Primarily, I’d have to say, my favorite thing about this video is that it shows surfing in a different light. This is the first time I’ve seen the sport shot in this fashion, and I’d have to say its awesome to see its been taken to a new level, even if its just for a commercial, its possible to potentially use a similar rig in the future for the actual sport. I like how photographers have been shooting in the water with housing kits, and even using remote flashes with the help of an assistant, but this style just adds a completely different dimension to photography, literally. Even though, this is a very expensive technique to use, when used, I feel its easy to take even the simplest of subject matter and transform it into footage that can be very exciting. The problem with surfing and this style of photography is a. the water (liquid and electronics don’t mix) and b. the movement. Surfing is a sport that involves riding a wave, obviously, but trying to shoot this with a camera setup that is meant to stay static opposes a big problem. Maybe you could built some complex camera rig that mounts on top of jetskis, and they can ride along the surfer, without wiping out and destroying thousands of dollars worth of equipment? Not likely, but its a pretty cool idea. The commercial below was shot in a water pool, which makes it a lot easier because the wave is designed to break identically the same, every single time, so the cameras can stay in one position, without the composition changing.

I can easily see this being used with an indoor sport, such as basketball, where the backboard is always at a fixed distance. The rig could be installed, knowing where the action would be happening, the only issue would be safety and equipment. From personal experience, I know its very different to mount camera gear anywhere when an audience is present, many safety precautions must be used. Aside from that, with the distance from subject to camera in basketball, depending on the framing you’re looking for, the lenses could be very expensive, if you were to shoot something tight, with say… a 70-200, unless you have 50 friends that you can borrow that lens from, you’re looking at paying around oh, $90,000 (1800 x 52) ? Thats just unheard of. Maybe this techique should only be used for subjects that are close to camera. This would definitely be great for shooting some kind of action portrait, maybe an ad campaign for Nike, Adidas, etc. These ads would definitely be shot in a closed studio environment, which helps you get closer to subject, but my other concern would be being able to use a complex lighting setup, and having the possibility of getting some of the lights in the frame. For instance, the high-end sports look these days uses blown out highlights from behind, on the both sides (used as edge lights). Having these backlit strobes fire in the frame would definitely blow out the exposure. However, if there was a way to mount these strobes just out of frame, maybe right at the top of the frame, you may be able to make this happen. You’d probably need a big cyc wall, and bring the lights to the top of the cyc, so they’re not seen in the frame.

I definitely see this multi-camera setup being very interesting, even though its very expensive to accomplish. The video below, just got my brain ticking, and I wanted to share a few ideas of how I thought this technique could further be applied. Let me know if you have any other thoughts of how this could be used, or how it could be changed, to create even more interesting results. Thanks and enjoy.

Timelapse Reel# 5 from 599 Productions on Vimeo.

I came across a great post on commercial photographer, Kevin Winzeler’s blog, which discussed the topic of timelapse photography.  This is one type of photography I’ve always had an interest in but when it came to execution, fallen short.  Included is a great video, along with a Q & A from the photographer who shoot the video, Andrew Walker.  Typically, when shooting timelapse, you can use a pocket wizard to trigger the camera, you’d have to use the MultiMax with the intervalometer setting.  I’ve messed with this a few times, but only to dig through the settings, never to actually create a body of work.  Probably be a great thing to work with once it finally warms up around here.  Reading through the Q & A, the photographer mentions using intervals ranging from 1/2 second to 15 seconds.  As far as exposure goes, that’s something you’d just have to experiment with, you may be able to get away with setting to manual and test your exposures, but this would depend on how late is it, if its closer to sunset, you’re going to have a change in exposure.  If you’re in the dead of night, I wouldn’t imagine your exposure would change all that much.  I haven’t done much of this photography, so I couldn’t give you too much information on the matter, but I found the video to be awesome!  Check out the post by Kevin, its worth your time.  I wanted to quickly add, if you like the video you see, there are plenty more if you want to check out the site for 599 Productions. Also, if you have any tips on how to take better timelapse photos, please feel free to comment.  Thanks.

Timelapse Photograph (on Kevin Winzeler’s blog)