Is it motion blur or out of focus? (Page 3): No . . . it would however have frozen most of the subject movement. I say most because there is still ambient light that would have...

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

amehta wrote:

If she was out of focus, would the flash help, or make it even more obvious that she's out of focus?

No . . . it would however have frozen most of the subject movement. I say most because there is still ambient light that would have recorded the movement at the camera settings you used.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

canadiaman wrote:

Is there a trick to deciding motion blur vs. out of focus? I think I may have just needed a faster shutter speed. These were both taken at 1/320. The first is F 5.6. The second is F 4.5. They were taken on a 5D mark ii. Thoughts?

I really don't see anything really sharp in either of these pictures. If you are hand holding you may need to improve your handholding technique.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

Weddingguy wrote:

After close examination, my opinion would be that it is a combination of all three.
Because there is really no part of the images that are in perfect focus would indicate camera movement.
The subject is definitely less sharp than the background showing that she is definitely badly out of focus.
Because the subject is not evenly out of focus would indicate subject movement.

Or does it indicate the use of pattern matrix focusing instead of using spot focus on the subject?

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

If she was out of focus the flash wouldn't help, but if it was a case of movement the duration of the flash would stop movement of the subject.

amehta Loc: Boston

romanticf16 wrote:

Or does it indicate the use of pattern matrix focusing instead of using spot focus on the subject?

With the subject so completely isolated from everything else, the camera should get the subject right with an auto/pattern/matrix focus mode. Especially a camera like the 5DMkII.

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

romanticf16 wrote:

Or does it indicate the use of pattern matrix focusing instead of using spot focus on the subject?

Makes no difference what kind of metering was used . . . out of focus is out of focus. Why???? many reasons could casude it and really is anyone's guess.

amehta Loc: Boston

Weddingguy wrote:

Makes no difference what kind of metering was used . . . out of focus is out of focus. Why???? many reasons could casude it and really is anyone's guess.

If the focusing mode was a reason for why it was out of focus, then the OP should consider that next time. In this case I don't think it was a factor, but it is reasonable to consider it and then eliminate it as an issue.

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

[quote=canadiaman]Picture one your settings look good. I very often use a flash to fill in shaddows. This would make the picture pop. David

JRM

I don't c either one. Both are great shots. I love them just the way they r. Nicely done

fotohouse Loc: Northern Illinois

I tend to agree with what others have said here. The motion blur looks to me to be from camera movement.

I say this due to looking at the ground, at some point it should be sharp since it is not moving (thus no motion blur) and at some distance the focus should be spot on, either just in front of or just behind the subject. Since there is no point at which it is sharp and in focus that only leaves 2 options. 1) camera shake or 2) a very soft lens.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

You are shooting in poor lighting conditions which presents a challenge to getting really sharp photos, but in both photo's it seems that you are a little back focused, as I look at the pavement it seems to be in just a bit better focused in the area behind her than anywhere else in the pic... of course my eyes are not what they used to be so....

amehta Loc: Boston

Blurryeyed wrote:

You are shooting in poor lighting conditions which presents a challenge to getting really sharp photos, but in both photo's it seems that you are a little back focused, as I look at the pavement it seems to be in just a bit better focused in the area behind her than anywhere else in the pic... of course my eyes are not what they used to be so....

The light is a little flat, but there's plenty of it (ISO 400, f/5.6, 1/320; ISO 400, f/4.5, 1/320).

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

amehta wrote:

The light is a little flat, but there's plenty of it (ISO 400, f/5.6, 1/320; ISO 400, f/4.5, 1/320).

I don't know but you would think that 320 would be fast enough to stop camera shake from effecting the photo given that he is using a 40mm lens, but I agree with some of the others that I don't see anything in the pic that is in good focus. What I also see in that pic is the low contrast created by diffused and muted lighting that comes with the type of day that created that puddle that she is playing in.... maybe you are spot on with your earlier comment, a little fill flash may go a long way to improve those pics.

KlausK Loc: Brewster, NY

If there is motion blur some of the not moving parts in the frame are normally in focus. That is not the case in either of your two images. ISO seems o.k. - leaves camera shake.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

canadiaman wrote:

Is there a trick to deciding motion blur vs. out of focus? I think I may have just needed a faster shutter speed. These were both taken at 1/320. The first is F 5.6. The second is F 4.5. They were taken on a 5D mark ii. Thoughts?

You didn't say what lens you used. if it is one of the lenses in your listing then 1/320 shutter speed were more than enough to overcome any but the most violent camera shake. Has to b OOF.