Blurred Motion and Street Photos

[John Mitchell]

I'm always very wary about uploading blurred-motion street photos to Alamy because I'm afraid they will get hit with the dreaded "soft and lacking definition" call. Am I OK with the one linked to below?

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000AECcGxNxqu0/s/860/860/Cancun130016.jpg

 

I focused on the graffiti-covered wall (sharp), so the girl striding by is slightly blurred (which was what I wanted). But will this be obvious enough for QC? All opinions much appreciated.

 

Paranoid in Vancouver

[Allan Bell]

John I am sure that the image will be fine for Alamy. I have a few like that myself them.

 

Allan

[John Mitchell]

John I am sure that the image will be fine for Alamy. I have a few like that myself them.

 

Allan

 

Thanks, Allan. That's encouraging to hear. Do you mind linking to one of the photos or giving the Alamy ID number? I understand if you would rather not. 

[Ed Rooney]

The problem with many intentionally blurred images is that they are not blurred enough. I agree with Allan, but we are just guessing---you're the one who must place the bet. Good luck. 

 

This shot passed, but I feel it could have used a bit more blur. It's a deliberate blur we need.  AB33CJ

 

This works better: D8RF7X

[Alex Todd]

I'm sure it will be ok John, I've used more blur than you have and they passed QC ok

 

An example is D2BH67

[John Mitchell]

The problem with many intentionally blurred images is that they are not blurred enough. I agree with Allan, but we are just guessing---you're the one who must place the bet. Good luck. 

 

This shot passed, but I feel it could have used a bit more blur. It's a deliberate blur we need.  AB33CJ

 

This works better: D8RF7X

 

Thanks, Ed. Images with background blur like the ones you referenced don't seem to be a problem. In my photo linked to above, the background is sharp, but the girl in the mid part of the frame is blurred. I agree, the question is whether or not she is blurry enough for QC. As you say, I feel like I'm just guessing. I wish Alamy had something about these types of shots in their guidelines.

 

Here's one (shot with the NEX-3 BTW) with background blur that recently passed QC. Again, it's very different from the image in question.

 

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/8/%7BAE5C4360-CE05-4F83-81D3-681FF75FB142%7D/D8PHAN.jpg

[John Mitchell]

I'm sure it will be ok John, I've used more blur than you have and they passed QC ok

 

An example is D2BH67

 

Thanks, Alex. The intentional blur in your image is very obvious. I'm wondering if I used enough blur. I didn't have much time to think about it.

[Ed Rooney]

"I wish Alamy had something about these types of shots in their guidelines." - John

 

I don't see that there's any way to articulate these things in a text; the subtleties can only be seen in the image. If there's a simple rule to state it's what we've been saying: make sure the blur looks intentional and makes a visual point.    

[Steve B]

I am only guessing here John, but it looks pretty obvious that the background is sharp and the girl is supposed to be blurred..I think I would go with it..

[John Mitchell]

"I wish Alamy had something about these types of shots in their guidelines." - John

 

I don't see that there's any way to articulate these things in a text; the subtleties can only be seen in the image. If there's a simple rule to state it's what we've been saying: make sure the blur looks intentional and makes a visual point.    

 

True enough. I just hope that the QC inspectors are in "subtle" mode when I submit this one. I'm on a roll these days, and I don't want to go back to the sin bin.

[John Mitchell]

I am only guessing here John, but it looks pretty obvious that the background is sharp and the girl is supposed to be blurred..I think I would go with it..

 

Thanks for your guess, Steve. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

[John Morrison]

The usual reason for blurring a figure, IMO, is to make it generic rather than a recognisable individual. So I'd go with more blur, to make the intention obvious in the thumbnail...

[Nick Jenkins]

There have been so many posts on this in the past. I just offer this, if it helps?

 

If on checking the picture the blur is obviously deliberate then chances are that the QC'ers will realise that and make the 'on the spot' assumption that researchers/buyers will too. So:

 

Does it look obvious to you? If so, submit it. If not reshoot and MAKE it look obvious.

 

QC may arouse controversy occasionally but by and large they know their business.

 

nj

[JohnB]

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that the background graffiti is the subject of the image. If that is sharp, and I assume it is, the image will not fail. I wouldn't have worried about the walking woman myself.

[John Mitchell]

Thanks for all the helpful responses.

