Accidentally Good?

[Vitruvius]

Hey everyone, would like to know what you all think of this picture I took over the weekend.

Its one of those - accidental good images. I was taking pictures of some of my relatives at a party and because they were moving and my shutter speed wasn't very fast I had initially thought I botched it. The in Camera review wasn't very promising but I figured I would check it out later. Anyways it turned out to be one of my favorite pictures of the set.

So the question is: Is it good, or bad, or am I just thinking its better then it is because I thought it was a lost cause at first?

C&C would be appreciated.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/Atrius/BarnParty-0224.jpg

[GyRob]

As long as your happy that's all that really matters.
to me its a good educational shot of how Not to take a shot.
Rob.

[Vitruvius]

I guess that would be a part of the question can a picture fail on the technical level and still be a good photograph?

(Don't mistake me here, I'm not necessarily trying to argue the merits of my own picture but in general as well)

[adhofmann]

I think it shows a lot of excitement and is fairly colorful, I kind of like it in the "oops i messed up, but maybe its kinda cool" sort of way. I love the shots you think you messed up on, but end up liking later

[GyRob]

I guess that would be a part of the question can a picture fail on the technical level and still be a good photograph?

(Don't mistake me here, I'm not necessarily trying to argue the merits of my own picture but in general as well)
Oh yes thats why i said as long as your happy with it .
as photography is a art form it does not have to be technical correct to be good .
the shot's i post are as far as im concerend good but it does not mean they are good to other's
its nice if other's like them but if they dont it really does not matter but i alway's try to take on board view's that way i may learn more .
Also it can be easy to miss something in shot's one has posted because at the time of taking the shot some emotion was there other's that see the shot do not nessersaryly see that or feel it .
Rob.

[Vitruvius]

Yeah thats very true. Its very easy to argue the merits of a photo on its technical skill then its artistic merit because often they dont necessarily fit together and its a very subjective type of view.

Like in this specific picture they're dancing, so from my PoV the blur works with that even if by mistake, had they just been standing around talking or if there was no inherent energy in the picture then it would just be a error. But its one of those things if you cant tell that from the photograph then the blur doesn't really enhance the motion.

[GyRob]

Well dancing does make a diffrence to the shot and the movment in it although i would still think the movement a little strong .
to be honest i thought they were just shaking hand's or greeting each other.
Rob

[adam75south]

it isn't because they're moving. it's the camera that moved...unless every person in the shot moved to the left. at the same time.

that said, i like this shot alot. i think it's a great capture and puts a nice effect on it. i imagine they'll like it alot also.

[NanC]

I like the guy on the left, but would crop out the others. He looks good with the motion blur, because he has great light on his face. It reminds me of artists who draw quickly with pastels.

[Vitruvius]

it isn't because they're moving. it's the camera that moved...unless every person in the shot moved to the left. at the same time.

that said, i like this shot alot. i think it's a great capture and puts a nice effect on it. i imagine they'll like it alot also.

yeah everyone is moving actually :p

Thanks for the comments though,

and yeah even though its not the best technical capture the ones in the picture do like it.

and Rob yeah I see what you mean about them shaking hands/greeting each other in that context it certainly makes the blur seem ineffective.

[jra]

Doesn't really work for me, it looks too much like a mistake and the blur doesn't support the image IMO. The blur is seems to be mostly camera movement because the BG also has "motion blur". IMO, unless you're panning, motion blur works best when the BG does not exhibit the effects of camera movement. This helps the viewer determine what is moving and what is stationary in an image.

[Vitruvius]

Doesn't really work for me, it looks too much like a mistake

Yeah thats exactly what it is. I botched the shot and then going through it later it seemed to work with the action in the picture, so I was trying to figure out if it was just me or if it worked or didn't work.

the BG also has "motion blur"

Yeah I see that, everyone was actually moving but I it was certainly enhanced by the camera movement also.