Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 1, 2007, 10:28 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 373
Default

Hey Hayward,
Good that you tried: seriously, it looks better when in focus, sharp and following the rules of 3rd for composition but this is how we all learn.

It looks like nice weather down south (really south). I was thinking about going there but pretty much decided for Clearwater in March. Is there any beach to take kids to down there?
DigitalAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2007, 10:42 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 284
Default

i actually dont mind the composition, it feels centered intentionally - with a fisheye lens it would have that 'top of the world' kind of effect, feeling like if you were anywhere but on that ship you'd be lost forever. but yeah, out of focus isn't good; i'm guessing at f4.5maybe the lens was already at infinity and the DOF just wasn't deep enough to get it in focus.

but, without a more fisheye effect and out of focus, it doesn't really work for me.
milrodpxpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2007, 1:29 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
A bit of an improvement, but OOF is OOF. Learnt that very quickly here - posting of almosts is not the done thing unless clearly identified as such.

Well then I also have to wonder why those with such complaints can even see ehat they are looking at.... its not out of focus it is motion blur (1/3 sec remember)... ship under sail... even the water is moving a bit.

Still I'd like to see anyone pull that of as well with a Rebel or such (non IS) hand held (having had one I know I couldn't and often told I have steady hands... even with Rebel shots)) And yes the SR was on even if not in the EXIF or it'd been a total blur (not just the motion elements)

And as stated actually cleaned it up rather nicely in small size with edge/unsharp mask sharpeming, etc.

AS STATED in OP.... purely out of camera EXAMPLE.... NO CORRECTION/retouch of ANY kind.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2007, 1:41 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

DigitalAddict wrote:
Quote:
Hey Hayward,
Good that you tried: seriously, it looks better when in focus, sharp and following the rules of 3rd for composition but this is how we all learn.
I find the overly critical (when never offered for that)... seemingly can't distiguish mortion blur from focus... sort of interesting, but so be it.

As to rule of thirds.... rules are meant to be broken now and then.... generally I DO follow that.... but when the positional alignments of the elements ARE NATURALLY all centered (water. clouds, island, and ship)... this would actually look rather ODD 1/3 off set. (Unless just a wider lens/shot... that was not possible) Not to mention there is a BUTT UGLY EYESORE derrilict CASINO boat just out of frame to the right. And no other competitors boat in sight (out of frame left)

Nor IS IT dead center, mostly it was framed for the clouds, and the limitation of min 18mm possible. (and again at least twice as dark as it apears.... again note the pink cast from the pier lights on the white stripe, and descernable house lights on the island)

And had I had the time to considereded could have added a good bit of noise going to 1600, and raised it from 1/3 sec to 1/6 sec... still likely some motion blur. (Likely also made it look unaturally bright/contrasty.)

Oh and by the was since they are only interested in like 2x3 broasure sized image it looks fine as cleaned up some... I have already sold it to the ship owners... so who really cares, about purists here picking their upturned noses? :blah:
I know I don't.... never said I wanted to make a poster or even 8x10 out of it :roll:

And again as the subject line SAID....WHY NOT its no COST DIGITAL and a pretty nice result and I DID sell it.


Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2007, 8:45 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 284
Default

i thought the purpose of motion blur was to blur the background, not the subject...
milrodpxpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2007, 11:13 PM   #16
PDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Posts: 172
Default

The tenor of your original post is that while the image is not perfect - the image could not be done by a C*non or N*kon with an image stabilized lens. I showed your image to several of my co-workers and to a person - they said "it's out of focus" - to a person. If you want to show motion blur then slow down the shutter eve further. If you want to show the capabilities of the SR in the K10D in near dark conditions - to show off the clouds (nice by the way) - then show us the clouds and remove the boat.

Your rant against C*non and N*kon is unwarranted and your image does not do Pentax the justice is deserves. The C*non owners that I know of with similar focal length IS lenses would have been shooting f2.8 - the boat would not have been blurred.