 

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that the background graffiti is the subject of the image. If that is sharp, and I assume it is, the image will not fail. I wouldn't have worried about the walking woman myself.

 

Yes, the graffiti  is the main subject. The girl just happened to stride by, and I thought her blurred behind (don't mean to be sexist here) added to the scene. I wouldn't have any qualms whatsoever about submitting this shot elsewhere, but Alamy requires sober second thought. Chances are that I will eventually upload this one and hold my breath.

 

Thanks for all the helpful responses. It's always a learning experience on this forum.

[Allan Bell]

 

John I am sure that the image will be fine for Alamy. I have a few like that myself them.

 

Allan

 

Thanks, Allan. That's encouraging to hear. Do you mind linking to one of the photos or giving the Alamy ID number? I understand if you would rather not. 

 

Hi John sorry I'm late with this. Look at BR96CM and BR0X39

 

Allan

[Richard Baker]

I don't know for sure what speed John the original poster used (though I'd guess at 1/60th?).

 

I've always had a problem with moving subjects that crosses us at 90 degrees which at 125th, isn't enough to freeze - and often 250th isn't either - and 60th which I don't think is enough to make a decent blur.

 

Below is a recent one I did hand-held at 30th which I think shows a deliberate use - if not a great picture - I hope it shows what can be done on the hoof (with a tripod I would have used 15th)

 

So my point is to opt for the extreme to be sure of a QC yes, rather than a compromise for a maybe. 

 

Rgds,

Richard.

 

 

[Ed Rooney]

I don't know for sure what speed John the original poster used (though I'd guess at 1/60th?).

 

I've always had a problem with moving subjects that crosses us at 90 degrees which at 125th, isn't enough to freeze - and often 250th isn't either - and 60th which I don't think is enough to make a decent blur.

 

Below is a recent one I did hand-held at 30th which I think shows a deliberate use - if not a great picture - I hope it shows what can be done on the hoof (with a tripod I would have used 15th)

 

So my point is to opt for the extreme to be sure of a QC yes, rather than a compromise for a maybe. 

 

Rgds,

Richard.

 

 

 

Panning on a motorcycle or a racing bike at 125th works well, but it's too fast for walkers. And panning at a 1/15th or an 1/8th, even a 1/4th, works well with people on the street. Doing the sharp shot of the "background" as John M did is another matter. I'd have been on a tripod using a 1/15th. The question comes to mind: if you don't get the effect you're going after, should you submit or delete the image? These days, with stock being what it now is, how important is one image, one subject, compared to any other? 

 

And Richard, I like that picture. Too bad the guy wasn't walking in the opposite direction. 

[Richard Baker]

Too bad the guy wasn't walking in the opposite direction.

Yes, I shall go back for that one.

 

.. panning at a 1/15th or an 1/8th, even a 1/4th, works well ..

Yes, indeed it does, but I was just referring to walkers as per the OP. 

[John Mitchell]

I don't know for sure what speed John the original poster used (though I'd guess at 1/60th?).

 

I've always had a problem with moving subjects that crosses us at 90 degrees which at 125th, isn't enough to freeze - and often 250th isn't either - and 60th which I don't think is enough to make a decent blur.

 

Below is a recent one I did hand-held at 30th which I think shows a deliberate use - if not a great picture - I hope it shows what can be done on the hoof (with a tripod I would have used 15th)

 

So my point is to opt for the extreme to be sure of a QC yes, rather than a compromise for a maybe. 

 

Rgds,

Richard.

 

 

 

Good guess. I was using 1/80th. As mentioned, the girl took me by surprise. Had I seen her coming, I would have used a slower shutter speed. Still, there is a fair amount of blur. Unfortunately, there is only one way to find out when it comes to maybe.

[John Mitchell]

 

Am I OK with the one linked to below?

 

 

 

Similar, real similar:

(inspected? don't know)

 

 

Si Señor. Muy similar. But your blur is more intentional-looking.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

John I am sure that the image will be fine for Alamy. I have a few like that myself them.

 

Allan

 

Thanks, Allan. That's encouraging to hear. Do you mind linking to one of the photos or giving the Alamy ID number? I understand if you would rather not. 

 

Hi John sorry I'm late with this. Look at BR96CM and BR0X39

 

Allan

 

Thanks, Allan. The blur is much more obvious in your images. Think I'll keep mine on ice for a while longer. After all, it's only one fish in the sea.