Louvre passageway - not enough motion?

Hey all,
I just have one small thing I'd like some input on: the people in this shot - do you think I should go back and use a longer exposure to blur them out more? They seem a little too well defined for what I had in mind, but maybe that's just because of my familiarity with the scene.
Thanks!

dude.. I think you sort of answer your own question - you know what you want and it's a longer exposure.. go get it..
Personally I really like this shot and the shutter speed..

No, I'm genuinely wondering. I want the silhouettes to be blurred and sort of wispy but still recognizable, without overdoing it. I've been staring at this shot (and other similar ones) for so long now, I'm not sure I can trust my impressions anymore.

Also, your website is sweet!

I like the conversion you did and think that it's a good shot as is. I'd go back and try it with a longer exposure just to see what more blur does just to see.

mark48 wrote in post #16281190
I like the conversion you did and think that it's a good shot as is. I'd go back and try it with a longer exposure just to see what more blur does just to see.

Exactly. You invisioned more blur in the people walking so you know what you need. I like it as is as well, but it wouldn't hurt to go back and try a longer exposure just to see what it does and how it looks.

Personally I like the shot the way it is, but if you're wanting a longer exposure, then go ahead and try one, even if just to satisfy your own curiosity. Regardless, I think you've captured a good image here, I find the figures appealingly ghostly already. I also really like the symmetry in the window, and I like the strong contrast of the mono conversion.

I think the people have just sufficient blur. But what I am wondering about is what is behind the louvre... There is just a hint of texture (building?) Wouldn't it be nice to experiment a bit with how "visible" this should be?

vk2gwk wrote in post #16283897
I think the people have just sufficient blur. But what I am wondering about is what is behind the louvre... There is just a hint of texture (building?) Wouldn't it be nice to experiment a bit with how "visible" this should be?

Behind the Louvre is the river Seine . Behind the pyramid(s) is the Louvre - the facade of the inner courtyard. That said, I do have a lot of latitude in my raw file and can recover everything, but it's not the point. The point is the crisscrossing pattern of the beams; the rest is just clutter. If I bring down the exposure, the central area of the image becomes a mess of lines and shapes thrown on top of each other. As it stands, there's a pattern, and a hint of depth. I did play around but I just like it better this way .

I agree, I think the criss cross of the window is better than seeing the building wing on the opposite end of the courtyard.

So, I went back. Same shot, different people - different light, too. Couldn't get the same definition in the background pattern. Which do you prefer?

I think this second one is perfect!

I'm torn; I like both for different reasons.

1. The number and apparent path of people shows off the traffic flow and feels a bit more dynamic
2. The building in the background appears slightly more defined and the fewer people feels a bit more lonely

Oddly enough, I'm also struck by the way the first image appears to be all (or primarily) males and the second to be females

Interesting feedback. I thought that the fewer people on the second image helped define the space and made the first one appear cluttered in contrast, and it's interesting that you feel the first one looks more dynamic when the exposure was only .5 seconds (compared to 0.8 in the second, which should increase the blur and, I expected, make it more dynamic).

I think that the fewer people better reflects the typical flow in that area, but even if that's true it doesn't necessarily make it the better photo.

Good point about the gender of the people! Hadn't noticed it .

I think I figured out a (time-consuming) way of getting more definition in the background pattern of beams (and separating it from the building behind it); I'll give it a shot this evening and if it works, I'll post a third version.

Okay, final edit. Same as previous but bringing out the pattern more. Which one do you guys prefer?

I, personally, prefer the previous one that shows more of the building behind all of the glass.

EDIT: Probably useful if I include a bit of "why"...:p In the edit, the heavy opacity of the near glass makes the background seem much more blown out and lacking in detail; whereas, in the previous one, the building in the background adds a bit of interesting detail for the eye to digest instead of something so faint you have to "hunt" for it.