A blurry photo

Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

--
PeterN

On 11/6/2013 2:22 AM, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 3:04:07 PM UTC-5, PeterN wrote:
Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.

As always, all comments welcome.



https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg


The shot has something, a 3 dimensional quality. However, it's about a 5:1 crop based on the dimensions and from the machine I'm viewing it on, there are three odd things:
1. There is a weird effect, like a watery effect or heat wave-looking effect, probably because of in-camera JPEG NR at 1600 IS0.
2. The spray particles aren't exactly round, they look vaguely geometric like there is some visible resolution at the pixel level, which is odd, if the image is just a crop and not an enlargement and crop.
3. The tonality seems layered and not quite smooth, almost like my display was operating at 16 bits and not 32 bits. Don't know why.


Thanks for your comments.
It is a severe crop, I can't say how much, because I crop and recrop
until I get the composition I want. The image was shot in RAW, and
contrary to my usual workflow, very little PS was done. I ran it through
Defne, and did some sharpening.

--
PeterN

On 2013-11-05 20:04:07 +0000, PeterN said:

Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

There is no accounting for taste.
It seems to me that this is one of those shots which should have been
considered a reject (I have a whole bunch of those) and you have
cropped to find something which comes into your definition of artistic
expression. That does not make a blurry, OoF shot in anyway good. This
is a poor capture which you are trying to tell us is actually good when
it isn't.

As you say "some photos are not supposed to be sharp", but just saying
that and implying that this is somehow better for the blur is
dellusional in your part.
Let me go through some of my artistic rejects, and post them here with
the claim that my screw-ups are ultimately works of art. Not in my
wildest dreams would I think that, and I am sorry to say this shot of
yours doesn't rise to the occasion either.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , MC
wrote:

PeterN wrote:
snip
Thanks for your comments.
It is a severe crop, I can't say how much, because I crop and recrop
until I get the composition I want.

Maybe you should start making sure the composition is correct before
you press the shutter button.

Cropping to obtain the composition you failed to get whilst taking the
image is BAD photography. Much of the skill (art) in photography is in
composition. Cropping should only be done to obtain an aspect ratio not
available out of camera and to use the method to obtain the composition
is an unskillful, lazy habit. Neither is cropping a substitute for a
zoom lens. If you want to get closer to your subject, from a distance,
you need to invest in telephoto equipment. It is as simple as that.

You are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you rely
on cropping to obtain the image you want. By doing so, all you end up
achieving is to producing poor, postage stamp sized images.

Most of that is difficult to defend logically.
If you are standing in front of an evolving situation with a 50mm
wonder lens plugged onto your obscene megapixel camera, and the shot is
about to disappear, do you follow the MC diktat or do you shoot and
crop?
What is wrong with delaying your composition decision? Whose malarkey
set of laws are you obeying? There are plenty of crops that don't
result in a postage stamps.
There /are/ composition decisions you have to make on the spot.
Changing the 3d co-ordinates of the camera and scene can't be done in
post (yet), but cropping and straightening are not among 'em.
Cropping is exactly the same as cranking the zoom or rushing out to buy
a longer lens, except you are trading body quality for lens quality.
What's wrong with that?

I agree that if you have the time, and your subjects have the patience,
if you want to get the ultimate pixel-peeping image quality, then the
closer you get to the perfect composition before you press the second
half of the shutter button the better, but it sure ain't a hard and
fast rule.

Peter, it /was/ kinda funky, the wave and the bird came together in an
impressionist moment. Worth doing. MC would have dropped his 500mm lens
in the water while swapping out the 17-200 and missed the shot
entirely.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

In article , MC
wrote:

Maybe you should start making sure the composition is correct before
you press the shutter button.

Cropping to obtain the composition you failed to get whilst taking the
image is BAD photography. Much of the skill (art) in photography is in
composition. Cropping should only be done to obtain an aspect ratio not
available out of camera and to use the method to obtain the composition
is an unskillful, lazy habit. Neither is cropping a substitute for a
zoom lens. If you want to get closer to your subject, from a distance,
you need to invest in telephoto equipment. It is as simple as that.

You are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you rely
on cropping to obtain the image you want. By doing so, all you end up
achieving is to producing poor, postage stamp sized images.

more of the usual old school thinking.

it doesn't matter where or when you compose. what matters are the
results.

we now have cameras that can focus after the fact too. this is called
progress.

also, cropping and zoom have very different effects. one does not
replace the other.

you are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you don't
understand the basics.

On 11/6/2013 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-05 20:04:07 +0000, PeterN said:

Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

There is no accounting for taste.

True.

