| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject:
 Posted: 03.04.2009 16:16
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 14.11.2007 Posts: 1040
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 16:24
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 28.04.2006 Posts: 6104
|
|
| The drip seems a little blurry for not being a panned shot. I think where I draw a distinction is that I expect a bit of blurriness when there's panning, but not when the camera was stationary. Does that make sense? Maybe U-Man or corsec can jump in on whether that distinction makes sense to them. |
_________________
Illegitimi non carborundum!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 16:32
|
|
Joined: 30.06.2007 Posts: 624
Location: Colorado
|
|
Elsinore wrote: The drip seems a little blurry for not being a panned shot. I think where I draw a distinction is that I expect a bit of blurriness when there's panning, but not when the camera was stationary. Does that make sense? Maybe U-Man or corsec can jump in on whether that distinction makes sense to them.
If you are panning with the subject, the subject should be sharp, the background will be blurred:
If the camera doesn't move, then the background will be stationary, and the moving object might be blurred if it is illuminated for long enough. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 16:35
|
|
Joined: 10.01.2009 Posts: 298
|
|
Hmm... now I'm quite intrigued about tonight's posts, as it seems I have gone in a different direction than most. Maybe I just took the easy/obvious route again.
For the first time in my brief Farktography history I did go dig through the ol' 35mm prints and pulled out a couple to scan.
I'm going to try another one that isn't heavy on the motion, but is obvious that most if not all of the subjects are in motion. One is even slightly airborne, so I think we're kosher there. This particular picture does hold some measure of historical significance, which is the reason I'll try it over some other, prettier shots.
Oh and since this post isn't long enough already, here's a b-side:
 |
_________________
70574
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 17:14
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 28.04.2006 Posts: 6104
|
|
OK, maybe the more operative word with panning would be "forgive" rather than "expect". I'm more willing to forgive a bit of blur with a good try at panning with the subject as opposed to a stationary camera.
Also, WRT the flying bugs with wings in motion but body still, that's not much different from corsec's motorcycle shot where the wheels are still a bit motion blurred while the rest of the rider and motorcycle are nicely sharp. |
_________________
Illegitimi non carborundum!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 17:16
|
|
Joined: 30.07.2008 Posts: 36
|
|
| I gave U-Man's water balloon suggestion a shot and I think it turned out pretty good. Went through quite a few balloons to get the timing perfect. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 17:58
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 29.09.2006 Posts: 1625
|
|
Maybe it's just really windy and he isn't actually moving.
Sorry, just trying to be funny or an ass or both. The seagull-ish bird is fine. Although, I must say, it doesn't scream motion to me. Y'know?
/Els', in response to your question - I think that's OK. I mean, I wouldn't want to DQ it but it would be so much better with the wings frozen too. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 18:09
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 28.04.2006 Posts: 6104
|
|
| Yeah, I agree, U-Man. One of them has frozen wings, and one doesn't, IIRC. |
_________________
Illegitimi non carborundum!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 18:31
|
|
Joined: 17.01.2009 Posts: 314
|
|
| Would a bee getting nectar from a flower count as 'not at rest'? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 18:34
|
|
Joined: 30.06.2007 Posts: 624
Location: Colorado
|
|
kashari wrote: Would a bee getting nectar from a flower count as 'not at rest'?
The theme is actually "Airborne or otherwise not at rest", so something hovering in the air would count. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 18:58
|
|
Joined: 17.01.2009 Posts: 314
|
|
corsec67 wrote: kashari wrote: Would a bee getting nectar from a flower count as 'not at rest'?
The theme is actually "Airborne or otherwise not at rest", so something hovering in the air would count.
So if it's not actually hovering, but is actively 'sucking', for lack of a better word, is that ok? I think I remember reading something to the effect that if it wasn't going to be in the same place in a second, that would work? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 18:59
|
|
Joined: 30.06.2007 Posts: 624
Location: Colorado
|
|
kashari wrote: So if it's not actually hovering, but is actively 'sucking', for lack of a better word, is that ok? I think I remember reading something to the effect that if it wasn't going to be in the same place in a second, that would work?
Well, it isn't standing on its proboscis, so it would work for me. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 19:04
|
|
Joined: 17.01.2009 Posts: 314
|
|
corsec67 wrote: kashari wrote: So if it's not actually hovering, but is actively 'sucking', for lack of a better word, is that ok? I think I remember reading something to the effect that if it wasn't going to be in the same place in a second, that would work?
Well, it isn't standing on its proboscis, so it would work for me.
Cool, thanks! I almost got a good shot of a couple of urban duckies taking off out of our pool, but it has a bit too much blur I think. So I'm down to the bees I gues. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 19:27
|
|
Joined: 18.01.2006 Posts: 929
Location: juneau, alaska
|
|
can I get a ruling on this?
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 03.04.2009 19:33
|
|
Joined: 30.06.2007 Posts: 624
Location: Colorado
|
|
soosh wrote: can I get a ruling on this?
Snowboarder
Sharp enough for the theme. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
