Limoges, rue du Consulat

[Chataignier]

An experiment with longish exposures (around 1/10s) keeping the background sharp but softening the moving figures.

[Manfred M]

I like the concept, but feel that the blurring person in the foreground is a significant distracting element.

While my crop changes the character of the image, the light-coloured on the right is blurred, but is not a significant distraction and works (in my view).

[DanK]

I agree. Another "rule" [read: guideline] is that blur in the foreground is often distracting, while blur in the background often helps keep focus on the subject. Like all "rules," it's often wrong, but it's right often enough to keep in mind.

This is a big issue in macro photography, where DOF is very shallow, and one often doesn't have the option of putting foreground elements in sharp focus. Here's an example. I had to shoot very quickly, and maintaining focus on the critter was very hard. Usually, when taking shots like that, I fail to obtain good focus in the large majority of shots. I certainly had no opportunity to reposition myself or the bug to avoid the big, blurry, distracting flower in the front left. That flower detracts a great deal from the quality of the image, IMHO.

[billtils]

Dan, yes there is indeed a big blurry flower front left but it does not interfere with my appreciation of the super bug shot

[DanK]

Bill,

Thanks. That's very kind. I was just lucky that the flower obscures a relatively unimportant part of the image. What people naturally focus on ins the head and thorax, and those are fine.

I hate to admit it, but I am finding that sort of photography harder as I get older. To get good lighting, I usually do this with an off camera flash and with the whole unbalanced rig on a monopod. then I set the lens to the focus I want and move the monopod small amounts. I try to trigger the flash when the eyes come into focus. Absent a flash with a very large external battery, which I don't have, you need to have a break between captures, so I can't use even a slow burst. I always found it hard, but it seems to get harder year by year.

If I switched from the old APS-C body and FF macro lens I now use to micro four thirds, I could cut the weight of the camera+lens (not counting the bracket) literally by half. However, I don't do enough of this to justify the cost.

Dan

[Manfred M]

I agree. Another "rule" [read: guideline] is that blur in the foreground is often distracting, while blur in the background often helps keep focus on the subject.

As you have put it so well, the "rule" is not always all that useful.

I find in cases where there is very little contrast between the out of focus area and the area it is sitting on, the effect is not as noticeable as in your most recent post.

On the other hand, as in David's original, the dark subject against a lighter background really stands out and is distracting. With my edit, the out of focus area blends well with the area around it and is less noticeable.

[DanK]

As you have put it so well, the "rule" is not always all that useful.

I find in cases where there is very little contrast between the out of focus area and the area it is sitting on, the effect is not as noticeable as in your most recent post.

On the other hand, as in David's original, the dark subject against a lighter background really stands out and is distracting. With my edit, the out of focus area blends well with the area around it and is less noticeable.

I agree, but I find even the cropped problematic. It looks like the woman closest to the camera has motion blur as well as blur from being outside DOF. But whatever the reason, it still draws my eye. And I think the crop detracts from the composition, which in the original has a nice diagonal leading line dropping to the lower left.

[billtils]

I know the feeling only too well Dan. My mobility for "Nature" shots is now well below what is needed and I am moving to studio or other types that don't need me to walk more than a couple of hundred yards. Currently that means portraits and whatever interesting crops up in the garden. Apart from that, I've just completed an online street photography course which while it involves a bit of travel getting to an interesting destination, looks as though it could be fairly sedentary once you get there. Nothing to show for it yet, but who knows ...

I've also ended my decades old love affair with CaptureOne and have spent many hours in the last couple of months getting up to speed with Lightroom. Bottom line is I'm now old enough to be sensible - I always had Photoshop and round tripped to and from C1 but the cost of CaptureOne just keeps rising annoyingly - in the greater scheme of things it's not a lot (a nice bottle of red wine per month) but what's the point? I tried LR a few years back but didn't really give it a serious work out but I'm pretty impressed with the current version...

Bill

[Chataignier]

It's all motion blur - see description on the first post. These were taken at around f18 and 160ISO to get a longish exposure and therefore motion blur on the figures. I've tried a tighter crop cutting off some of the background on the right, I think it's better balanced.

[Chataignier]

Here's another shot from the same day - same idea, motion blur.

[escape]

Your second image is on track.