Question about out of focus dancers

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

I have a pic I took under an open tent of a Polka band (call themselves an "oompah" band).  I made a mistake in not shifting to a higher ISO (was shooting in default 100 ISO) when I went under the tent, and took some shots at 1/30 sec.   The parts of the image that were not moving are in fine focus, but there were two couples dancing whose heads are just soft (they're arms are clearly blurred from motion).  They would be considered the main subject, imo.

 

I know that without seeing the image it's hard to make a call, but my question is: would Alamy be inclined to accept the pic with the dancers a bit soft, indicating motion, esp. when some body parts are clearly in motion?

 

--Michael

[John Morrison]

Alamy seem to want out of focus pix to look deliberate, and for the effect to be apparent when viewing a thumbnail...

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

Thanks, John.  That's reasonable.  I generally shoot manual mode, with auto ISO--but had switched to 100 ISO. My bad.

[TeeCee]

I always work from the perspective of " If in doubt - don't upload it".

It's not worth losing your QC rating for one pic in 150,000,000

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

2 hours ago, TeeCee said:

I always work from the perspective of " If in doubt - don't upload it".

It's not worth losing your QC rating for one pic in 150,000,000

 

Good perspective.   I delete my share of pics---probably too many.  I still make a fair share of mistakes that a more seasoned photographer would avoid.   

 

Michael

[Johnnie5]

I recently uploaded 6 photos with motion blur this one being the most blurred, just to give you an idea of whats acceptable.

[Dave Richards]

Motion blur seems to be acceptable if it suits the situation. I recently uploaded a picture of commuters leaving a London railway station with lots of motion blur. It seems that if there is context there shouldn't be problem. Just need to exercise a bit of caution when assessing an image.

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

Thanks to Dave Richards and Johnnie5 for their responses.    I should have made different decisions in taking the pic in question.  I ended up with a little bit of unintentional blur and was asking if it would be acceptable because it was of dancers.  But, and I should have thought this through, a little bit of blur is just "out of focus".   Either none, or a lot.   My bad.

 

PS: I've got 750 images accepted in 43 batches, with only one image in one batch tossed back at me.  You'd think I'd not have to ask silly questions.

[Alan Beastall]

Micheal, we all make mistakes, the heat of the moment or a sudden reaction to events like the image below, but the movment in this politicians arms increase the drama of the image 1\125s at f11.

 

 

The two images below have been deliberately shot out of focus in a series of images I have done to show how photography can interpet the great French impressionist.

 

 

 

 

 

So Micheal, blur, on out focus, etc, its the final image that counts and the customer, but remember each image is an evolution of your last.

 

All the best

 

Alan 

 

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

2 hours ago, Alan Beastall said:

Micheal, we all make mistakes, the heat of the moment or a sudden reaction to events like the image below, but the movment in this politicians arms increase the drama of the image 1\125s at f11.

 

 

The two images below have been deliberately shot out of focus in a series of images I have done to show how photography can interpet the great French impressionist.

 

 

 

 

 

So Micheal, blur, on out focus, etc, its the final image that counts and the customer, but remember each image is an evolution of your last.

 

All the best

 

Alan 

 

Thanks for your very generous post, Alan, and for posting some pretty amazing images.

Michael

[Avpics]

On 14/10/2018 at 20:06, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

The parts of the image that were not moving are in fine focus, but there were two couples dancing whose heads are just soft (they're arms are clearly blurred from motion).  They would be considered the main subject, imo.

Maybe look at it from the perspective of the buyer. Does the blur add or detract from the image? If there's enough of the image that's sharp then it'll probably get past QC as they wouldn't take into account the context of the image.

[Johnnie5]

Here is another recent one from August at Butchart Gardens in British Columbia

 

[vpics]

Dancers can be a nightmare to photograph at the best of times. Don't worry too much about it.

 

[Dave Richards]

As Phillip Whalley correctly says, Alamy QC doesn't judge on context and I don't think they take into account composition either; these are up to the photographer. But this has got me thinking about composition and, looking back over my stuff, I am guilty of uploading a lot of poorly composed images. From now on I'm going to try to take a bit more care when shooting and a harsher approach when editing.

[Avpics]

This thread has reminded me of an image I decided against uploading previously for fear of failing QC, which similarly was a long exposure purely because of lack of light. I've had a stiff drink and decided to give it a go. Fingers crossed.