I think you need to capture the face, with good facial expressions, in these shots for them to have true power- much like you did in shot #1. The problem with shot #1 is without any perspective I can't tell what actually is going on. You were there, you remember how you took the shot. To me, he might as well be hanging out of a tree. There is no indication of water, no indication of motion. I like the up close and personal shot here, but there has to be enough information to make the shot. I think we need to see at least some of the water, and a little bit of motion blur to confirm action.
gary
I think you need to capture the face, with good facial expressions, in these shots for them to have true power- much like you did in shot #1. The problem with shot #1 is without any perspective I can't tell what actually is going on. You were there, you remember how you took the shot. To me, he might as well be hanging out of a tree. There is no indication of water, no indication of motion. I like the up close and personal shot here, but there has to be enough information to make the shot. I think we need to see at least some of the water, and a little bit of motion blur to confirm action.
gary
You get what you can get and work with it. I don't agree with the body of thought that blur is always required to show motion.
If someone is hanging in the air the viewers brain calculates there is an event going to happen as a result of gravity.
If that body has drops of water spewing from it,the viewers brain calculates there is motion. No blur is necessary.
I shot Cirque de Solei (before I was Kicked out for taking pix) and there was no motion when two people were sitting on a bicyclists shoulder on a bike on a high wire, but the pic has interest as a result of an impending disaster.
A pic of Michael Jordan flying thru the air to the basket cheating gravity doesn't need blur.
But where it is required is if you have a super bike coming at you, the spokes should be blurred, because good bokeh doen't imply movement. But if the knee is rubbing the track, the brain calculates he's moving and cheating gravity.
Long story short; blur is not a requirement in my opinion, but I could be wrong (would be first time since '92)
Comments
gary
It a small road off 3rd that appears to dead end at the driving range, but turns right (south) to the Bay Walk & waters edge.
If you go, try a Sat/Sun after 3pm. It was a zoo when I was there.
You get what you can get and work with it. I don't agree with the body of thought that blur is always required to show motion.
If someone is hanging in the air the viewers brain calculates there is an event going to happen as a result of gravity.
If that body has drops of water spewing from it,the viewers brain calculates there is motion. No blur is necessary.
I shot Cirque de Solei (before I was Kicked out for taking pix) and there was no motion when two people were sitting on a bicyclists shoulder on a bike on a high wire, but the pic has interest as a result of an impending disaster.
A pic of Michael Jordan flying thru the air to the basket cheating gravity doesn't need blur.
But where it is required is if you have a super bike coming at you, the spokes should be blurred, because good bokeh doen't imply movement. But if the knee is rubbing the track, the brain calculates he's moving and cheating gravity.
Long story short; blur is not a requirement in my opinion, but I could be wrong (would be first time since '92)