First attempt at art

[LouiseTopp]

Probably a bit shaky but this is a piano keyboard taken at Bletchley park in Buckinghamshire.

[TonyW]

Interesting, but to me it is too blurred to be satisfying. It seems to be surprisingly hard to get a good result from this subject.

[LouiseTopp]

I didn't have a tripod, so had to use hands.

[Werner]

Nice idea (composition). If you don't have a tripod at hand in bad light cranking up ISO and/or using the in-camera-flash might help.

[jcuknz]

Rather than just hands how about using a broom handle as a monopod ... my wife regularly uses her ski-pole walking stick

edit ... inverted with camera in portrait mode held against the stick .. not with flexible brushhead on floor

[IzzieK]

Rather than just hands how about using a broom handle as a monopod ... my wife regularly uses her ski-pole walking stick

One of the many uses of a broom handle John? It can also double as a self-defense tool...trust me...

[LouiseTopp]

I would be 'swept' right off my feet har har.

[William W]

Notwithstanding the good idea of using a broom stick - it appears you used ISO400. The Pentax K30 should work quite OK at ISO6400, that would have given you four more stops of Shutter Speed and as a result much less Camera Shake - Blur.

There appears a magenta/red/yellow cast. At a guess, from the interior lights of the room.

I think the clinical 90° Side-on Viewpoint, realizes the wooden butt of the end of the piano as an intrusion. The Viewer’s Eye has a difficult time jumping over a big brown out of focus mass, before it hits the keyboard. Maybe next time go a bit higher if you particularly want a 90° Side-on Camera Viewpoint.

WW

[escoville]

I can't see that there's any camera shake at all. The keys in the middle of the picture (or about a quarter of the way along the keyboard) are quite sharp, but the foreground and the far end are out of focus. So this is a depth-of-focus problem. If it is a problem, that is. I can't see that it would have been improved if all the keys had been in focus.

[William W]

I can't see that there's any camera shake at all. The keys in the middle of the picture (or about a quarter of the way along the keyboard) are quite sharp, but the foreground and the far end are out of focus. So this is a depth-of-focus problem. If it is a problem, that is. I can't see that it would have been improved if all the keys had been in focus.

I do not concur.

There is indeed a Shallow Depth of Field in the image, – and yes, indeed, Shallow Depth of Field is an Artistic Judgement as to whether it is a ‘problem’ or not.

However there is clearly camera movement present and a preliminary forensic analysis of the sample web image will support this claim, here:


Full Frame Image showing Plane of Sharp Focus at or near White Key Notes 'C'; 'D' and 'E'. The Plane of Sharp Focus is indicated by the sharpness of the shadow area which is between those White Keys Notes

*


Enlargement of the Section at Plane of Sharp Focus, clearly showing Edge Blur on those three White Key Notes

*

The edge blur appears to present as Trailing Edge Blur and also Leading Edge Blur, which if correct, indicated that the camera moved (almost horizontally) from right to left and then slightly back to the right again during the exposure.

EXIF indicates the shot was pulled at: F/6.3 @ ⅓second @ ISO400.

*

(BTW it is unlikely that there would be a Depth of Focus issue. Depth of Focus is related to Depth of Field, but it is not the same thing)

WW

[Rebel]

This thread has got a bit too "technical" for a piece of ART.

[xpatUSA]

This thread has got a bit too "technical" for a piece of ART.

An incisive comment which, I am sure, Louise will find most helpful.

I have a book "Leonard on Painting" which is a collection of da Vinci's notes on lighting, perspective, color, anatomy. These notes are, in the main, highly technical, with many, many illustrations replete with notes, arrows, angles, etc., similar to Bill's post above. So, there is a place for technicality, even in ART (whether it be capitalized or not) ;-)

[Aeros]

I can't see that there's any camera shake at all. The keys in the middle of the picture (or about a quarter of the way along the keyboard) are quite sharp, but the foreground and the far end are out of focus. So this is a depth-of-focus problem. If it is a problem, that is. I can't see that it would have been improved if all the keys had been in focus.

+1

[Aeros]

I do not concur.

There is indeed a Shallow Depth of Field in the image, – and yes, indeed, Shallow Depth of Field is an Artistic Judgement as to whether it is a ‘problem’ or not.

However there is clearly camera movement present and a preliminary forensic analysis of the sample web image will support this claim, here:


Full Frame Image showing Plane of Sharp Focus at or near White Key Notes 'C'; 'D' and 'E'. The Plane of Sharp Focus is indicated by the sharpness of the shadow area which is between those White Keys Notes

*


Enlargement of the Section at Plane of Sharp Focus, clearly showing Edge Blur on those three White Key Notes

*

The edge blur appears to present as Trailing Edge Blur and also Leading Edge Blur, which if correct, indicated that the camera moved (almost horizontally) from right to left and then slightly back to the right again during the exposure.

EXIF indicates the shot was pulled at: F/6.3 @ ⅓second @ ISO400.

*

(BTW it is unlikely that there would be a Depth of Focus issue. Depth of Focus is related to Depth of Field, but it is not the same thing)

WW

escoville makes a reasonable comment here, the image was viewed within the limits of how its presented on this forum. William... errr Bill. You are technically apt but a little over the top with your response.

[William W]

escoville makes a reasonable comment here, the image was viewed within the limits of how its presented on this forum.

