Posted by Chris O'Reilly on November 26, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Hi All
A friend was very generous in allowing me to use his red squirrel feeding stations. With the usual images in the bag I switched tack and experimented with some in-camera motion blur and flash.
I've touted this image around to numerous picture editors without so much as a sniff in return. Am I missing something?
C&c (good, bad & ugly) very welcome.
Canon 1Ds2
180 mm
1/100 @ f3.5
ISO 100
Tripod with fluid video head
Flash - second curtain sync
10% crop across the top
Posted by Mike Smith on November 26, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Tricky one, first impressions are that the the subject is too central and appears to be exiting the picture, although it needs at least this positioning to get the tail in full and also perhaps not enough space for overlay wording for editorial purposes?
Posted by Mark Sisson on November 27, 2008 at 4:06 AM
Hi Chris,
Nice idea this but for me this type of motion blur shot doesn't work when there is such a prominent "static" element like the branch. Against general b/g's this would have worked, or if the branch was sharp and the squirrel blurred as it is then again it would have but having the branch and the squirrel motion blurred just feels a bit odd.
You have to try these things though so big tick for that.
Take the c&c as meant and requested.
Mark
Posted by Cliff Young on November 27, 2008 at 4:14 AM
Hi Chris,
Certainly worth a try but it doesn't work for me, possibly because there is too small an area of sharpness. Also I find the blurred branch to be a big distraction - just looks strange somehow, sorry.
Posted by Barrie Harwood on November 27, 2008 at 5:00 AM
Hi Chris
I am not surprised by the lack of interest to be honest.
Even with "motion blur", there should be a focal point of interest and this doesn't have any to be frank.The squirrel is running away from the camera (no eye contact or even parallel running), it's clearly got a peanut in it's mouth (not the best for wildlife images) and it looks generally over exposed.
Good to try a different approach though and kudos to you for trying (more than I do )
Barrie
Posted by Chris O'Reilly on November 27, 2008 at 7:52 AM
Thanks for the comments so far, very helpful. Sometimes you can be too close to an image to see it as others do.
I guess there is a tendency to only post images to the forum we feel confident with; those that will get a positive reaction. My reason for posting this was I couldn't see what wasn't working - now I can, so thanks.
Cheers, Chris
Posted by Mark Hamblin on November 27, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Hi Chris,
I think it works as a concept for sure but maybe a slower shutter speed would have created more blur particularly in the background. 1/30th or 1/15th would be worth a try next time you're up!
Cheers,
Mark
Posted by Mike Smith on November 27, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Gulp, is this the Mark Hamblin browsing the site?
.... if so welcome Sir! and a quick tug of the forelock in respect! (Northern habits die hard even for a naturalised Southerner)
Posted by Chris O'Reilly on November 27, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Hi Mark
Yes, tried what you suggested during this session but it didn't work that well. The main problem was the blur/second-curtain flash combination, it just looked wrong. Realizing this I switched the flash off but the squirrel had obviously got fed up of hoarding hazelnuts and didn't return.
Discussion
8 repliesA friend was very generous in allowing me to use his red squirrel feeding stations. With the usual images in the bag I switched tack and experimented with some in-camera motion blur and flash.
I've touted this image around to numerous picture editors without so much as a sniff in return. Am I missing something?
C&c (good, bad & ugly) very welcome.
Canon 1Ds2
180 mm
1/100 @ f3.5
ISO 100
Tripod with fluid video head
Flash - second curtain sync
10% crop across the top
Nice idea this but for me this type of motion blur shot doesn't work when there is such a prominent "static" element like the branch. Against general b/g's this would have worked, or if the branch was sharp and the squirrel blurred as it is then again it would have but having the branch and the squirrel motion blurred just feels a bit odd.
You have to try these things though so big tick for that.
Take the c&c as meant and requested.
Mark
Certainly worth a try but it doesn't work for me, possibly because there is too small an area of sharpness. Also I find the blurred branch to be a big distraction - just looks strange somehow, sorry.
I am not surprised by the lack of interest to be honest.
Even with "motion blur", there should be a focal point of interest and this doesn't have any to be frank.The squirrel is running away from the camera (no eye contact or even parallel running), it's clearly got a peanut in it's mouth (not the best for wildlife images) and it looks generally over exposed.
Good to try a different approach though and kudos to you for trying (more than I do
Barrie
I guess there is a tendency to only post images to the forum we feel confident with; those that will get a positive reaction. My reason for posting this was I couldn't see what wasn't working - now I can, so thanks.
Cheers, Chris
I think it works as a concept for sure but maybe a slower shutter speed would have created more blur particularly in the background. 1/30th or 1/15th would be worth a try next time you're up!
Cheers,
Mark
.... if so welcome Sir! and a quick tug of the forelock in respect! (Northern habits die hard even for a naturalised Southerner)
Yes, tried what you suggested during this session but it didn't work that well. The main problem was the blur/second-curtain flash combination, it just looked wrong. Realizing this I switched the flash off but the squirrel had obviously got fed up of hoarding hazelnuts and didn't return.
Sounds like an invite?
Cheers,
Chris