Uuglypher wrote:
Hi, Bob,
With camera motion effect the need for a strong compositional contribution is much increased. It is lacking here and the intentional motion blur obscures other aspects of the scene that may have been of interest.
I' m curious about what you saw in this scene that prompted the use of camera motion.
Keep on trying...and try to find subjects and scenes that will be complemented by camera motion, rather than simply obscured by it.
Best,
Dave
Dave, I really appreciate your interest, and have thought long and hard on how to respond. I disagree with your first sentence. When I went out to photograph that morning, blur WAS my subject. My camera was set to AP with the smallest aperture, ISO to the slowest with auto ISO off, vibe reduction off, and focal length not too short so as to minimize DOF. I shot without changing settings, instinctively and impulsively, hoping that what ever might be left of my "eye" would yield a keeper or two. So, camera motion was a given, not something decided on for that scene. My goal was (and is) strong images, balanced shapes and colors--pictures that work---without regard for a story, subject matter, or any compositional rules. For me (in my 90s) abstract RULES, even if there are identifiable humans or objects in the scene. My interest is 99% focused (or in this case, de-focused) on what I can get straight from the camera.