Carriage
Established
The below is a scan of a proof print of one of a number that I'm currently considering.
As it has been sitting on my wall, it's kind of grown on me, mostly in terms of composition, but I'm not sure about the blur and I would appreciate your thoughts primarily on whether the blur supports the image, doesn't support but doesn't hurt it, or hurts it, as well as your reasons why. Personally, I'm not sure. It kind of adds to it but the rider the furthest to the right in the image kind of detracts from it as he's sharper (moreso in the print).
I'd also be pleased for any discussion on softness in images in general as well as your thoughts on any other aspects of the image, though I know that I need to expose the print differently as a lot of the highlights are blown. I'm okay with any level of criticism as long as the aim is to be constructive.
Any comments would be appreciated
As it has been sitting on my wall, it's kind of grown on me, mostly in terms of composition, but I'm not sure about the blur and I would appreciate your thoughts primarily on whether the blur supports the image, doesn't support but doesn't hurt it, or hurts it, as well as your reasons why. Personally, I'm not sure. It kind of adds to it but the rider the furthest to the right in the image kind of detracts from it as he's sharper (moreso in the print).
I'd also be pleased for any discussion on softness in images in general as well as your thoughts on any other aspects of the image, though I know that I need to expose the print differently as a lot of the highlights are blown. I'm okay with any level of criticism as long as the aim is to be constructive.
Any comments would be appreciated
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The composition is great, but it looks more out of focus to me, not blurred. There is a little motion blur in the front cyclist, which is fine, gives the impression of movement, but the grass and the other two riders all look soft without motion blur, meaning they're out of focus.
retinax
Well-known
It's hard for me to imagine how exactly it would make a different impression if the guy in front was sharp. I think the blur (I think it's both a little motion blur and focusing too far/little dof) does detract a bit from the image, yes. But not enough to make it half bad. The guy in front appears to be the main subject so it would be nice to see him sharper, but as his expression can still be read clearly, it's not a serious problem. To non-photographers it'll look like the motion blur they're used to in sports imagery. The composition and expressions are great. Background is a little too busy. Anyway with deeper blacks and whites under control it will deserve to be on a wall.
Arbitrarium
Well-known
The composition's great, and I think the sharp rider on the right adds to the image. The sharp rider gives context of speed to the blurred rider. I also like how the shadows are streaking behind them like cartoon speed lines. You chose a good angle to shoot from.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Powerful composition but as mentioned above it looks more out of focus than blur.
Shots like this I usually pan with the subject, but that's really hard because of the angle of the shot (very shallow, almost head on).
Another approach might be to use a off camera flash (high up so it doesn't mess with riders) to get a sharper image of the riders at the front of the blur. Would have to experiment a bit as FP shutters mostly sync at a very low speed and it looks like a very bright day.
Love the angle and the image.
B2 (;->
Shots like this I usually pan with the subject, but that's really hard because of the angle of the shot (very shallow, almost head on).
Another approach might be to use a off camera flash (high up so it doesn't mess with riders) to get a sharper image of the riders at the front of the blur. Would have to experiment a bit as FP shutters mostly sync at a very low speed and it looks like a very bright day.
Love the angle and the image.
B2 (;->
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It works for me as is. It doesn't feels like blur at all, but OOF and in focus parts.
Good example how great images are coming on the wedge of the failure (according to GW).
Softness in images vs sharp is outgoing thread here. https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=153817
But to be honest, I think, it is example where it is more on the side of "nice try".
Been GW admirer I tend to get sharp images. I do use flash as well. Well, sharp, not soft images isn't it something which 99% of photogs are considering as great achievement? It must be tack sharp and then loads of blur a.k.a. bokeh around sharp spot.
But...
To me it is started with activity of professional photographer Anya Bocharova (sush) on rangefinder.ru.
Her images where are very different from the crowd.
I don't know why but I immediately accepted them as they are. Soft, speaking technically. Yet, they nail it.
Another great example is Helen Hill's photography. Helen often shows what images doesn't have to be sharp. Here is something else in her images. It is one of the most fascinating photography threads to me.
Something in the guts, not in AF confirmation point. This is how Anya Bocharova explained it for me. She is working photographer, her paid job is taking sharp photos for art catalogs. But some of her off work work is in museum and was published. Why? Because something much deeper what sharpness or blur is captured.
She and Helen and some other photographers represents something more advance, more deeper than "it must be sharp" in photography as the art.
