Reason for the blur?

Missed focus would show the Nike logo and other telltale areas blurred overall not just horizontally.

texkam wrote in post #19025491
.
Great shot Tom. Perhaps the OP may not have been as steady of hand as you. Camera shake is indeed motion, and is different than missed focus.
.

Yes, but when we said that shutter speed was too slow, and was the reason for the blur, I thought we were specifically referring to subject motion, not camera shake. . I even indicated as much by specifically saying "subject motion" in my posts.

It's hard to imagine that camera shake would be a problem at 1/1600th of a second at just 168mm. . That is almost ten times faster than the "one over focal length" rule that some people go by. . Ten time faster!!! . Even a cerebral palsy victim in the midst of a seizure would be able to get a sharp shot in such circumstances!
(of course, no offense intended toward anyone with cerebral palsy - just trying to think of a hypothetical example to use to illustrate my point)

.

texkam wrote in post #19025491
.
No one still is able to address the evidence I presented.
.

What evidence would that be? . I'm sorry, but I am not sure which of your posts you are referring to. . If you could refresh my memory, I would appreciate it.


.

.
I've wanted to find more pertinent examples to illustrate that the OP's image could not possibly be soft due to subject motion and too slow of a shutter speed, but it's been difficult because I barely ever photograph people or human activities. . But I had a chance to spend some time searching back in my archives to find something that may illustrate the point, and finally came up with a couple images.

This was taken at the same shutter speed as the OP's shot, 1/1600th of a second. . These subjects were obviously in rapid motion, and yet they are frozen sharply.

From post#1 ...

So Tom, can we agree the blur is from panning, specifically in the form of camera shake, and yes, not due to subject motion, as your shots demonstrate? And while the focus may not have been bang on, this would be seen as a bit of overall softness, not a linear blur?

Duckster... looked through the rest of your online images from the event. You obviously have this under control. Really like the angle you took for Vault, you get them clearing the bar and faces to. What happened to have one shot that turnout our odd for what ever reason. No motion blur issues in the other you took. You have my opinion on what went wrong... this will just have to be a mystery for the ages.

Tom... I would just let it go. I happen to agree with you. I almost never feel the urge to shoot that high, like to keep my ISO low and my aperture wide. What Im seen in the evidence shots is angled light diffraction.... but it really is a moot point. If you look at the rest of the shots, they are all good, so there is no technique issue Duckster needs to work on.

Well just call it an aberrant shot.

Thanks Mark. I appreciate that. State track meet was 2 days long but you still agonize over the "one that got away"

texkam wrote in post #19025731
From post#1 ...

So Tom, can we agree the blur is from panning, specifically in the form of camera shake, and yes, not due to subject motion, as your shots demonstrate? And while the focus may not have been bang on, this would be seen as a bit of overall softness, not a linear blur?

.
I don't think that is the case at all. . For someone to get blurriness from camera shake at just 164mm and 1/1600th of a second, one would pretty much need to be intentionally shaking the camera rather violently, such as one does when trying to create blur by intention.

This shutter speed is almost ten times faster than the 1 over focal length rule. . Ten times faster! . That in itself pretty much rules out any chance of blur resulting from camera shake or unintentional camera movement of any kind.

The only way camera shake could be responsible for this blur is if there was some kind of wild, erratic, violent jerking of the camera during the time of exposure. . But then if that were the case, how would the OP have ever managed to get the runners in the viewfinder?

I do a good deal of intentional camera movement photography, when I create abstract images of nature. . It takes a heck of a slow shutter speed and a lot of very rapid camera movement to get the desired amount of blur.


.