If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A blurry photo
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A blurry photo
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A blurry photo
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A blurry photo
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A blurry photo
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A blurry photo
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A blurry photo
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! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A blurry photo
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A blurry photo
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blurry, underexposed photo ... | philo [_4_] | Digital Photography | 6 | April 15th 13 12:48 AM |
Pictures Are Blurry | new | Digital Photography | 8 | February 6th 08 03:37 PM |
Why Is This Photo Blurry? | Pooua | Digital Photography | 9 | October 11th 07 09:14 AM |
blurry photos | coffeechocaholic | Digital Photography | 2 | September 28th 06 02:51 PM |
D70 blurry images help | ade | Digital Photography | 48 | September 27th 04 07:31 PM |