Save the Music Festival

rainbow

1




2




3




4

bfjr

I would say #3 is a very Successful image.

I can almost hear the music and like myself and others have mentioned that's tough
in a Still Image, well done !

Richard

The last one doesn't work for me, but each of the others has something to offer. #2 and #3 are especially good, 2 for its composition and 3 for the joy and energy it conveys. Which festival needs saving?

rainbow

bfjr wrote: »

I would say #3 is a very Successful image.

I can almost hear the music and like myself and others have mentioned that's tough
in a Still Image, well done !

And the music the Cal band (GO BEARS!) puts out is worth hearing! My more interesting experiment was #4 whereby I was wondering if the vibrating cymbals could be "felt" from the motion of the shot.

rainbow

Richard wrote: »

The last one doesn't work for me, but each of the others has something to offer. #2 and #3 are especially good, 2 for its composition and 3 for the joy and energy it conveys. Which festival needs saving?

Darn! The last was the shot I was most interested in seeing the response for (see reply to Ben). I have been experimenting some with motion blur to see if more than a visual response can be achieved (see my "Fire" thread responses, too).

Thanks!

torags

rainbow wrote: »

Darn! The last was the shot I was most interested in seeing the response for (see reply to Ben). I have been experimenting some with motion blur to see if more than a visual response can be achieved (see my "Fire" thread responses, too).

Thanks!

I shoot motion a lot. Viewers seem to need some part of the image in focus for the motion part to be blurred or they think image is poorly taken.

Here is a poorly taken image, when I tried to get light streaks, slow SS got me jarring (oval headlights & light chatter above cab)
http://ragspix.smugmug.com/Competitions/1111-Baja-1000/20168155_MvqgG9#1592639797_zxhjCvb-A-LB

This one I'm happy with (your opinion might differ)
http://ragspix.smugmug.com/Competitions/1106-Bicycle-Race/17752842_ZttNmT#1355478363_np3HZnK

The good news is, you're experimenting. they don't always work, but it sure enhances your photography experience.

M38A1

As I was looking at the images and came to #4, my first thought was OOF. A split second later I processed you don't generally put OOF/cull shots in here so I 'got' what you were trying to do. I think the cymbal part was successful, but the technical hurdle I see with these kind of shots is the people were/are also moving. Thinking about it a bit, I think these shots would work really well if the subject is is motion and everything else supporting it was dead still. And then you have to do YOUR part to hold still.

That said, I really like what you are trying to do with the other senses such as sound in this case.

rainbow

torags wrote: »

I shoot motion a lot. Viewers seem to need some part of the image in focus for the motion part to be blurred or they think image is poorly taken.

Here is a poorly taken image, when I tried to get light streaks, slow SS got me jarring (oval headlights & light chatter above cab)
http://ragspix.smugmug.com/Competitions/1111-Baja-1000/20168155_MvqgG9#1592639797_zxhjCvb-A-LB

This one I'm happy with (your opinion might differ)
http://ragspix.smugmug.com/Competitions/1106-Bicycle-Race/17752842_ZttNmT#1355478363_np3HZnK

The good news is, you're experimenting. they don't always work, but it sure enhances your photography experience.

Thanks for the comments. I looked at your two and actually liked both. The first works IF you might be trying to communicate the jarring ride of the vehicle (but since that is not what you were going for, then your opinion would be that it was "a poorly taken image". The second is excellent panning.

My shot is more similar to your first because I am targeting subject blur. There should always be an initial reaction of OOF as that is what captures their attention. Best example of this might be Robert Capa's Omaha Beach photos. There is also a well-known shot of a motion-blurred dancing couple that B.D. has referenced here.

And thanks for the encouragement on experimenting. Your feedback is valuable to see if I am succeeding on some level.

rainbow

M38A1 wrote: »

As I was looking at the images and came to #4, my first thought was OOF. A split second later I processed you don't generally put OOF/cull shots in here so I 'got' what you were trying to do. I think the cymbal part was successful, but the technical hurdle I see with these kind of shots is the people were/are also moving. Thinking about it a bit, I think these shots would work really well if the subject is is motion and everything else supporting it was dead still. And then you have to do YOUR part to hold still.

That said, I really like what you are trying to do with the other senses such as sound in this case.

I had another technically sharper shot, but the cymbals were not "felt" as much so I went with this for the feedback as I really wanted to see if people would "feel" the music. One other thought I had was whether shot #3 would work better if I slowed the shutter speed down even at the likelihood of more OOF feedback.

I value your feedback. This shot being posted was for my learning (versus trying to wow the viewer) by getting the responses from other members. It is invaluable to see if what I am trying to communicate with the shot correlates well with what the viewer sees and responds to. Thanks!

torags

rainbow wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. I looked at your two and actually liked both. The first works IF you might be trying to communicate the jarring ride of the vehicle (but since that is not what you were going for, then your opinion would be that it was "a poorly taken image". The second is excellent panning.

My shot is more similar to your first because I am targeting subject blur. There should always be an initial reaction of OOF as that is what captures their attention. Best example of this might be Robert Capa's Omaha Beach photos. There is also a well-known shot of a motion-blurred dancing couple that B.D. has referenced here.

And thanks for the encouragement on experimenting. Your feedback is valuable to see if I am succeeding on some level.

First thanks for your comments. Let me justify why I called my image poor.

The vehicle is going 50-60mph. None of the oval vertical blur of light indicates that. But a phenomenon occurs as seen in the following image. The approaching truck begins to come across my frame laterally during the burst; then I begin to get the speed blur. this image I'm comfortable with
http://ragspix.smugmug.com/Competitions/1111-Baja-1000/20168155_MvqgG9#1592639862_QW5WshG

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting not to do blurred shots; I'm saying they are understood by a very small group of viewers. By having context or a part of subject in focus can increase the viewership and thus greater appreciation
http://ragspix.smugmug.com/Competitions/1107-Drags-Infineon/18287021_THDNrX#1407252749_HFDXpMb-A-LB

Careful not to do stuff too esoteric; you might become a legend in your own mind...