Good example how great images are coming on the wedge of the failure (according to GW).
Softness in images vs sharp is outgoing thread here. https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=153817
But to be honest, I think, it is example where it is more on the side of "nice try".
Been GW admirer I tend to get sharp images. I do use flash as well. Well, sharp, not soft images isn't it something which 99% of photogs are considering as great achievement? It must be tack sharp and then loads of blur a.k.a. bokeh around sharp spot.
But...
To me it is started with activity of professional photographer Anya Bocharova (sush) on rangefinder.ru.
Her images where are very different from the crowd.
I don't know why but I immediately accepted them as they are. Soft, speaking technically. Yet, they nail it.
Another great example is Helen Hill's photography. Helen often shows what images doesn't have to be sharp. Here is something else in her images. It is one of the most fascinating photography threads to me.
Something in the guts, not in AF confirmation point. This is how Anya Bocharova explained it for me. She is working photographer, her paid job is taking sharp photos for art catalogs. But some of her off work work is in museum and was published. Why? Because something much deeper what sharpness or blur is captured.
She and Helen and some other photographers represents something more advance, more deeper than "it must be sharp" in photography as the art.
Carriage
Established
Thanks for the comments everyone. Some things to definitely think about. Also, there most likely is misfocus there. When I was mentioning blur I meant softness in general I suppose. I can't recall exactly for this frame, but in general I was trying to zone focus but with high shutter speeds. Even with a 35mm lens, this close up doesn't give much dof. I perhaps could try pushing to 800 as I don't think shadow detail is too important and it would let me shut the aperture a stop. Also thanks for the links Ko.Fe.
I feel that the thing I need to learn when editing is how much good parts can overcome arguably bad things about an image. I have another one I liked, but which I noticed last night has my shadow in it. Given that it took me so long to notice it, I'm not sure it's a big deal. I suppose it depends on the audience. Local cycling fans wouldn't care as much as say a judge in a competition.
I feel that the thing I need to learn when editing is how much good parts can overcome arguably bad things about an image. I have another one I liked, but which I noticed last night has my shadow in it. Given that it took me so long to notice it, I'm not sure it's a big deal. I suppose it depends on the audience. Local cycling fans wouldn't care as much as say a judge in a competition.
peterm1
Veteran
I don't mind your image but in my view, but I feel that most images like this are at their absolute best when the background is very sharp and the moving subject is blurred. (as in HBC's famous bicycle picture - https://www.artsy.net/artwork/henri-cartier-bresson-hyeres-france-2)
And I would prefer a bit more blur in your photo to convey movement more in the image. Alternatively of course you could pan the shot so the moving subject is sharp and the background is blurred.
Having said that, completely blurred images can work if they are treated as being abstracts. Here are two where I simply blew it in each case. But the blur is so great I actually like the outcome as abstract representations. And I think they work just because of the excessive blur - had there only been moderate blur they would not have worked in the slightest.
Rush Hour Rain by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Blue chairs by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Here is one where I opted to fling the aperture ring on a Canon FL 58mm f1.2 lens wide open and deliberately misfocussed to go for a complete abstract blur that somehow still conveyed movement (well, if you knew these are people in the photo).
City impressions by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
And here is one where I simply did the traditional thing and set a relatively slow shutter speed then panned to follow the subject. Arguably it would have been better with an even slower shutter and hence greater background blur.
A day at the races by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
And I would prefer a bit more blur in your photo to convey movement more in the image. Alternatively of course you could pan the shot so the moving subject is sharp and the background is blurred.
Having said that, completely blurred images can work if they are treated as being abstracts. Here are two where I simply blew it in each case. But the blur is so great I actually like the outcome as abstract representations. And I think they work just because of the excessive blur - had there only been moderate blur they would not have worked in the slightest.
Rush Hour Rain by Life in Shadows, on FlickrBlue chairs by Life in Shadows, on FlickrHere is one where I opted to fling the aperture ring on a Canon FL 58mm f1.2 lens wide open and deliberately misfocussed to go for a complete abstract blur that somehow still conveyed movement (well, if you knew these are people in the photo).
City impressions by Life in Shadows, on FlickrAnd here is one where I simply did the traditional thing and set a relatively slow shutter speed then panned to follow the subject. Arguably it would have been better with an even slower shutter and hence greater background blur.
A day at the races by Life in Shadows, on Flickr