C&C please Panning practice

I was trying to practice panning and well the birds figured it was to hot to be out.
It got up to 100 today and I could not find one bird anywhere. So I threw a leaf.

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

I thought panning is to make the background have motion blur, to give the leaf an effect of movement? In this photo it doesn't look like u were panning with the leaf. But I could be wrong because i am no expert!

Maybe a slower shutter speed and close the aperture a bit? experiment i say.

I have noticed that in all your posts, there is heavy pixilation .birds and frog and this.hoping its just from compression...

Flo wrote in post #5695477
I have noticed that in all your posts, there is heavy pixilation .birds and frog and this.hoping its just from compression...

It is. The image is 1024px wide and just under 25kb. That's some serious compression going on.

LeuceDeuce wrote in post #5695931
It is. The image is 1024px wide and just under 25kb. That's some serious compression going on.

Thanks Chris, I thought it seemed intense.

LeuceDeuce wrote in post #5695931
It is. The image is 1024px wide and just under 25kb. That's some serious compression going on.

I noticed that to. How do I resize these images without them turning out like this?

midnight_rider wrote in post #5697289
I noticed that to. How do I resize these images without them turning out like this?

Myself, I only post images that are 800 on the long side (usually 800x533). Unless I'm looking for technical help I don't bother with the EXIF information so I just use Save For Web in Photoshop. When I save I select to optimize the file size to 150k so I get the best possible quality at 800px long.

You can include your EXIF in the post if you are asking a "what went wrong?" type of question, but for composition questions it's really not required. Some folks may want to see the EXIF to compare your panning results to the numbers. You may have your shutter speed too fast/slow for panning and certain focal lengths, etc...

In this shot, for example, it appears that you have nice DoF blur in the background, but it doesn't look like the motion blur associated with a pan shot. I would suspect that you have quite a long focal length to throw the background OoF, but your shutter speed is quite high to freeze the action on the leaf. Without EXIF information though, this is mearly a guess. Because it's a guess, folks can't really comment on whether you have achieved a good pan shot, or just a sharp shot of a leaf in the air.

How do yall post at 800? canons only make good images at 900, when I do 800 it squishes up the picture.

Bryan T wrote in post #5697850
How do yall post at 800? canons only make good images at 900, when I do 800 it squishes up the picture.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here. What makes you say canon only makes good images at 900px? When you reduce the long side to 800 are you reducing the short side by the same ratio? You have to maintain the aspect ratio of the image when you reduce it. I use the term "long side" instead of width or height because I don't know whether the image orientation is landscape or portrait.

Edit: yes I know that THIS image is landscape, but I don't know the orientation of future images

ok, when I open a photo in PS, the common size is 800x600. When I go to 800, it makes the other side 525 or 400 or whatever it is, I forgot. it looks squished, does not look right.

to keep that "800x600" size, I size them at "900x600" because when I size to 900, the other side falls into 600, and it looks correct, no squishing.

LeuceDeuce wrote in post #5697837
Myself, I only post images that are 800 on the long side (usually 800x533). Unless I'm looking for technical help I don't bother with the EXIF information so I just use Save For Web in Photoshop. When I save I select to optimize the file size to 150k so I get the best possible quality at 800px long.

You can include your EXIF in the post if you are asking a "what went wrong?" type of question, but for composition questions it's really not required. Some folks may want to see the EXIF to compare your panning results to the numbers. You may have your shutter speed too fast/slow for panning and certain focal lengths, etc...

In this shot, for example, it appears that you have nice DoF blur in the background, but it doesn't look like the motion blur associated with a pan shot. I would suspect that you have quite a long focal length to throw the background OoF, but your shutter speed is quite high to freeze the action on the leaf. Without EXIF information though, this is mearly a guess. Because it's a guess, folks can't really comment on whether you have achieved a good pan shot, or just a sharp shot of a leaf in the air.

Thanks i never tried the save for web option and I will try to keep it 800 on the long end and hopefully that will help my future post.

As for the shot, I have never really panned before so I did not realize that the motion blur was a must. This shot was taken at 200mm 1/400 so it is very frozen. Now I will have to try to get the motion blur down pat.

midnight_rider wrote in post #5697958
As for the shot, I have never really panned before so I did not realize that the motion blur was a must. This shot was taken at 200mm 1/400 so it is very frozen. Now I will have to try to get the motion blur down pat.

Yeah panning is used to create a sense of motion in the image. What you were practicing was tracking (also good to practice since it's essential for panning). Just to practice the technique I'd go and shoot cars on a busy street.

Bryan T wrote in post #5697944
ok, when I open a photo in PS, the common size is 800x600. When I go to 800, it makes the other side 525 or 400 or whatever it is, I forgot. it looks squished, does not look right.

to keep that "800x600" size, I size them at "900x600" because when I size to 900, the other side falls into 600, and it looks correct, no squishing.

that makes absolutely no sense. you must be doing something wrong. when resizing, try using file>automate>fit image and then changing the longer side to 800 pixels. that should make it look good at 100%.

no, Im not doing anything wrong. I was even warned about this when I got the camera, i was told it does not make perfect 800x600, and after playing with it I found that instead is makes 900x600. I keep "auto ratio" seclected, and thats what I get.
nm Ill just keep shooting in my "makes no sense" 900x600

Bryan T wrote in post #5702794
no, Im not doing anything wrong. I was even warned about this when I got the camera, i was told it does not make perfect 800x600, and after playing with it I found that instead is makes 900x600. I keep "auto ratio" seclected, and thats what I get.
nm Ill just keep shooting in my "makes no sense" 900x600

You are shooting with a Rebel (300D) which indeed takes the picture at a ratio of 3:2 (900:600). Why you are concerned with 800x600 (ratio 4:3) I'm not quite sure. If you resize your images that come out of your camera, without cropping them, they will be 800x533. That's what I post. It's not "squished" so I'm not sure what you're seeing.

Edit: Posted the original image at 800x533, and I'm just not seeing anything squished.
_

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