When do you think "motion" stops and "blurry begins?
Discussion
6 replies
Posted by Angela McCain on August 11, 2010 at 9:29 PM
This picture would be great if the face and eye were static, but when does motion cross the line? What guidelines do you think should be used to decide? Surely there is more than just that artistic gut feeling.
From my back yard.
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 11, 2010 at 10:04 PM
It's an interesting question (before opening this I thought it would be in regards to water). I think the answer is rather subjective... some people tolerate more motion blur than others and see the artistic value in it. The issue with this image for me is not so much (motion v. blurry) I see that the head is moving a lot and there is significant ghosting around the wings.
I think the line is crossed when the focus of your subject is no longer sharp... so in flight photography, the head is usually sharp but the wings depict blur. Once your subject starts to show blur, I think it's gone too far. Unless of course you are after that (and there are a million photos of Sandhill Cranes @ Bosque that are examples of this)
- Luke
Posted by Phillip Noll on August 11, 2010 at 10:50 PM
After the 6th beer!
Posted by Angela McCain on August 12, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Phillip....you win.
Posted by Nate Chappell on August 12, 2010 at 1:35 AM
Hi Angela,
To me there aren't any rules for this type of photography. As you said it's nice to have the eye sharp, even if everything else is blurred but I still think an image can work without even the eye or head sharp. The way I evaluate a shot like yours without any part of the subject sharp or stopped is "is this an attractive image?" If it is then for me it works. By their nature I think blur shots are going to be more subjective than razor sharp images of birds where technical quality can be judged.
Posted by Basil Greber on August 13, 2010 at 5:48 PM
I think this depends on many factors. Here, for example, I think the shot would work for me without the un-blurred element in the frame (the piece of wood). The contrast between a sharp but unimportant element, and the blurred subject kills the shot for me - it puts the emphasis on the wrong element (also, the fence (?) in the background is a problem, but that's a different issue).
Posted by Steve Balke on August 23, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Interesting question, Angela. I think that if we expect some part of the subject to be in motion then blur of that part is acceptable. We may even be surprised to see no blur for that part and we may even want it blurred. If we expect some part to be stationary then blur of that part is not acceptable. So, in a way it is subjective. However, I bet most people would agree on which parts are which for a given subject in a given situation.
Discussion
6 repliesFrom my back yard.
I think the line is crossed when the focus of your subject is no longer sharp... so in flight photography, the head is usually sharp but the wings depict blur. Once your subject starts to show blur, I think it's gone too far. Unless of course you are after that (and there are a million photos of Sandhill Cranes @ Bosque that are examples of this)
- Luke
To me there aren't any rules for this type of photography. As you said it's nice to have the eye sharp, even if everything else is blurred but I still think an image can work without even the eye or head sharp. The way I evaluate a shot like yours without any part of the subject sharp or stopped is "is this an attractive image?" If it is then for me it works. By their nature I think blur shots are going to be more subjective than razor sharp images of birds where technical quality can be judged.