idea... Zero pts for useless interview and not providing more details.