I agree.

Indeed it is "reasonable" to make a comment that one cannot see that there could be Camera Movement Blur in the image as viewed within the limits of how its presented on this forum.

***

However you also wish to bring another topic of conversation into the discussion and I will address that too -

. . . You are technically apt but a little over the top with your response.

I absolutely disagree.

And by your own 'rules' - it is just as "reasonable" for another member to make comment that there is a perceived Blur on the image as viewed within the limits of how its presented on this forum

That's exactly what was written in Post#8, here:

"Notwithstanding the good idea of using a broom stick - it appears you used ISO400. The Pentax K30 should work quite OK at ISO6400, that would have given you four more stops of Shutter Speed and as a result much less Camera Shake - Blur."

I note that escoville made the comment in Post #9. That appears as an immediate disagreement to the observations that were made in post #8. Please note also Post #9 disagrees with the stated or implied element of a blur noted by three other members. Please note Posts #2; #4; #5.

As a result of that Post #9, I took the effort to make a preliminary interrogation of the image and I posted the results that I found.

I found that my and three other member’s initial suspicions of Camera Movement Blur, were validated.

I then also provided the details of those findings for the purposes of forwarding the conversation and for benefit to the OP.

***

It is most reasonable that some of us will see more detail and also more technical elements in any of the images viewed, within the limits of how the images are presented on this forum - that's just the way of things.

Some of us have more experience; more knowledge and more finely honed skills in one or several areas of Photography.

That diversity is one element which makes a discussion forum useful and worthwhile.

Please note that one overriding predicate of CiC is for it to be: "A Learning Community for Photographers". This exact phrase is stated on the Banner Head of this Site

In this regard, I absolutely refute the assertion that any detailed and well formulated explanation that reinforces any member's initial opinion is "over the top".

WW

[William W]

I can't see that there's any camera shake at all. The keys in the middle of the picture (or about a quarter of the way along the keyboard) are quite sharp, but the foreground and the far end are out of focus.

And:

+1

Richard,

Obviously, you did not and more importantly you still do not see in the image what I, and three other members do see – that is we see the possibility of there being Camera Movement Blur.

I have a couple of other ideas of what you might look for when assessing images, even at the low resolution in-line on a forum.

I think that if one can learn how better to pick up on these details - one can (only as one example) benefit when reviewing one's own images on the camera screen in-situ. If there is a perceived technical inferiority that might be causing Blur picking it up in-situ might make the difference between taking the time and effort to make another, better shot - or on the other hand being lumbered with a shot that one is not happy about.

Also I think that it is a reasonable to assume that, you particularly as a Student with the aim to gaining a Masters Degree in Fine Arts, that the learning of similar techniques would not go astray in the course of your Study.

Here are a couple of techniques that you might to consider to use when you initially look at a similar low light image:

1. This is a tricky one to pick up as the Camera Movement is almost horizontal and therefore almost along the line of the shadow of the White Key Notes - but there is a continuum of 'fuzz' at the edge of the White Key Notes

2. I think that if you study the image hard enough you probably will pick up that the area around the Plane of Sharp Focus is quite soft – that’s often an initial tell that there could be some movement blur

*

So this is a depth-of-focus problem. If it is a problem, that is. I can't see that it would have been improved if all the keys had been in focus.

AND

+1

In response to you possibly meaning that the image does NOT has a Depth of Field issue, I agreed with that assessment – Depth of Field in this situation mostly an Artistic Element of the image. I have mentioned that earlier.

In response to your possible agreement that the image has a Depth of Focus issue - it probably doesn't. And I have already explained why.

WW

[William W]

This thread has got a bit too "technical" for a piece of ART.

I don't think so.

Louise herself questioned the possibility of the Image being marred artistically by Movement Blur - here:

First attempt at art - Probably a bit shaky but this is a piano keyboard taken at Bletchley park in Buckinghamshire.

The blur is simply an element of the image. It is just as relevant and just as warranted to be discussed as the compositional element of the big brown end of the piano possibly blocking the viewer's eye from a smooth entry to the scene . . .etc.

WW

[LouiseTopp]

This thread has got a bit too "technical" for a piece of ART.

Only a bit of fun

[Aeros]

And:



Richard,

Obviously, you did not and more importantly you still do not see in the image what I, and three other members do see – that is we see the possibility of there being Camera Movement Blur.

WW

You make an assumption here! I did and do see it, just refuse to get my nickers in a twist over it.

[William W]

You make an assumption here! I did and do see it, just refuse to get my nickers in a twist over it.

Richard,

No assumptions were made . In the chronology of your posting history on this thread you firstly agreed with the comment that you could not see any blur; and then you commented that my explanation of the blur was "over the top".

Further, it occurs now, that it was a waste of time attempting assist you with a sincere attempt to show you some skills because that attempt now is simply laughed off as 'getting my nickers in a knot' and to boot, with a big cheesy grin as the tag.

It occurs to me that the motivation of the posts was simply to inflame.

I shall not make the same mistake again.

I actually thought an aspiring Master Degree Student would take the opportunity for social intercourse on these topics more professionally and more studiously, however that was not so, and frankly, that for one whose only motivation was to impart knowledge, stimulate your learning and to assist you in your admirable goal, is very disappointing.

Good luck with your academic goals, I do hope that you take something useful away from this conversation, from which I shall now withdraw.

WW