You also state that you sold the image to the boat owners - but after you did some post processing and at some size less that 8x10 i.e. brochure size. (maybe 2x3?) Small images that do not show details can cover a myriad of sins. I have a cell phone that can shoot decent 2x3 images - no need for 10 MegaPixels there. Then you embed in your response the spitting emoticon - does nothing to support your original statements and lowers the argument to the maturity level of an elementary school yard. If you do not want to hear what we think - then don't post with inflammatory statements. Sad -- really sad.

To milrodpxpx - while there are many forms of "blur", two basic types are subject and background. In my earlier post I suggested subject blur - where the subject in question is blurred relative to the background. This type of blur demonstrates the idea of speed - for example: A F1 car going 250Kph down the straight and Indy (US Grand Prix) where the camera does not pan. The subject is a blur of color but you can make it out to be car streaking past. The second type of blur is background blur - where the subject is sharp and the background is blurred - for example: the helmet of the F1 driver going at 250Kph down the straight at Indy. The helmet is sharp and everything else is blurred. This form of blur is used extensively in sports, dance, music and other physical activities. Neither of these methods are easy - the technique is learned through practice and many many "almost" shots.

PDL
PDL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2007, 9:23 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 284
Default

PDL wrote:
Quote:
To milrodpxpx - while there are many forms of "blur", two basic types are subject and background. In my earlier post I suggested subject blur - where the subject in question is blurred relative to the background. This type of blur demonstrates the idea of speed - for example: A F1 car going 250Kph down the straight and Indy (US Grand Prix) where the camera does not pan. The subject is a blur of color but you can make it out to be car streaking past. The second type of blur is background blur - where the subject is sharp and the background is blurred - for example: the helmet of the F1 driver going at 250Kph down the straight at Indy. The helmet is sharp and everything else is blurred. This form of blur is used extensively in sports, dance, music and other physical activities. Neither of these methods are easy - the technique is learned through practice and many many "almost" shots.

PDL
Thanks for the reminder! for some reason I couldn't think of why you'd want something that was your subject out of focus, the Indy car is a good example though, and I can picture the effect you're talking about. I guess a large sail boat just didn't conjure up vivid pictures of the Indy 500!
milrodpxpx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2007, 10:11 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
PeterP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,396
Default

I just wish to add that the cause of blur is from two sources:
There is operator shake (which the camera IS could correct for) and
subject movement, which neither a tripod or IS would not help with, only a faster shutter speed will stop subject motion blur (or the use of a strobe, which might be a bit difficult here).

There is however a program that claims to be able to correct for minor out of focus and blur called focus magic http://www.focusmagic.com/

The image at the start is quite nice, but would have been even better if the boat itself looked sharp.

Different topic, but I feel I must mention here:
Thing about selling images, if you want to build your reputation don't sell almosts.
They will eventually come back to haunt you.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2007, 1:42 PM   #19
PDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Posts: 172
Default

Just an FYI - I was not talking about the Indy 500 - but the F1 US Grand Prix. Somewhat exotic open wheeled racing that do more than just left hand turns. (F1 runs clockwise around its course with the front straight the only part of the oval used) Indy cars run counter clockwise on the oval -- only left turns.

But the idea of an Indy car at the same location serves as a good example too. I just prefer Ferrari, Williams, McLaren etc. and the other venues for F1. (Spain, Monaco, Australia, Brazil - you get the picture)

Blur is learned - and almost is almost.

PDL
PDL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2007, 5:39 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

milrodpxpx wrote:
Quote:
i thought the purpose of motion blur was to blur the background, not the subject...
That completely depends on context and possibillity.

In this case I would say the slight blur of the boat, and the clarity of where it sails is far more important to the ship owner than it crystal clear, and the environment a (could be anywhere) blur....

That I sold it kinda tells me I am right in that thought. :-)
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:24 PM.