Blurred images (Page 3): When you did it deliberately and like the result yourself.

MtnMan Loc: ID

When you did it deliberately and like the result yourself.

JanSteen wrote:

Maybe this has been asked before here, but I'd be interested in hearing from forum members what criteria make a blurred image a good or acceptable one?
Thanks for the input (in advance).
Jan

don1w Loc: Abilene, Texas

From experience I that the Point-n-shoot cameras have taught me one thing, I can't just shoot a quick shot like I did with a film camera. With the digital cameras I have to hold the position just a moment longer or else I'll have a blurred image. Not sure what the culpert is but the digitals take a little getting used too.

MtnMan Loc: ID

You might check if you have the shutter release set to delay. That is an option on my Nikon in order to help stabilize images...let the shutter release button pushing and mirror lifting vibrations die off before taking the pic. I think it is mostly intended for use on a tripod.

It seems that DSLRs should have a little delay to lift the mirror. That isn't necessary in P&S cameras. I understand some cameras don't even have a mechanical shutter...the electronics simply turn on the sensor for the shutter time. Perhaps those are even faster.

don1w wrote:

From experience I that the Point-n-shoot cameras have taught me one thing, I can't just shoot a quick shot like I did with a film camera. With the digital cameras I have to hold the position just a moment longer or else I'll have a blurred image. Not sure what the culpert is but the digitals take a little getting used too.

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

docrob wrote:

rpavich wrote:

JanSteen wrote:

Maybe this has been asked before here, but I'd be interested in hearing from forum members what criteria make a blurred image a good or acceptable one?
Thanks for the input (in advance).
Jan

I don't' know but one thing I DO know....whatever is definition is given someone is sure to disagree with it.... :)

i strongly dis agree with that!! :mrgreen: :hunf:

That was easy for him to say

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

But your opinion is not acceptable or so it seems

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

To me there is a difference between a blurry image and an image that is using selective focusing, panning and the like. When saying a picture is "blurry" to me that means that the main focal point is blurry and that is not acceptable (for me). I like my focal point (be it a person, a bug, a flower, car, etc) to be sharp. I love some dreamy bokeh, but the focal point needs to be sharp.

mountainman Loc: MOUNTAINS-NORTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

I believe what you are asking is can you take a blurred
photo and remove some of the blur from it. I have had
this problem before when the digital cameras first come
out. You can help cure some of these problems by checking
your display after taking each photo, and checking to see
if you may have to take the photo again, thus saving a lot
of headaches later on. You did not mention if you were
using film or digital cameras.

Tobster Loc: SW OHIO

Maybe this is the place to ask this question? I recently saw a Picture of a race car speeding around a track. The front half of the car was crystal clear and in focus, the back half showed a distinct OOF speed blur...is this a PP technique or can this actually be done while taking the picture....Thank you..

mountainman Loc: MOUNTAINS-NORTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

Another thing that I forgot to mention about blurred images,
and that being the camera you could be using, as the weight
helps hold the camera study if you are not using a tripod. When
I use one of my very cheap point and shoot digitals, and at
75 years old I have a tendency to shake a little bit, and end up
with quite a few blurred images, but like if if I use my Canon ts2,
or Nikon D 90 which has the additional weight it clears a lot of the problem up. I have been with cameras since in the Air Force
in 1955, and no matter what still find out something new everytime I pick up one of my cameras. Remember you most
generly pay for what you get in digital cameras, and especially
the lens that go on them. If you are using a simple point and
shoot, like I have for my wife, then try to be extra study when
holding and taking photos with it. Will simply help you with any
questions you may have, with simple answers. I hope this has
been of some help to you.
mountainman@zoominternet.net

Bethj Loc: Northwest Ohio

Nevada Chuck wrote:

The question can't really be answered because you didn't indicate who the photo should be acceptible to. In other words, a photo may be intentionally blurred for artistic reasons, but the viewer may not consider it acceptible because of the degree of blurring, or any blurring at all because the viewer simply doesn't like that form of artistic expression.

Unintentional blur happens sometimes but I happen to like these shots that I took...They are not sharp but they are a different look. Artistic form can take on many different compositions but may not be everyones style of choice.

Rick Braun

John Lawrence

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

This is my favorite blurred image. It's an actual picture from a Canon 550D with no post-processing whatsoever. I have no idea how I did this but it's my keeper accidental.

JanSteen Loc: Amsterdam, Netherlands

I want to thank everyone here for their contributions on the issue of whether or not blurred images are ever ok. The main reason I asked was a photograph (B&W) made by an AFP photographer in Syria. The subject was a young man (out of focus) who tried to seek cover as bombardments of the area were taking place. The blurred image was extremely powerful as it captures the absolute chaos and fear in the moment. The blur added to the drama as though the whole scene was a picture of a nightmare that the young man wanted but couldn't wake up from - we've all been there. So my two cents after reading all the comments here is that blurred images sometimes enhance the story. Sometimes being the operative word here. Thx again all.

ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.

jerryc41 wrote:

Flact George wrote:

Hemmings Sports and Exotic Cars does a lot of cars-at-speed shots that employ more than just background-and tires blur effectively conveying the feel of bouncing around in an older car.

Remember those old racing photos with the wheels shaped like ovals? That had something to do with the camera being used.

Look up the images of Jacques-Henri Lartigue on Google. I think he did the best one of the oval wheel photos. He is credited with saying something like "I only shoot what I love. That's why I photograph the flowers and not the weeds."

Bethj Loc: Northwest Ohio

russelray wrote:

amyinsparta wrote:

JanSteen wrote:

Maybe this has been asked before here, but I'd be interested in hearing from forum members what criteria make a blurred image a good or acceptable one?
Thanks for the input (in advance).
Jan

The only criteria is how YOU view it. If you like the way it looks, then it's good.

Finally, the right answer! lol

I did these intensionally with the spring flowers...A different look.

Spring flowers 1

Spring flowers 2

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

Tobster wrote:

Maybe this is the place to ask this question? I recently saw a Picture of a race car speeding around a track. The front half of the car was crystal clear and in focus, the back half showed a distinct OOF speed blur...is this a PP technique or can this actually be done while taking the picture....Thank you..

my first inclination (without seeing) is that what you are describing is a photoshop technique