Radial blur - red deer (Bradgate)

Hi All

Thanks for the comments on my previous red deer shot and I would welcome some thoughts on this one.

The motion in the image resulted from the movement of the deer as it plucked food from the tree - I really like the fact that the motion rotates around the eye. There is no post-process manipulation.

I've posted the image because for some who have seen it, it represents an 'imperfect' shot due to the movement. I'd be interested to hear more opinions - good and bad please.

Cheers,
Chris

1Ds3, 500mm, ISO 200, 1/40 @ f/5, tripod

I don't have a problem with the blur - in fact, if the deer was looking at what it is eating I would say fine shot. If the deer was looking at you it would also be OK.

Here the deer just looks nervous, and that makes me uncomfortable as a viewer. The photo technique is fine.

Only an opinion.

Hi Chris, I really hate to be negative about other people's work but I have to say that in my personal opinion the blurring adds nothing to and actually detracts from the image - sorry.

In my view there simply isn't enough overall movement in the image to warrant or benefit from any motion blur, unlike say a bird/insect in flight, a creature on the run, massed waders on a beach or even a snake flicking its tongue

I like that the eye is sharp, but I'm afraid for me this isn't working.... it looks too much like an image that I would reject, the amount of blur is insufficient to convay what I think you were trying to, just my opinion and of course others will differ....

All the best

Phil

Thanks for the feed-back, guys - always interesting to get honest opinions.

While I have a 'static' shot from the same burst sequence, this image had me in two minds as to whether or not it worked. Obviously, it doesn't for others and I've now been persuaded of that too.

Interestingly, I didn't see Mike's comment coming - having been there and taken the shot, I know that the deer was perfectly happy with my presence therefore, I didn't interpret the deer as looking "nervous". Instead, I just saw the white of the eye as a natural function of the deer's glance behind itself. However, now it has been mentioned I can see why Mike drew his conclusion.

Thoughts much appreciated.

Cheers,
Chris

Hi Julian

Yes, good to put a face to a name - hope you had better luck on the subsequent tides.

Cheers,
Chris

Hi Chris

Great idea, I'd like to see more motion for it to really work. It's neither one nor t'other for me. The thought process however is typical O'Reilly!

Pete

I see where you were going, but unfortunately didn't work on this occasion as mentioned above. I do like seeing these new ideas though.

Drew