Movement blur

[Brev00]

To answer your question, I do use blur in my photography both from intentional movement of the camera and from regular old narrow depth of field play. I do not exaggerate it in post processing. I have used other elements of post processing like hue and saturation adjustments to alter the feeling of the blur. I accidentally shot a heron at too slow a shutter speed and did wind up processing and keeping the image. More for the background blur than the blur of the bird, however. The experience did not lead me to purposely recreate that effect. There are times I purposely shoot out of focus to create patterns and shapes. So, there are degrees of blur. I often think of blur as bokeh--the supporting aspect of an image that has a clear subject. I regularly participate in a bokeh thread on Flickr that discusses and analyzes the artistic intentions behind the use of bokeh in an image. You might like the heron shot:
[IMG][/IMG]
I also like to shoot reflections in ponds sometimes devoid of any solid feature. The slight ripple will create an impressionistic effect I like.

[tomdinning]

Blur, like all aspects of photography, is a means to an end and can be utilized at the whim of the photographer - or not. Using it as you do suits your style and purpose. That background in the heron shot has quite the effect of contrasting against the bird both in colour and texture.
For all those out there who avoid blur religiously, like some of my beginner students and my dear wife, take a tip from Larry. Never say don't. And if you do it by mistake, and it looks good, don't tell anyone.
Cheers, Larry.
Thanks for giving me a second chance.
Tom

[Ady]

Hi Tom,

I like it, I think there is just enough blur. OK it's not a 'faithful recreation of the scene' image but I think it creates a very effective impression of the significant elements of the scene, highly stylised and almost abstract but for me effective none the less. I even like the tension in the framing.

Cheers,
Ady

[tomdinning]

Hi Tom,

I like it, I think there is just enough blur. OK it's not a 'faithful recreation of the scene' image but I think it creates a very effective impression of the significant elements of the scene, highly stylised and almost abstract but for me effective none the less. I even like the tension in the framing.

Cheers,
Ady

I gave up with faithful representation a long time ago, Ady. Impression is more like it. Thanks for identifying that. If moving the camera to try and keep up with these bloody birds is stylized, then I'm guilty as charged. I often forget to check my shutter speed when I shoot. From the hip. It's all abstraction for me. Taking a chunk out of the view and squeezing it into a little rectangle is a good way of abstracting, don't you think. And give me tension. I love it. Make it look like I haven't got it quite right. Which most days I haven't, so I tell everyone I meant it that way. If I call it art people might even believe me.
Thanks for dropping by.
Tom

[inkista]

... So, I would like to know your own technique for producing, particularly in a shot like the last you one posted above (some museum) with some people in focus and others blurred.

Uh, actually, the British Museum shot was mine. That was simply putting the camera on a small plastic travel tripod (used a handily placed bench) and using the timer (to avoid shaking the camera) and a slower shutter speed (2/5s). Some people were moving. Some weren't. So some were blurred and others weren't. They're all in focus, because I was using a P&S camera (Powershot S30).

[FootLoose]

Uh, actually, the British Museum shot was mine. That was simply putting the camera on a small plastic travel tripod (used a handily placed bench) and using the timer (to avoid shaking the camera) and a slower shutter speed (2/5s). Some people were moving. Some weren't. So some were blurred and others weren't. They're all in focus, because I was using a P&S camera (Powershot S30).

Oops! Sorry for confusing you with Tom, Kathy. Thankyou for explaining.

[jcuknz]

Sometimes, however, I do need to bite my tongue. Like when my sister in law said, "It's too bad the entire picture isn't in focus!"

Perhaps she was disturbed by the bright out of focus background? I can see that you might have liked the relationship between figure and background as your eye automatically and quickly refocused between them. On the other hand the camera cannot do that [ except when using AFC with a small target area and unsteady hands. ] My comment would be pity you didn't have a plain background instead of the distracting bright lettering. It might be conventional and boring as Tom puts it but we have 'record' images and 'creative' ... two valid uses of our tools.

[jad]

I enjoy making images that contain some blur to them. The important thing is to have something in sharp focus for it to be effective.