Suggestion
Jun 25, 2017 18:46:51 #
I wanted to show how the wind caused the grass and flowers to sway back and forth. Would I need to use a slow shutter speed to get the best picture?
Jun 25, 2017 18:57:16 #
Jun 25, 2017 19:00:56 #
will47 wrote:
Yes. Or you can try one of the Photoshop CC blur filters.
Didn't think of that, thanks!
Jun 26, 2017 07:42:18 #
md91 wrote:
I wanted to show how the wind caused the grass and flowers to sway back and forth. Would I need to use a slow shutter speed to get the best picture?
I like the idea of a slow shutter speed rather than adding it post-production.
Jun 26, 2017 07:59:01 #
Collie lover wrote:
I like the idea of a slow shutter speed rather than adding it post-production.
I do also.
Jun 26, 2017 08:14:24 #
md91 wrote:
I wanted to show how the wind caused the grass and flowers to sway back and forth. Would I need to use a slow shutter speed to get the best picture?
To get this result except long shutter speed you have to have at least one stable subject in front or behind moving subjects for comparison.
Jun 26, 2017 08:42:16 #
MMC wrote:
To get this result except long shutter speed you have to have at least one stable subject in front or behind moving subjects for comparison.
Jun 26, 2017 13:17:51 #
md91 wrote:
I wanted to show how the wind caused the grass and flowers to sway back and forth. Would I need to use a slow shutter speed to get the best picture?
Capturing movement isn't a stills camera's strong point. Motion blur has a very limited capability to convey movement, especially when it's random and multi-directional. Getting the shutter speed just right for the vegetation movement is a must, but it's going to fall a long way short of capturing what it was like to be a first-hand spectator. And as MMC said, the scene will need to contain stationary elements.
Jun 26, 2017 13:32:41 #
R.G. wrote:
Capturing movement isn't a stills camera's strong point. Motion blur has a very limited capability to convey movement, especially when it's random and multi-directional. Getting the shutter speed just right for the vegetation movement is a must, but it's going to fall a long way short of capturing what it was like to be a first-hand spectator. And as MMC said, the scene will need to contain stationary elements.
That makes sense, was hoping there was some secret I was missing!
Jun 26, 2017 13:33:19 #
Jun 26, 2017 14:00:28 #
md91 wrote:
I wanted to show how the wind caused the grass and flowers to sway back and forth. Would I need to use a slow shutter speed to get the best picture?
I don't know, if it would be better, or not, but if you want to show more motion blur, yes, then you need a slower shutter speed, obviously!
Jun 26, 2017 17:55:53 #
First go back to post and add title so we can discuss better. I looked at the first one. I can not answer your question without trial and error. I posted the data for the first picture.
Jun 27, 2017 17:39:29 #
jj56
Loc: Londonderry, NH
How about a slow shutter speed AND Flash.
Flash will freeze a more prominent image and the slow shutter will capture blurred image due to motion.
Flash will freeze a more prominent image and the slow shutter will capture blurred image due to motion.
Jun 28, 2017 01:14:54 #
jj56 wrote:
How about a slow shutter speed AND Flash.
Flash will freeze a more prominent image and the slow shutter will capture blurred image due to motion.
Flash will freeze a more prominent image and the slow shutter will capture blurred image due to motion.
Or slow shutter speed (1/5 sec or thereabouts) and continuous fast shutter release for four or five exposures, then blend.
Jun 28, 2017 17:10:22 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.