Shopfronts and people (to blur or not to blur)

[Jansos]

Dear all,

Quick question - many photos, in the National Press of the exteriors of buildings, seem to feature blurry people using a slow shutter speed technique. Is this the best way to include people in a photo where you don't have permissions? Do photos of the general public sell, if you don't have permissions, or is it not worth taking a photo of someone you don't have permissions for?

Thanks in advance. :-)

[Matt Ashmore]

You mean pictures like this (which sold) ?

 

So long as a picture is taken on public property and is sold with an editorial license, I don't think it makes any difference whether the people are blurred or not. I guess the blur gives a sense of movement if a shot has it which potentially makes the shot interesting. I have sold similar shots with blurred people.. but in my case the blur wasn't necessarily intentional but more a side effect of setting the shutter speed to match the aperture I chose to use. But as you see, the shot above has people in with no strong blur.

[RedSnapper]

My portfolio here is full of images of people , for whom i have no 'permissions' ; because they aren't needed

and i sell one or two

 

km

 

 

[Jansos]

On 2017-6-10 at 5:30 PM, RedSnapper said:

My portfolio here is full of images of people , for whom i have no 'permissions' ; because they aren't needed

and i sell one or two

 

km

 

 

:-) I know you do!

[Jansos]

On 2017-6-9 at 10:43 PM, Matt Ashmore said:

You mean pictures like this (which sold) ?

 

So long as a picture is taken on public property and is sold with an editorial license, I don't think it makes any difference whether the people are blurred or not. I guess the blur gives a sense of movement if a shot has it which potentially makes the shot interesting. I have sold similar shots with blurred people.. but in my case the blur wasn't necessarily intentional but more a side effect of setting the shutter speed to match the aperture I chose to use. But as you see, the shot above has people in with no strong blur.

Yes, you are absolutely right but every time I look in the paper (which is not often these days) the photos that feature the most, which include the general public, tend to be ones with people who are blurred out. Perhaps I'm just spotting these in preference to others?

[Bryan]

I've noticed this too. Recently it seems to be the fashion to include a blurred person in these shots. I guess it adds a touch of reality/action in the photo editor's mind. Nothing to do with restrictions etc. I have to say that I prefer this more realistic approach to the obvious use of posed models etc, but each to their own. Maybe it's the increased usage of in camera or in lens stabilisation that enables lower shutter speeds and blur free backgrounds, a technological advance that has produced a new type of image.

[Phil Robinson]

It's the equivalent of a shallow depth of field, putting everything but the main subject out of focus. A good idea if you can support the camera at a long enough shutter speed.