Printable View
It was a year ago this week that I was out with Capt. James in pre-dawn light on Alafia Bank. While waiting for the light to develop, he suggested that we try a few blur shots. I haven't done many intentional blurs, and am not often a fan of them, but I've kept this one in my files, and thought I'd see if it resonates with anyone.
D7000, 500f4, ISO 800, 1/25s @ f/7.1 manual.
Bill
It's always fun to try something new. I like the four-toned background, which shows that you did a good job of keeping your pan relatively steady.
As for the ibis, the wing position is great, even in this blur. The black tips are clearly visible, which is an added bonus. I only wish that the head were a bit more in focus, but that's just getting picky.
Miguel
Compositionally, I'd go for the three-toned BKGR with a nice crop from below. From where I am sitting this one does not seem to be in focus.... What are other seeing? A good blur of a moving subject needs to be sharply focused so that it is blurred rather than blurry :).
These are really fun to try, and when they work they can be quite wonderful. I like the BG bars you got, but like Artie I'd like to see something in there sharper. Perhaps darkening the blacks would help make the image a bit less "blurry", but I suspect the panning was not in perfect sync with the fly-by.
Your images have been blowing me away, Bill, but I have to admit that this one doesn't work for me. That said, it's so great to see you trying different perspectives and styles.
Bill, I think shooting motion blur with a 500mmf4 is something definitely fun to try, but I agreed with Artie, Daniel, and Marina that the bird needs to be in sharper focus for it to work.
Thanks all. I knew there were some issues with this, but I guess I couldn't articulate them. Maybe that's why I didn't post it for a year, but I decided it would be interesting to see what others felt. I've seen some intentional blurs that I liked that were purely abstract, with nothing in focus, including some of Artie's and Denise's images, but perhaps the difference here is that this is not truly abstract since the bird is recognizable. So having the head sharp would have made all the difference. Daniel, I suspect you're right that my panning speed didn't match the bird. It was very early in the morning. :w3 I appreciate the good, honest critique which is the hallmark of BPN. Oh, and Marina, congrats on becoming a Mod, AND on having an image in Audubon's Top 100!
Hi Bill, Not sure that you are understanding correctly.... For both Denise and I making a de-focused blur is a rarity. I do not think that I have ever posted one here. Even super-surreal stuff at 1/4 second needs to in sharp focus..... I'd recommend getting and studying a copy or our "A Guide to Pleasing Blurs."
Artie, I guess I don't fully understand. I could well be wrong, but I thought the AF was locked on to the Ibis, and that the blur was motion blur and not lack of focus. I gather you're seeing it differently. In your "Snow Geese, red bush blur" on p. 484 of ABPII, I like the image but don't see anything sharp. Perhaps the focus was locked on the birds, and all the blur is motion. That's what I thought I had here?? On p. 492 you say "I disagree with folks who state that all good blurred images of single birds need to have the eye or eyes sharp." The lovely accompanying image of the Reddish Egret is blurred (except for the right foot); it's hard for me to discern whether, if one were to discount the motion blur, the egret would be in sharp focus. I would love to be further enlightened. Having said all of that, I do agree that in my image, having gotten the eye sharp (whether due to focus or motion) would have made a better image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
Hi Again Bill, I think not on the locked-on AF but I could be wrong. I believe in the Snow Geese red bush blur that focus was indeed accurate but concede that that is hard to tell. The fact that the birds are flying away with the heads not visible helped :). As for the quotes, they are all indeed accurate. In the posted image here my impression is that accurate focus was not attained. I could very well be wrong. IAC, the image does not work for me mostly because of the degree of blurring and the apparent unsharp focus. One additional problem is the merge of the head with the horizon line. How's that for honest critiquing? :)
Good on you for stepping out of the box and good on Marina for being on point.
Thanks Artie. I could certainly be wrong about the AF, and as you suggest, the important thing is whether the image resonates. In this case it clearly did not. I appreciate the critique.
YAW Bill. And thanks for having an open mind.
