National Geographic published the special assignment photographs made by Michael Nichols under the title of "The Last Place on Earth." I won't detail the mission except to say that it involved a trek through some of the most isolated and wild parts of Africa.

Nichols' photographic style for this project is 'different' to say the least. For example, many of his animal images are not fully in focus. They depict action and emotion in an unusual way. If you're familiar with this incredible book then you know what I'm trying to say. If not, you'll still get some idea of it from the images I've below.

My reason for posting these is simply to hear people's reactions to this style and engage in some relevant discussion. (click to enlarge)

#1


#2

Interesting article about this type of thing in the current issue of Outdoor Photography. There are some great examples, with photographer explainations and tips.

Hey Buddy,

Thanks for sharing - I particularly like the first sample you presented. LOL, I have been trying to get Mr. Nichols to do an interview with us for months - though I don't know if he actually gets his e-mails as it all goes through NG.

As I have let my subscription to just about every camera magazine I own drop (except Rangefinder), would you mind sharing some of the techniques you used to take these shots?

James

I'm going to be blunt. I'm also not a national geographic photographer, but do publish mostly wildlife images in publications of all sorts, some with few copies up to some very broad 50-100k international distrabution. I dont consider myself an expert on wildlife photography, but I am an expert when it comes to my opinion.

I'm not going to run the guy down, not at all, each to their own I like to say, but, I dont care for his work. Never have. It's my opinion that he has skill and talent and puts them to use, but today, after a few years of seeing his work, I still try to figure out how or what there is to "like" about his stuff. If youre a wildlife photographer for very long, you begin to build a folder full of stuff like he publishes. To me, the subject is NOT enough to make a great image. I think he rests on the popularity of the subject and just has been able to build some interest by being a bit different, and offering a slightly different look to a lion. I just cant get into his style, I dont see more than slow shutterspeeds and sometimes poor additional lighting. I love blur and I love action and emotion, his stuff to me, is mostly just blur. I dont know what other's see in it.

Could you or someone enlighten me?

More power to him, he's well known and publishes a lot of images, kudos to him!

http://michaelnicknichols.com/

okay, thanks. I can tell you that in my view, it can be fun, I like to capture images that show motion and action, however, most of Nichols's stuff to me look just like he lacked the tools or the shutter speed to make the shot, again, his subjects cant carry the day for me, most of his shots are just blury, and I can see why people would find them interesting, but depending on the subject, all you have to do is shoot at 125th or less (again depending on the speed of the animal) have a fast camera, and shoot a lot of frames and you will come home with a tone of blurred images, and if you ad a flash, or some light to the subject you might even get some catch lights that streak too. . .

The cool thing about what he does is that you dont need fast glass and you dont need low iso. On the otherhand, since he is publishing in NG I wonder if he's shooting film? If he's a staff photographer, he likely still is shooting film. . .

Nice work on the photos, stick with it, this photography stuff is all about what makes you happy, not about what other's like or disslike. keep with it if it makes you grow and learn. I like to grow and learn too, and I k now I have a lot of learning left, just not in the blurred photo business - even though I shoot it now and then - I shoot in only when it's neccessary, I dont just shoot slow and go though and find one that turned out. . . Again, I'd like to see his stuff if it were of a house cat, or dog, or everyday subjects instead of africa and gorrials. I swear, if you had a gorilla licking a banana it would sell these days. . .

Appreciate the encouragement, Tony. Re 'Nick' Nichols, it would appear his work (referring to the 'Megatransect' project that resulted in the NG book, The Last Place On Earth) was controversial and not unanimously supported within NG. I assume this because he dedicates the book to his NG picture editor for her support and 'protection'(his word!). Also, the author of the forward (don't remember his name at the moment) goes to, IMHO, great lengths in 'explaining' Nichols work, using words like 'urgency' and 'political' etc. vis a vis logging devastation of the rain forests, loss of species etc., possibly anticipating that many folks might be confused or put off by the style.

All of that is fine and may or may not accurately reflect what was really going on with Nichols. Apparently Nichols became very ill with hepatitis during this project. One of my random fantasies was that his images (again, I'm referring only to those in this book) had the appearance of being shot by a photographer who was both impaired (by illness) and desperate (possibly due to the NG administrative demands of the project, for personal reasons or, in my imagination, due to the immense physical stresses involved). But... I don't really know for sure and that may be part of what got my attention. As I said, some of his images got into my head and wouldn't go away. The influence was positive in that it stimulated me to, as you said, 'learn, grow and have fun.' Plus, it's one 'big picture book' around the house that I've returned to several times as contrasted with others which I enjoyed once.

As an aside, I put this book out in the reception area of my office for some months and was interested to observe that many people spent time looking at the pictures and commented that they really liked the book. Interesting.

James - The article in the September 2007 issue of Outdoor Photography features images by Art Wolfe, Frans Lanting, David Muench and Mark Muench. The techniques covered include:
1. Subject Blur: long exposure, stationary camera - including the use of ND filters in bright sunlight where normally it would be impossible to get a slow enough shutter speed to blur motion and not wind up with an impossibly over-exposed image. Also discusses making people who are moving through a scene disappear by using this technique.

2. Pan Blur: long exposure, moving camera - with comments about image stabalization systems which generally should be turned off (or a special setting used) if using a tripod and turned on if the camera is hand-held.

3. Zoom Blur: stationary camera and subject, moving lens - generally using exposures in the 1-2 sec range and timing the pause during the zoom to capture the subject in focus while everything else is blurred.

4. Flash Blur: combines brief flash and longer ambient light exposure with near-by subjects.

In the first shot above with the Magpie in the right side of the frame I used a simple hand-held pan blur and a slow shutter speed (enhancing the blur in PSCS2). The other three images involved slower shutter speeds.

I wonder if anyone else has some examples they might post here for discussion??

My photography reflects my vision of life. I like to think that I have a clear vision. I throw away out of focus photos, but if a photo of a duck has a major part of it's anatomy in focus and the rest is motion blur, then I find that acceptable. On the other hand, if the photo is completely out of focus, then I take that to be a missed shot. Most hummingbird shots has motion blur in the wings because it takes specialized lighting to get the motion blur out of the wings and most photographers (including pros) do not have the money for the specialized lighting. I try to record Nature as it is found, not with a distorted view. I guess that I am more of a Natural History photographer than a Nature photographer although not too long ago, they were one and the same. Just my opinion.