Showing action: Took this pic of a fancy dancer at 1/30th. Also did a few at 1/20th but they seemed to be too smeary. Any suggestions on a better shutter speed or is it just a matter...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Took this pic of a fancy dancer at 1/30th. Also did a few at 1/20th but they seemed to be too smeary. Any suggestions on a better shutter speed or is it just a matter of trial and error?

(Download)

David Kay Loc: Arlington Heights IL

gvarner wrote:

Took this pic of a fancy dancer at 1/30th. Also did a few at 1/20th but they seemed to be too smeary. Any suggestions on a better shutter speed or is it just a matter of trial and error?

It depends on the speed of movement by the subject and the amount of light that you have. So the final answer is Yes, trial and error.

Jan_dalton Loc: NC

If you want to freeze motion you need a faster shutter speed above 60.
For the dancer outside in the sun you could go up to around 1/400 f/5.6 and an ISO of 100.

Hope you don't mine, here is a sample of a picture at that setting. I still got a little burr on the bat that I personally like to show motion in the bat. I think it what you like and what you want. I hope this was helpful. I have learned so much on this site and just trying to give back. I am always learning so I'm just trying to give and example. I'm a self taught photographer/hobbyist. Again I hope that it helped.
Hope you don't mine, here is a sample of a picture...

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

The doors and windows in the background are also blurred indicating camera shake.

With that in mind, the very slowest shutter speed to use is 1/125 secs, and preferably faster.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Was trying to emphasize motion but maybe too much so. The point about fuzzy background is well taken. Tripod or monopod would have been better than handheld. Sharp background would have helped emphasize motion of the subject. Thanks for the good input.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

A friend of mine has a series of shots very similar to yours, from a Yakama Nation pow wow.

We spent a lot of time in pp using selection tools to isolate dancers, and then applying different backgrounds (plain, neutral, black, color) to feature the incredible colors and beautiful movement. A stunning, unique series.

Next time maybe try to focus on a dancer's head and use a shutter speed just fast enough to get more detail in her face, but do keep the blur of color and dance - it's gorgeous.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Thanks Linda. I think a faster shutter would have been the order of the day to get the face and at least parts of the body sharper. Shooting with a Nikon D7000 in AF-S mode. Was wondering if AF-C for continuous follow focus would have been able to keep up with the action. I plan to do some PP in Elements, just a newbie at PP though. I worked on the Yakama for years. It's a small world.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

gvarner wrote:

Thanks Linda. I think a faster shutter would have been the order of the day to get the face and at least parts of the body sharper. Shooting with a Nikon D7000 in AF-S mode. Was wondering if AF-C for continuous follow focus would have been able to keep up with the action. I plan to do some PP in Elements, just a newbie at PP though. I worked on the Yakama for years. It's a small world.

It is indeed a small world!

If you are interested in some tips, you could post the image in the pp section and ask for input. I have learned so much from generous UHH'ers :)

Here is the forum if you haven't visited before:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

To subscribe, scroll down on UHH home page 'til you see "all sections." Click in there to browse the specialty forums and subscribe.

Tom S. Loc: Hillsboro, Ore.

gvarner wrote:

Took this pic of a fancy dancer at 1/30th. Also did a few at 1/20th but they seemed to be too smeary. Any suggestions on a better shutter speed or is it just a matter of trial and error?

Shutter speed isn't the only consideration. What were the iso and aperture settings? Indoors?

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

gvarner wrote:

Was trying to emphasize motion but maybe too much so. The point about fuzzy background is well taken. Tripod or monopod would have been better than handheld. Sharp background would have helped emphasize motion of the subject. Thanks for the good input.

I know that blur is the popular way of conveying motion but consider this. The dancer is colorful and may have an interesting expression on her face. Why lose that to blur? Will a viewer not realize she is moving even if she is sharp? Personally, I would rather have her sharp.

I am not sure a tripod or monopod will help because what you get in steadiness, you may lose in not following the dancer fast enough. Your picture seems overexposed by about a stop so you can pick up a stop there. Crank up the ISO for a faster shutter speed. How much? You have to experiment until the noise becomes objectionable and your have the desired subject motion. The final advice is consider a faster lens. This will increase the weight and might decrease how steady you can hold it.

Good luck and show us more.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

David Kay wrote:

It depends on the speed of movement by the subject and the amount of light that you have. So the final answer is Yes, trial and error.

And how close you are to the subject - you will see more movement (blur) at closer distances than at greater distances at the same shutter speed. Trial and error is the best way to get what you want. We call that exposure bracketing :)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

gvarner wrote:

Took this pic of a fancy dancer at 1/30th. Also did a few at 1/20th but they seemed to be too smeary. Any suggestions on a better shutter speed or is it just a matter of trial and error?

A higher shutter speed would keep the background sharper, and that would emphasize the movement of the dancer. Experiment.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Panning is a real art. You want a slow shutter speed to emphasize movement, but you need to move the camera with the subject to maintain clarity in some part of the subject. A bird in flight is a good example - the wings flapping and the background blurred will enhance the perception of movement. If you use a faster shutter speed, it would be to use shallower depth of field to help the viewer's eye move to the subject. Background motion blur together with softness in the background can be a good thing. But the higher shutter speed will also lessen the amount of blur, which is important to the perception of movement. Distance, speed of movement, shutter speed, aperture will all affect the final result.

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

gvarner wrote:

Took this pic of a fancy dancer at 1/30th. Also did a few at 1/20th but they seemed to be too smeary. Any suggestions on a better shutter speed or is it just a matter of trial and error?

Your download did not have any cameraq data? What are you using? This would help to see ISO, F stop, and shutter speed. David

diensthunds

gvarner wrote:

Took this pic of a fancy dancer at 1/30th. Also did a few at 1/20th but they seemed to be too smeary. Any suggestions on a better shutter speed or is it just a matter of trial and error?

It looks as if everything is out of focus just slightly, not just the people but the things on the wall as well.
That means that there was some movement of the camera. You were hand holding this I assume? If you are wanting to just have the dancer blur, try putting the camera on a tripod and using 1/30th sec shutter speed to keep the background sharp but let the dancer "blur"