Reason for the blur?

This is a shot from the finish line of a 3200 meter race. The athletes were moving from right to left at a fairly quick pace, as I was pretty close to the track. Is the blur from panning or did I just miss the focus? I normally try to be at the end of the finish line and get the runners coming straight at me but was not able to be there in this case.

IMAGE LINK: https://troybracker.sm​ugmug.com/State-TF/n-7hGbFc/i-NC78tMm/A

That is what I wondered. Thanks

You also missed ISO, badly. The 7D2 can handle much higher settings with ease. 1600 would have given you aperture of f/10 or so. More DOF may have helped, a lot.

Actually, I really don't think you missed focus at all.

The runners are in the most focus compared to every object in the frame, but they're blurred because you panned too fast for the shutter speed. At that relatively short distance to the runners you were swinging that lens pretty quickly. And as Pentax pointed out you could have used a much higher ISO.....easily 1600 if necessary, if not more. May I ask why you selected an ISO of 100?

I'll throw my view into the mix. I think this is mostly hand held motion blur.

The runners *are* the most "in focus" of anything in the frame, but they're still not as sharp as they might be. That said, I still like the photo!

Yeah, you could have gone to a higher ISO. I shoot night time sports, and regularly shoot at ISO of 12,800+, lately typically at 32,000. I'm an advocate of using whatever ISO is needed to get the shot. Still...

Your shutter speed should have frozen the women, at least partially. 1/1600s is a high shutter speed. I'd guess this blur is a combination of panning and pressing the shutter button. I know that when I'm not fully prepared for a shot, I'm probably not as steady as I should be when holding my camera, and I will press the shutter button as a whole body experience - re: I don't squeeze the shutter, I jam it down with my finger, driven by my hand, wrist, and arm, to ensure I've pushed it! Yeah, works well, except on the photo side of things. Suggestion? Practice panning and shooting. While you don't have races happing all of the time, there are cars on the street that are perfect subjects. When I was doing fashion photography, I would do steady shooting with my mannequin. I'd shoot a set of 100 shots and see how many are in focus. I had image stabilization off and was shooting at a minimal shutter speed (1/(effective focal length)). Then I'd shoot another set, check them, and do it yet again. It's similar to a musician playing scales. Mostly the photos were wholly uninteresting, but the purpose was to practice steady shooting. My percent of in-focus shots always increased.

I said previously your shutter speed should have frozen the women at least partially. You certainly can close the lens to a numerically higher aperture. I'm so used to night time sports that my aperture of choice is f/5.6. f/10 as sapearl suggested is certainly fine, though the higher the aperture the more in focus will be your background. If you want to isolate the runners, you'll definitely want to limit the degree to which you close your lens. f/3.5 will give a shallow depth of field, while f/10 will give you a considerable depth of field. That said, if you'd had a steady shot, part of the photo would be sharp and in focus even shooting at f/3.5. Any blur would be from a shallow depth of field. What I believe I see is hand held motion blur. You could have shot these at f/22 and it wouldn't have make a difference if you weren't holding your camera steady.

Hope this helps!

I think the focus may have been okay based on the following:

I downloaded a full size copy from the OP link and opened it in PS CC.

I then applied "Topaz Sharpen AI" using the “Stabilize” Option and it did a pretty good job of tightening up the motion blur – see below.

Cheers

Dennis

nardes wrote in post #19022257
I think the focus may have been okay based on the following:

I downloaded a full size copy from the OP link and opened it in PS CC.

I then applied "Topaz Sharpen AI" using the “Stabilize” Option and it did a pretty good job of tightening up the motion blur – see below.

Cheers

Dennis

Hosted photo: posted by nardes in
./showthread.php?p=190​22257&i=i177907208
forum: Critique Corner

Hosted photo: posted by nardes in
./showthread.php?p=190​22257&i=i130724627
forum: Critique Corner

Wow, that's pretty amazing.

It's a panning issue. I've panned 220 MPH shots from the side.

Here's an example

Another, just for clarification

Last one! Valentino Rossi, WFO!

It looks to me like you weren't actually panning at all, or maybe nowhere near fast enough, because the people in the background show no trace of panning blur.

That said, panning athletes is a very hit & miss affair, because the subject motion is two-dimensional - they bob up and down, their legs swing around and their arms are moving. Panning will do nothing to help freeze those components of the image. So I think you were on the right track in simply trying to freeze the action with a high shutter speed, but I'll let those more experienced in shooting athletics give you the best advice!

mathogre wrote in post #19022259
Wow, that's pretty amazing.

I agree - pretty impressive....you learn something new everyday. And here I am still stumbling around with CS5

yoursitesucks wrote in post #19022262
Last one! Valentino Rossi, WFO!

Hosted photo: posted by yoursitesucks in
./showthread.php?p=190​22262&i=i23748220
forum: Critique Corner

Personally, I think simply posting what YOU think are YOUR great panned shots doesn't help at all. I think you will find that most POTN members, including the OP, know that panning is possible (and can produce way better results than your examples).

So, do you have any actual advice, or are you just going to brag?

Spencerphoto wrote in post #19022265
Personally, I think simply posting what YOU think are YOUR great panned shots doesn't help at all. I think you will find that most POTN members, including the OP, know that panning is possible (and can produce way better results than your examples).

So, do you have any actual advice, or are you just going to brag?

Showing what is possible @ 220 MPH while panning. Then verifying my info with additional shots.
Thanks for your criticism and thinking it's a simple thing that anyone can produce, better, without
trying. YMMV!

No need to hate!