Blur - part deux - DPChallenge Forums

09/18/2007 07:43:51 PM · #260

[thumb]588937[/thumb]

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/18/2007 07:56:56 PM · #261

Originally posted by goodman:

did anyone notice the new challenge! still life with motion :D

Sounds a bit like an oxymoron. :)

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

09/18/2007 08:23:13 PM · #262

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by goodman:
did anyone notice the new challenge! still life with motion :D

Sounds a bit like an oxymoron. :)

It will be interesting to see what effect the influence of the "blurrism" bunch will have on this challenge : )

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 00:23:58.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/18/2007 08:30:14 PM · #263

My original idea for the Closing challenge, I decided it was too blurry all around for the masses ...

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/18/2007 09:33:43 PM · #264

Does blur count for soft focus, speaking of current challenges??

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 01:34:48.

whiteroom

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/18/2007 09:57:01 PM · #265

ok ursula does this type of thing qualify as still life
with motion. help me out here, someone.

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 02:55:23.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/18/2007 10:05:31 PM · #266

Originally posted by Melethia:

Does blur count for soft focus, speaking of current challenges??

This tutorial would suggest it could ...

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/19/2007 01:53:04 AM · #267

Les is a drug dealer.... she has me hooked on acid...

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

09/19/2007 02:46:23 AM · #268

[thumb]589044[/thumb]

Jutilda

Canon EOS-7D

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro for Canon

09/19/2007 03:54:53 AM · #269

09/19/2007 07:25:59 AM · #270

Originally posted by Melethia:

Does blur count for soft focus, speaking of current challenges??

The point though is whether the voters would count blur as soft focus. I imagine that would be another one of those, "Some do, some don't" situations.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/19/2007 07:46:44 AM · #271

Originally posted by goodman:

ok ursula does this type of thing qualify as still life
with motion. help me out here, someone.

and

He, he, getting myself in trouble again.

My personal opinion is that all 3 qualify as still life with motion. #s 2 and 3 imply motion by showing blurred people silhouettes in the background, the silhouettes are steady, but it is quite obvious that they are walking, so it is motion. #1 has camera blur, where the still-life itself is not moving, but the camera, or the viewer is, so again, to me, there is motion.

Whether voters would see it that way I don't know. If I have to look at all three coldly, without feeling, I'd say that none of them actually have "motion". The motion of all 3 is a product of the viewer, not of the image itself. Does that make sense? In #1, the camera (viewer) is moving, not the still-life. In #2 and #3, nothing is moving in the picture, but in real life the people are moving. So it could be argued that none of these capture motion per se. Yet they do.

What do the rest of you think about this?

---

Unrelated to motion, about #s 2 and 3, I tend to think that voters will expect greater clarity in at least a portion of the image. In other words, if you're working for high votes (which isn't necessarily what you might be working on), having the beautiful, blurred silhouettes in the background and the slightly odd angles is great, but the out-and-in focus in the ceramics might be problematic for voters.

For myself, I have mixed feelings about it. I think that in one way it is very much part of the whole way of looking at this, blur in front, clear in a narrow strip, blur in the background - it's beautiful, and it aids to the implied sense of motion. But another way to look at it is that the images are divided into two areas of action: the still-life (the ceramics), and the action (the people walking by). Having some blur in the ceramics portion sort of muddles the whole concept.

What do the rest of you think about this?

Sometimes I think it's a pity that there's always so many ways to look at everything. Makes it difficult to figure out stuff. :(

whiteroom

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/19/2007 08:49:21 AM · #272

Create an interesting still life photo, but with a catch! To constrast your still life subject, you should have something separate in the photograph that is moving.

ok now i'm totally confused...

like a bowl of flowers next to a hampster running on a wheel??

Message edited by author 2007-09-19 12:50:26.