Forums › Forums › Farktography General Chat › This week’s contest › 03-04-09 – Lights, Camera, Action…Freeze!
- This topic has 88 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by Elsinore.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 4, 2009 at 9:16 pm #21028nobigdealParticipant
I’m also torn on this
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/3329393696_1000425948_o.jpg
I’m not sure if the drip is too blurry.
March 4, 2009 at 9:24 pm #21029ElsinoreKeymasterThe drip seems a little blurry for not being a panned shot. I think where I draw a distinction is that I expect a bit of blurriness when there’s panning, but not when the camera was stationary. Does that make sense? Maybe U-Man or corsec can jump in on whether that distinction makes sense to them.
March 4, 2009 at 9:32 pm #21030corsec67ParticipantThe drip seems a little blurry for not being a panned shot. I think where I draw a distinction is that I expect a bit of blurriness when there’s panning, but not when the camera was stationary. Does that make sense? Maybe U-Man or corsec can jump in on whether that distinction makes sense to them.
If you are panning with the subject, the subject should be sharp, the background will be blurred:
If the camera doesn’t move, then the background will be stationary, and the moving object might be blurred if it is illuminated for long enough.
March 4, 2009 at 9:35 pm #21031bucky_baconParticipantHmm… now I’m quite intrigued about tonight’s posts, as it seems I have gone in a different direction than most. Maybe I just took the easy/obvious route again.
For the first time in my brief Farktography history I did go dig through the ol’ 35mm prints and pulled out a couple to scan.
I’m going to try another one that isn’t heavy on the motion, but is obvious that most if not all of the subjects are in motion. One is even slightly airborne, so I think we’re kosher there. This particular picture does hold some measure of historical significance, which is the reason I’ll try it over some other, prettier shots.
Oh and since this post isn’t long enough already, here’s a b-side:
March 4, 2009 at 10:14 pm #21032ElsinoreKeymasterOK, maybe the more operative word with panning would be “forgive” rather than “expect”. I’m more willing to forgive a bit of blur with a good try at panning with the subject as opposed to a stationary camera.
Also, WRT the flying bugs with wings in motion but body still, that’s not much different from corsec’s motorcycle shot where the wheels are still a bit motion blurred while the rest of the rider and motorcycle are nicely sharp.
March 4, 2009 at 10:16 pm #21033harpoParticipantI gave U-Man’s water balloon suggestion a shot and I think it turned out pretty good. Went through quite a few balloons to get the timing perfect.
March 4, 2009 at 10:58 pm #21034U-ManParticipantMaybe it’s just really windy and he isn’t actually moving.
Sorry, just trying to be funny or an ass or both. The seagull-ish bird is fine. Although, I must say, it doesn’t scream motion to me. Y’know?
/Els’, in response to your question – I think that’s OK. I mean, I wouldn’t want to DQ it but it would be so much better with the wings frozen too.
March 4, 2009 at 11:09 pm #21035ElsinoreKeymasterYeah, I agree, U-Man. One of them has frozen wings, and one doesn’t, IIRC.
March 4, 2009 at 11:31 pm #21036kashariParticipantWould a bee getting nectar from a flower count as ‘not at rest’?
March 4, 2009 at 11:34 pm #21037corsec67ParticipantWould a bee getting nectar from a flower count as ‘not at rest’?
The theme is actually “Airborne or otherwise not at rest”, so something hovering in the air would count.
March 4, 2009 at 11:58 pm #21038kashariParticipantWould a bee getting nectar from a flower count as ‘not at rest’?
The theme is actually “Airborne or otherwise not at rest”, so something hovering in the air would count.
So if it’s not actually hovering, but is actively ‘sucking’, for lack of a better word, is that ok? I think I remember reading something to the effect that if it wasn’t going to be in the same place in a second, that would work?
March 4, 2009 at 11:59 pm #21039corsec67ParticipantSo if it’s not actually hovering, but is actively ‘sucking’, for lack of a better word, is that ok? I think I remember reading something to the effect that if it wasn’t going to be in the same place in a second, that would work?
Well, it isn’t standing on its proboscis, so it would work for me.
March 5, 2009 at 12:04 am #21040kashariParticipantSo if it’s not actually hovering, but is actively ‘sucking’, for lack of a better word, is that ok? I think I remember reading something to the effect that if it wasn’t going to be in the same place in a second, that would work?
Well, it isn’t standing on its proboscis, so it would work for me.
Cool, thanks! I almost got a good shot of a couple of urban duckies taking off out of our pool, but it has a bit too much blur I think. So I’m down to the bees I gues.
March 5, 2009 at 12:27 am #21041sooshParticipantcan I get a ruling on this?
March 5, 2009 at 12:33 am #21042corsec67Participantcan I get a ruling on this?
SnowboarderSharp enough for the theme.
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘03-04-09 – Lights, Camera, Action…Freeze!’ is closed to new replies.