Reason for the blur?

yoursitesucks wrote in post #19022271
No need to hate!

Hosted photo: posted by yoursitesucks in
./showthread.php?p=190​22271&i=i194208416
forum: Critique Corner

Okay, okay, we get it. Enough examples–and no hating has occurred here that I can see. Please note that in your racing shots the background can be as blurred and detail-free as you please, as all the subjects are in the same plane. This is an important difference from the scene the OP was shooting.

If I remember correctly, I was on AV and the camera likely selected the ISO and shutter speed. I believe I was using AV mode due to some previous T&F photos I had posted, it was suggested to go with a larger aperture to get rid of the background distractions, so I think that was in my mind.

That is amazing as far as the sharpening! I remember the race and at the time, was not expecting a "photo finish" in a 3200 meter race! As such, it kind of caught me a bit off guard and so I was swing through with the shot as they came by.

Manual mode ... because I'm smarter than my camera.

As I look at this two shots from just before in the series, I think that I was incorrect and I was in shutter priority mode, as these two shots are at f4 and the blurred shot had changed in f3.5. Given the speed of the race, I think the camera made that change as the shutter speed was constant at 1/1600

duckster wrote in post #19022415
As I look at this two shots from just before in the series, I think that I was incorrect and I was in shutter priority mode, as these two shots are at f4 and the blurred shot had changed in f3.5. Given the speed of the race, I think the camera made that change as the shutter speed was constant at 1/1600

Hosted photo: posted by duckster in
./showthread.php?p=190​22415&i=i210230523
forum: Critique Corner

Hosted photo: posted by duckster in
./showthread.php?p=190​22415&i=i3523338
forum: Critique Corner

That first is a very nice shot Duckster. Good expressions of focus and determination on their faces in the context of the onlookers.

It is possible that I tried to adjust the zoom during the finish line sequence to frame the shot at the line better, I don't specifically remember. I did come to the conclusion that I was in shutter priority after looking at the sequence with the same shutter speed but varying in the aperture.

My two cents.... a higher iso would been a bad idea. A higher shutter speed was not needed. The idea of the pan is a solid one... its a very busy image.

Its just a missed focus shot, because nothing is in focus. Nada..... notton. Its focusesless shot. 1/1600 was plenty fast. F4 should have been more than enough from that distance to get the whole runner. The only reason I would have shot more stopped down would have been to get the shutter speed down further.

I personally would have shot a 2.8 and bought the ISO as low as I could go.... particularly for a daylight shot.

Different ways to skin a cat.

Your shot... camera just didn't' find the right focus .. shutter was fast enough.. You were all ok in my opinion. Sometimes stuff just happens.

You didn't miss the focus... your camera did.... semantics... but not sure you did anything wrong. I am assuming you were in AI-Servo mode...

No dude... that is panning. Its at a shutter speed higher than I like to use, but many here think 1/200 is panning, and based on how blurred the foreground and background are blurred, but the subject is clear, these are panned shots. Over in motorsports we got in to a great kufllufal about the subject. It got nasty, one of the early posters here didn't think I knew how to pan.... challenged me to show my work... I did.... they still haven't posted a panned shot yet. Its just not worth it.

I prefer around 1/15th for panning... but that is my style. These are Tim's style. Show us "your" style. They can all be right.

Bottom line, my panning distractor friend is right on this one. This shot in question is simply miss focused. 1/1600 is more than capable of freezing motion at the pace of these runners. Could have been shot at a far slower shutter speed. Way more so if panned. Doesn't matter much though when focus is off. Just chalk it up to the body and lens not playing nice together for an instant.

Croasdail wrote in post #19024305
No dude... that is panning. Its at a shutter speed higher than I like to use, but many here think 1/200 is panning, and based on how blurred the foreground and background are blurred, but the subject is clear, these are panned shots. Over in motorsports we got in to a great kufllufal about the subject. It got nasty, one of the early posters here didn't think I knew how to pan.... challenged me to show my work... I did.... they still haven't posted a panned shot yet. Its just not worth it.

I prefer around 1/15th for panning... but that is my style. These are Tim's style. Show us "your" style. They can all be right.

Bottom line, my panning distractor friend is right on this one. This shot in question is simply miss focused. 1/1600 is more than capable of freezing motion at the pace of these runners. Could have been shot at a far slower shutter speed. Way more so if panned. Doesn't matter much though when focus is off. Just chalk it up to the body and lens not playing nice together for an instant.

I see no evidence of panning at all, though it would be minimal at 1/1600 anyway.

The background shows zero motion blur, whereas the subject does (along with plain old OOF effects). That suggests to me that the OP was holding the camera steady, not panning, which should have worked reasonably well at 1/1600. That leads me to believe the problem is, as you and others have said, plain old missed focus.

Didn't say the OP photo was a "panning" attempt... I was saying that "Yousitesucks" shots are absolutely panning.... and the bikes were moving fast enough to get the effect to work. I wouldn't shoot a panning shot at a shutter speed that high... and never at 1/1600. And this is why I also said the reason for the blur had nothing to do with his "panning" the camera or motion blur from any source. It didn't matter how deep his DOF was on this shot, nor his shutter speed... the camera was just seriously confused.

Thanks for all the input. I was not trying to pan, just got caught out of position as the race was ending and ended up along the homestretch instead of facing down the finish line, where I usually try to be at the end of the race. The runners were moving from my right to left down the homestretch.

In regard to some of the other questions, I have shot quite often at f2.8 but sometimes I will stop down a bit, to give myself a bit more depth of field while still allowing for some background blur to isolate the subjects

In sports photographers often "pan" to follow the action without the intent of the resulting image being a "panning" shot. A shot being panned doesn't mean its a panning shot. Shutter speed will determine if it is a paying shot or a shot while panning.

This is much the same debate as was held in the motorsports thread...... is a panned shot a "panning" shot because of the physical act of panning while shooting or because of the shutter speed and its effect. I would be extremely surprised if you were not panning (rotating) with the runners to keep them in frame. But your shutter speed precludes it from being a "panned" shot.

Oh sigh... so needlessly complicated. Net net... out of focus was the real issue. Lots of camera have issues focusing when "rotating" and you have very busy and contrasty backgrounds. it is what it is.

Croasdail wrote in post #19024582
In sports photographers often "pan" to follow the action without the intent of the resulting image being a "panning" shot. A shot being panned doesn't mean its a panning shot. Shutter speed will determine if it is a paying shot or a shot while panning.

This is much the same debate as was held in the motorsports thread...... is a panned shot a "panning" shot because of the physical act of panning while shooting or because of the shutter speed and its effect. I would be extremely surprised if you were not panning (rotating) with the runners to keep them in frame. But your shutter speed precludes it from being a "panned" shot.

Oh sigh... so needlessly complicated. Net net... out of focus was the real issue. Lots of camera have issues focusing when "rotating" and you have very busy and contrasty backgrounds. it is what it is.

Very true. Sometimes you just miss the shot. I hated it on this race since it came down to such a "photo finish" but it happens!