It seems to me that this is one of those shots which should have been
considered a reject (I have a whole bunch of those) and you have cropped
to find something which comes into your definition of artistic
expression. That does not make a blurry, OoF shot in anyway good. This
is a poor capture which you are trying to tell us is actually good when
it isn't.

As you say "some photos are not supposed to be sharp", but just saying
that and implying that this is somehow better for the blur is
dellusional in your part.
Let me go through some of my artistic rejects, and post them here with
the claim that my screw-ups are ultimately works of art. Not in my
wildest dreams would I think that, and I am sorry to say this shot of
yours doesn't rise to the occasion either.


That shot can never be "in focus." The bird was diving through the wave
and was covered with water. However, to my eye the blur looks
interesting. I do appreciate your comment, even if you don't like the shot.


--
PeterN

On 2013-11-06 21:17:59 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/6/2013 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-05 20:04:07 +0000, PeterN said:

Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

There is no accounting for taste.

True.

It seems to me that this is one of those shots which should have been
considered a reject (I have a whole bunch of those) and you have cropped
to find something which comes into your definition of artistic
expression. That does not make a blurry, OoF shot in anyway good. This
is a poor capture which you are trying to tell us is actually good when
it isn't.

As you say "some photos are not supposed to be sharp", but just saying
that and implying that this is somehow better for the blur is
dellusional in your part.
Let me go through some of my artistic rejects, and post them here with
the claim that my screw-ups are ultimately works of art. Not in my
wildest dreams would I think that, and I am sorry to say this shot of
yours doesn't rise to the occasion either.


That shot can never be "in focus."

Hmmm...
Could this be the time for, "Never, say never"?

The bird was diving through the wave and was covered with water.

I suspect the crop section was never near the active AF point.

The entire shot, or should I say the crop section is entirely OoF. You
had the shutter speed fast enough at 1/2000 @f/11 to freeze the bird in
flight, the wave, or anything else moving in that area. What would be
interesting would be to see the pre-cropped image and I suspect the
primary focus point would have been somewhere other than that bird, or
that general target area. Somewhere in that image is a nice sharp,
in-focus area, but that bird and the wave behind it never had a chance,
I doubt if you had any of the focus points anywhere near the bird when
you tripped the shutter. I also doubt that you were panning with the
bird as it flew along the wave front.

Personally, as a fellow Nikon shooter, I would have used 3D-Tracking
for the Dynamic Area AF points, along will AF-C rather than AF-S. This
is what I use for stuff in motion, card, planes, cyclists, birds, etc.
That way your birdie and its wave might have had a chance to be
captured cleanly.

However, to my eye the blur looks interesting.

...in the eye of the beholder, etc.

I do appreciate your comment, even if you don't like the shot.

I would have been more inclined to like it if there had been a tad more
deliberation in capture.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:04:07 -0500, PeterN wrote:

Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg


It looks like an unfinished water colour... I like the wave but the bird is a
disaster!

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:44:42 GMT, "MC" wrote:

PeterN wrote

snip

Thanks for your comments.
It is a severe crop, I can't say how much, because I crop and recrop
until I get the composition I want.

Maybe you should start making sure the composition is correct before
you press the shutter button.
Cropping to obtain the composition you failed to get whilst taking the
image is BAD photography. Much of the skill (art) in photography is in
composition. Cropping should only be done to obtain an aspect ratio not
available out of camera and to use the method to obtain the composition
is an unskillful, lazy habit. Neither is cropping a substitute for a
zoom lens. If you want to get closer to your subject, from a distance,
you need to invest in telephoto equipment. It is as simple as that.

You are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you rely
on cropping to obtain the image you want. By doing so, all you end up
achieving is to producing poor, postage stamp sized images.

MC

That may have been true in the days of film, but has no bearing on today's
digital cameras. Most of my cameras don't have a 100% exact view either, and I'm
always surprised by my shots NOT being what I composed!

Since I am composing the shot, whether I do it at the time of shutter press or
in post has no bearing on my art. (My art is my art no matter what I do!)

And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still end up with
an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.

Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is wrong!
Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the convenience of
not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any pro will tell you
that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to move your position.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you want pro
results, and proper composition means you have to move closer or farther away,
or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

In article ,
wrote:

Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is wrong!
Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the convenience
of not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any pro will tell you
that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to move your
position.

no pro will tell you that and you either misread the books you have or
you need to get better books.

zooms do *not* alter the perspective. moving your position does.

zooms are a convenience over having multiple lenses. that's all.

the choice between changing the focal length (zoom or swap) versus
moving position, or even a combination of both, depends on what you
want the photo to look like. one does not replace the other.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you want pro
results, and proper composition means you have to move closer or farther away,
or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

not anymore they won't.

some zooms are *very* good, even better than many fixed focal length
lenses in the same range, notably the nikon 14-24mm.