I agree with Linda. The motion blur would be better focused on the wrist and fingers than the entire hand. Also moving the camera a little to the right may give a better angle?!
I agree there is too much motion, or at least the motion is too complicated. I've been toying around with the idea of getting an inexpensive variable strobe light (Spencer's Gifts?) - didn't we all have one in the 70's - to create some stylized motion shots myself. That could create distinct and consistently placed steps of sharp but still translucent hand moving through the motion of strumming the guitar, and would significantly reduce the shutter speed to better ensure a sharper guitar. Make sense? Might be worth a shot, so to speak.
Howabout putting that 1D mark III on autofire and blending on photoshop....
I agree with the other posters about the motion blur. My suggestion is when planning the shot, think about telling a clear story with the motion blur. As it is, the shot feels like you are experimenting with technique rather than using the technique to communicate.
Howabout putting that 1D mark III on autofire and blending on photoshop....
I agree with the other posters about the motion blur. My suggestion is when planning the shot, think about telling a clear story with the motion blur. As it is, the shot feels like you are experimenting with technique rather than using the technique to communicate.
The Guitar Shot
The lighting is good and the guitar is beautiful...but the hand motions used to play the flamenco style are not attractive in motion...it's confusing to the eye. The creative use of a pensive or morose child holding the guitar might be a better direction. Anyway, that's what came to me.
I like the second shot, the light is better. But it bothers me that the strings don’t show any sign of motion.
Good point, thanks!
"May the f/stop be with you!"
0
annnna8888Registered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 936SmugMug Employee
edited May 24, 2007
I like the second try better, but it's still not quite there. I'd try with a shorter exposure to make the fingers less blurry, and the movement of the strings should also be visible.
I like the second try better, but it's still not quite there. I'd try with a shorter exposure to make the fingers less blurry, and the movement of the strings should also be visible.
Comments
My images | My blog | My free course
Believe it or not, I was playing..:-)
It's strobe idea, but not a strobe per se..
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.
You mean - faster than 12 seconds?
I reckon that 11.5 seconds would nail it
My images | My blog | My free course
A bit faster shutter speed would be good....take the ND filter off Nik
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
But I think it needs motion blur centered around your fingers rather than the "ghostly" blur you have created centered around your hand.
I'd defintely try a reshoot with a faster shutter speed.
http://lrichters.smugmug.com
Cheers,
Sunita
Holy cow Nik -you can almost play an entire song in 12 seconds!
Looking for tips on macro photography? Check out my Blog: No Cropping Zone.
Yep, I guess he can pretty much guarantee us it wasn't the "Minute Walz" by Chopin.
http://lrichters.smugmug.com
My images | My blog | My free course
I agree there is too much motion, or at least the motion is too complicated. I've been toying around with the idea of getting an inexpensive variable strobe light (Spencer's Gifts?) - didn't we all have one in the 70's - to create some stylized motion shots myself. That could create distinct and consistently placed steps of sharp but still translucent hand moving through the motion of strumming the guitar, and would significantly reduce the shutter speed to better ensure a sharper guitar. Make sense? Might be worth a shot, so to speak.
I appreciate the feedback.
I will try to reshoot...
I agree with the other posters about the motion blur. My suggestion is when planning the shot, think about telling a clear story with the motion blur. As it is, the shot feels like you are experimenting with technique rather than using the technique to communicate.
Yeah, I wish... I'm like $3,999 short:-)
I'll try to decrease the blur on the wrist..
Thanks!
Flamenco
I like it, but I think you can shoot a higher caliber shot for the semi-final
pyroPrints.com/5819572 The Photo Section
My images | My blog | My free course
The lighting is good and the guitar is beautiful...but the hand motions used to play the flamenco style are not attractive in motion...it's confusing to the eye. The creative use of a pensive or morose child holding the guitar might be a better direction. Anyway, that's what came to me.
Thanks guys, appreciate the honesty:-)!
I like the second shot, the light is better. But it bothers me that the strings don’t show any sign of motion.
Good point, thanks!
Ana
SmugMug Support Hero Manager
My website: anapogacar.smugmug.com
Thank you! Appreciate the feedback!
Instread of strumming, play something that requires you to pick. This way the hand is steady and the motion will be in the fingers and strings.
http://lrichters.smugmug.com
Thank you!
The technicalities of this shot are way not what it appears to be.
But I get the direction of what you're saying...