Mind you, I may not have learned anything as the jury is still out on the matter, but for the moment I would like to believe I had something of an epiphany and I’m going to run with that notion because it feels too damn good to do otherwise!
For your consideration (and from my Flickr site)
I took a number of images of dancers inside a barn at the local Aullwood Apple Festival at the Audubon Farm. The lighting was not conducive to good photography as there was no lighting inside the barn and the only light available was from open doors, which included one behind the dancers, which, as we all know, makes for rubbish pics of anything in the foreground (underexposed in other words). As such, I had to move up to ISO 1,000 and still use exposures that were longer than I had wished.
But while going over these images last night, and thinking most were rubbish because the dancers were often blurred or at least parts of them were, I suddenly realized how odd these images would have looked had I been able to stop-motion capture them with the camera. It is, in my mind, the fact that they are blurred (or parts of them are) that helps create the sense of motion, which seems appropriate considering they are dancing.
While this may sound very straight-forward and simple to you (or anyone else), it was something of a major mental breakthrough for me. This was me, for a moment, thinking outside the box. Outside my zone of comfort. Outside of the confines I had established for myself for photography under these circumstances. No small feat considering it was going up against decades of ingrained behaviour.
So while the images are pretty mediocre by most any measure, they represent a great leap in thinking for me.
And they’re still better than anything my point-n-shoot would have been able to capture! (shameless plug for digital SLR cameras)