showing motion by long exposure
The bicycle tour "Tour de Lopez" each year runs past the top of my driveway. that gives me a good opportunity to practice motion blur in order to show motion. I can either pan with the moving bike as they whiz past or allow he subject to blurr against a stationary background. Most folks whom I've asked have a strong presence for the panned images. That leads me to two questions.
Why do they prefer the panned image?
If image preference is ignored, Which technique better demonstrates motion?
He's an example of each technique to give a visual reference for your responses.
BTW I know that the photos have artistic shortcomings. For this topic, I'm interested only in which technique makes, in general, a better picture and which technique better conveys the concept of motion. If you can tell me why you believe as you do. that would be even more helpful.
EdR
Loc: Gig Harbor, WA
They both show motion, but the man
, To me looks like it was just a bad focus picture, where with the lady I have the feeling of motion. Have fun trying different things👍
turp77
Loc: Connecticut, Plainfield
IMHO I prefer the panning. You bring out your subject and not the background just like a good bird shot, sharp subject and strong Bokeh. Still shows motion
Sharpness draws our attention. In #2 our attention is drawn to the subject, which is what we want.
I like the second one, i think because the subject is sharper.
As an aside, I stumbled on the blur filters in Photoshop recently, so one could shoot it sharp, select the background and linear blur that. Or even shoot the blur separately, Have to try that.
Panning keeps your subject as clear as possible. I love doing this. It is hard. Bicycles are nice that heads aren't bobbning like runners heads.
If the subject is in shade or indoors, my best results have come from using a slow exposure with a strong flash at the terminus. Exposure can be tricky though - you have to expose for the flash.
John N
Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK
No.2 is infinitely better (in my book). No.1 doesn't look like motion, just a blob in front of a nice woodland area which you should have shot again, checking that no more cyclists were coming through during your exposure.
No.2 is nicely done with the subject matter in acceptable focus and motion indicated withthe blurred woods. I really like the shot.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
photogeneralist wrote:
The bicycle tour "Tour de Lopez" each year runs past the top of my driveway. that gives me a good opportunity to practice motion blur in order to show motion. I can either pan with the moving bike as they whiz past or allow he subject to blurr against a stationary background. Most folks whom I've asked have a strong presence for the panned images. That leads me to two questions.
Why do they prefer the panned image?
If image preference is ignored, Which technique better demonstrates motion?
He's an example of each technique to give a visual reference for your responses.
BTW I know that the photos have artistic shortcomings. For this topic, I'm interested only in which technique makes, in general, a better picture and which technique better conveys the concept of motion. If you can tell me why you believe as you do. that would be even more helpful.
The bicycle tour "Tour de Lopez" each ... (
show quote)
I like panning at 1/15 sec. Always get interesting results.
What is the primary subject in your photo, the background or the cyclist; that is what should be in focus. I agree with the others here that the first photo simply looks like an out of focus shot while the second looks like a cyclist in motion. Every winter I shoot photos of seniors involved in a downhill ski competition, my objective is to capture each individual in motion with the clarity to show who it is and even the snow curling off their skis since they are the subject (admittedly I do not concern myself with the background as my objective is to stop the motion of the primary subject).
R.G. wrote:
Sharpness draws our attention. In #2 our attention is drawn to the subject, which is what we want.
The panned image hands down.
The biker is the subject, not the background, and that's what should be in focus.
Definitely the panned image!
photogeneralist wrote:
The bicycle tour "Tour de Lopez" each year runs past the top of my driveway. that gives me a good opportunity to practice motion blur in order to show motion. I can either pan with the moving bike as they whiz past or allow he subject to blurr against a stationary background. Most folks whom I've asked have a strong presence for the panned images. That leads me to two questions.
Why do they prefer the panned image?
If image preference is ignored, Which technique better demonstrates motion?
He's an example of each technique to give a visual reference for your responses.
BTW I know that the photos have artistic shortcomings. For this topic, I'm interested only in which technique makes, in general, a better picture and which technique better conveys the concept of motion. If you can tell me why you believe as you do. that would be even more helpful.
The bicycle tour "Tour de Lopez" each ... (
show quote)
Panning for sure. But try a slower shutter speed to elongate the rider image and pop a flash to freeze the riders image.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.