Looking back and linking to the brief firstly set, I think that I have reached the rquirements of the different tasks and explored rechniques, settings, and artists to then create 6 minutes worth of timelapse showing life, and decay. Although one of the timelapses aren't as intreging as the other, and isn't as captive of the attention, it is still a timelapse and shows the process of decay over a whole day. 

​

Throughout the two timelapses, I have kept and documented, the process of producing my timelapse right from the word go, through research, first hand practising, photographing the actual thing, and then putting it all together. 

​

Through these points, I have ended up with two timelapses both consisting of 25 frames a second, for 3 or so minutes. In some cases I have included music to acompony the videos, or the kry bruns effet (making the vidio clip pan to one part of the frame to another using iMove) , I did this to add more interest to the over all timelapse, and I really think this made all the difference, because looking at the same subject / object for 3 minutes straight is realy quite boring, so music, and key burns panning add just that little more interesting. 

​

Some things I would have quite liked to have done differenlt, such as the timings and the duration of the timelpase over all, and the apearence and subject of both of them. I feel that as the brief requested 6 minutes of timelapse, this restricked me, as I wouldn't have been able to concentrate of the editing, and the quality of it, but in stead, I would have to worry about stretching it out into 6 minutes. I feel that if the request was one minutes each, I would have had more room to use creative angles, techniques, and editing tools, and over all, would have looked a lot better.

​

However, I do feel that I have successfully planned, shot, edited, and complete two timelapses, both consisting of thorough detail, resaerch, trial and era, and putting together. (especailly the 'life' one...).