I lik subject in focus and background blurred. Recently entered a contest and all were using this technique. My preference is because I like to see the subject matter in focus where as the background is not important.
Panned images do imply motion if the subject is in motion. However, blurring the subject, as in your first image, might cause one to wonder what the subject of the photograph was. Were you photographing the woodland and somebody passed through the scene? The second image clearly implies the rider is the subject. The blurred background implies the subject was in motion.
Within a limited use, blurring the subject, as in the first image, does have its use, but probably not in a customary manner to imply motion.
--Bob
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 love panning with auto's ...panning can make a car look like it's going 200 when it's actually doing 20
Here's another way of producing motion blur. Using a shutter speed of 1.15 sec. I focused on the stationary pillar which resulted in the blurry train yet retained a fairly decent sharpness on the people on the far right even though they were walking away from me.
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 the subject in focus, like number 2. Number 1 looks, and is, not in focus at all.
As a technical Image Analysist, Both techniques have good uses depending on what you are looking for. But if it is only an effect you want, use the one 'You' like the best.
Bob
On my Sony I need to turn off the anti shake or it will not let it blur enough.
# 1 just needed a longer exposure to give it more blur and a crop to have bicycle fill more of the frame. Sometimes one can not slow the exposure enough without having overexposure, thus blur filter in Photoshop or other program.
Without a doubt, the panning is the best choice. You can experiment with different shutter speeds to get the effect that pleases you.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.