Ah, docrob,yes,yes,yes! This was why i bought the Minolta 8000i yrs. ago. Top of the line, just to overcome the "insurance of not getting double exposures" that had been built in to prevent them. That camera had not only incredible bursts (not called that then),but included "fade-in" and "fade-out",not merely double exp. but multi...3 to 9,x# of them today and the rest tomorrow etc. When Kodachrome was taken from us i gave up for awhile to go for painting. I am definitely not so much interested in what's in front of a lens, unless it has some good reason such as news or portraits,but rather what else one can do with a camera.Anything,absolutely anything, merely in front of a lens, is basically a "record shot". Thank you so much for sharing my kind of photography with us all.

Prelude to getting on with it:
I've never written or explained what I do and how I do it and thus how others can start learning how to do it too - if they have a mind too. This last clause is not accidental - one's mental state plays a critical role in creative acts. Earnest Haas (a shoulder all color photographers stand upon) said "I am not interested in shooting new things, I am interested to see things new."

(I have a blog so if anyone's interested pm me and i'll send you there).

There are three basic ways I know of to utilize motion or the appearance of motion in images to create what is loosely called "Impressionistic Photography," and at least one way is camera brand dependent. The Nikon's (I use D200) have a multiple-exposure feature that allows you to dial in 2-10 shoots which will be layered in some way I suppose by the camera to form 1 composite image.

A second way to create similiar effects is by moving the camera and a few people are quite skilled at this way of perceiving and these folks use Canon. A third way is to use a time exposure and simply allow the subject to move as it will.

This is not HDR. None of these methods create HDR like images and cannot be processed the way HDR images are processed but they do tend to require different processing skills which I might share later if there's interest and I can articulate it....

In the sample images below I used the technique of taking in camera multiple exposures to create impressions of a mood, a feeling. The first image (slow day in greenmont) was as follows: Overcast light, light breeze, Birch tree in cemetary, D200 on Tripod; Nikkor 70-300 zoom; 5.6. SS unknown. Set camera to take 9 exposures using JPEG; focus on bark of tree, watch tree, watch leaves realize I have no clue what will happen so I just do it.....Bursts work well and sometimes it pays dividends to pause between shots as well. This was a burst taken as the wind rose over the hill. Timing is always illusive it seems...

# 2 Another burst of 9 exposures as I and this tree stood together on the rim of a mesa with the wind blowing around 30 mph. Contrasty lighting conditions (This and other in camera techniques especially camera /body motion seem to benefit from high contrast scenes). Handheld this time so an image like this becomes truely unreplicable...The tree is moving....you are moving....one can only play and maybe pray that the two will synch up. Sometimes you have to keep repeating till it does or you stop.

#3 Five shots - hand held, shooting straight up into the tree, into the light which is quite bright. I am composing using color, space, and shape. This image has a slight variation in that I am also blurring out the backgrounds and using space and focus to play with the light and the colors. Movement will be added by the tree itself and there is no control over that.

Interesting things occur when you play around with this kind of seeing. It is an approach it is not merely a technique. It is not something that can be well replicated by software applications because one of the very interesting things that you will start to observe is the subtle interplays and dynamics of light. Your pics will have a glow you did not see when you took it. If there is interest I'll try to be more fluent in techno-speak but no promises.

Yeah I know nothing is tack sharp and a question I ask: does it need to be?

Feedback humbly asked for......please
8-) :roll:

feel free to bump me Mr Snarling Wolf if this does not quite add up to what you have in mind.....

Ahh! The beauty of photography. Nothing has to be the same always.

Docrob, You and I were thinking about the same effect. But, with different "views". Let me explain; when you were thinking of "impressionistic", I was thinking of "movement".

My thought was, If photographs of water movement are made, why not make the same for other nature subjects. So, I selected the tree (probably the next easiest to water). I just used a slow shutter speed.

Here's a photograph of my view:

Hayuaua - yes! i was just starting to think people should post and you came along and did it. Thank you! That can open stuff up for others I hope.

Exactly - why not?? And your intuition is right on target - trees are easier to start for some reason and you are right you can let the trees / branches/leaves/light dancing as movement occurs all sort of paint itself on the chip. This is a great way to open up to new ways of seeing. Post again if you have something.

thank you for adding to the discussion.