Is motion blur a plus or minus?

This is the image I got from High school football.

As most love to see everything cool and frozen in the air, my question here is: Isn't the selective motion blur actually giving a vector and a new dimention to the image

So how do you see it, a plus or minus?

Ooopps here is the image.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I personally like motion blur when a few things in the photo are static and the movment complements them... also nice when they are tight crops with no distractions...

I like some motion blur, provided the main subject's face is not blurred. I suppose if I had the choice to shoot everything at 1/1000 + I'd do it, but often I cannot so I take what I can and pan.

I shot these soccer pics using a borrowed XTi with the kit lens. Lighting was late afternoon heavy overcast. I think I got 1/124 wide open at 55 mm.

- Keith -

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Personally, Blur can be positive or negative. If the purpose is to show focus on the speed of the event or show motion at impact, blur can relay this. This is especially true for panning. I am not a big fan of any of the above as the pictures look out of focus/sharpness rather than putting a focus point on the object. What was your ISO....any room to bump up?

I am not a huge fan of motion blur, unless you are panning on a single subject. Most of the time motion blur to me is the shutter is too slow.

Motion blur is tough to get right. If you're talking about panning, that's a different subject.

If you're going to try to use motion blur or panning, it's critical that something on or in the subject in the image is tack sharp, otherwise the picture will just look "blurry", AKA out of focus.

Here are a couple of my favorite sports panning shots:

http://www.peterreadmi​ller.com/#p=-1&a=0&at=0

and

http://www.playballpho​tos.com/portfolio/SS/K​G5F0436.jpg

Sadly, at least for me, both of these great shots are taken by shooters way more talented than I am

Panning to use blur to show motion is GOOD, just using a slow shutter speed and having a blurry image is BAD (IMO).

Here was a panning attempt I made at a bowling tournament:

You can get creative with motion blur, but for the regular action shot a high shutterspeed is rly needed. So that the action will be (almost) entirely frozen. However, when you have some time left, or if you're bored and want to try something new...by all means, go 'n try out!

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

i love that table tennis shot!! wow!

motion blur I think is a plus, shows that an object is moving. but not too blurry.

I was recently reading up on this on work by another photographer where he discusses trying to capture motion in every shot he takes. I really got me thinking of how I can better use motion and not take the static stuff I have been taking. The table tennis shot and the Peter Reed Miller shots are both good example of motion being captured. But like Denise says, it really takes an eye and judgment to know how and when to use it. As a cover up for a bad technique it doesn't work. A really tough balance.

Some nice exampes here!

IMHO, motion has to be purposeful and planned. The subject must not be blurred or the game is over (see examples above). Blur can just create confusion if not done right.

With slow shutter speeds, like the first few pics posted, the motion is something you can't avoid. Best you can do is pan and hope the key elements come out sharp.

I believe it is easier to shoot 1/500+ and freeze action. Getting good looking shots that include blur is tougher since it is so easy to blur the wrong thing through camera shake or bad panning.

- Keith -

To me the motion on this shot was not planned so for this shot it's a minus because i can see nothing in focus sorry
I only use motion blur when i shoot motorsport