Nh3
Well-known
Pardon me if it seems like I'm camping the critique section, but I need your help even though you might think otherwise.
My question to you about the picture below is if its working even though one of the dancers is not in focus...
Thanks in advance,
My question to you about the picture below is if its working even though one of the dancers is not in focus...
Thanks in advance,
direwolf101
Well-known
I would say, 'Yes,' since the out of focus provides a sense of movement and dynamism to the photo. Cheers.
Morca007
Matt
I like it.
The grain, the motion blur, and the angle/framing really lend it a feeling of being in the moment.
The grain, the motion blur, and the angle/framing really lend it a feeling of being in the moment.
Krosya
Konicaze
it's ok, I'd just wait till a pretty skinny girl was doing the dancing. 
My question,
Is it motion blur or missed focus? If the dancing women was in focus I would like it more, but she seems to be soft too, which may also may be motion blur.
Is it motion blur or missed focus? If the dancing women was in focus I would like it more, but she seems to be soft too, which may also may be motion blur.
andersju
Well-known
Sorry, no. Doesn't work for me. Had you not written dancers I wouldn't have guessed she was dancing... to me it looks like one dancer and a whole bunch of static people doing nothing.
TimSmith-Laing
Established
Gotta say that to me this looks great...love the expression on her face, and the fact that he is really so blurred makes her look absolutely sharp enough to my eye. I think this is a great shot; good work! And didn't Bresson say that sharpness is for the bourgoisie?
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Composition-wise, it's pretty good (particularly the three observers over to the left). I like the motion blur as well. I don't find the grain to be very pleasing though. A bit distracting. Also, I would have been tempted to crop the folks at the right of the photo out as I don't think they add anything.
Nh3
Well-known
How about if I burn the folks on the right, I think that should bring more focus to the dancers?
And yes, I think the observers on the left make the picture.
And yes, I think the observers on the left make the picture.
Nh3
Well-known
I was shooting at 1/15 - f3.5 - Trix 400 pushed 2 stops - focused at infinity!
I had a slow lens with my Nikon f80.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
you are shooting two people dancing.
you cut off three of their feet to preserve several feet of black at the top of frame. Based on that alone this totally doesnt work or at least wouldnt fly if you were shooting for a dance company or something like that.
If the subject of the photo is the chick in the flower print dress thing, then maybe it sorta works, but you've still amputated the action in the foreground, which is a big no no. Or maybe Ive been listening to fashion editors too much...
you cut off three of their feet to preserve several feet of black at the top of frame. Based on that alone this totally doesnt work or at least wouldnt fly if you were shooting for a dance company or something like that.
If the subject of the photo is the chick in the flower print dress thing, then maybe it sorta works, but you've still amputated the action in the foreground, which is a big no no. Or maybe Ive been listening to fashion editors too much...
pachuco
El ****
Depends on what you are going to use the image for I suppose. On the whole and for public display I would say that the image does not work very well because of the focus but more so due to the white grain on the black man. Bravo for the effort and I think a 1600 or 3200 speed film would have made a world of difference. I actually would like to see the others shots on this roll. Just my opinion and you know what those are like.