«

On 10/10/2011 11:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
> future Photoshop release.
> < http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop...y-pics-forever >
>

timing is everything. I was shooting long exposures just after low
slack, and was so caught op in the beauty of long exposures that I
forgot the boats and floating docks moved. I have a glass bay with
blurry ships and docks. I will just have to wait for the confluence of
low tide, sunrise and slight fog.


--
Peter

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:26:04 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 10/10/2011 11:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>> It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
>> future Photoshop release.
>> < http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop...y-pics-forever >
>>
>
>timing is everything. I was shooting long exposures just after low
>slack, and was so caught op in the beauty of long exposures that I
>forgot the boats and floating docks moved. I have a glass bay with
>blurry ships and docks. I will just have to wait for the confluence of
>low tide, sunrise and slight fog.

The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
"Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
photo is difficult to do.

There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.

A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
type of image has become a cliche.

My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.

It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg








--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 10/12/2011 12:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:26:04 -0400, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2011 11:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
>>> future Photoshop release.
>>> < http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop-will-end-blurry-pics-forever>
>>>
>>
>> timing is everything. I was shooting long exposures just after low
>> slack, and was so caught op in the beauty of long exposures that I
>> forgot the boats and floating docks moved. I have a glass bay with
>> blurry ships and docks. I will just have to wait for the confluence of
>> low tide, sunrise and slight fog.
>
> The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
> "Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
> photo is difficult to do.
>
> There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
> these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.
>
> A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
> bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
> type of image has become a cliche.
>
> My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
> competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.
>
> It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
> last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
> couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg
>
>

Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
pendulum would have worked better.


--
Peter

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:40:55 -0400, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 10/12/2011 12:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:26:04 -0400, PeterN
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/10/2011 11:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>> It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
>>>> future Photoshop release.
>>>> < http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop-will-end-blurry-pics-forever>
>>>>
>>>
>>> timing is everything. I was shooting long exposures just after low
>>> slack, and was so caught op in the beauty of long exposures that I
>>> forgot the boats and floating docks moved. I have a glass bay with
>>> blurry ships and docks. I will just have to wait for the confluence of
>>> low tide, sunrise and slight fog.
>>
>> The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
>> "Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
>> photo is difficult to do.
>>
>> There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
>> these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.
>>
>> A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
>> bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
>> type of image has become a cliche.
>>
>> My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
>> competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.
>>
>> It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
>> last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
>> couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)
>>
>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg
>>
>>
>
>Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
>pendulum would have worked better.

Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
photograph.

I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.

However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
pond. It was good, but not great.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 10/12/2011 9:54 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:40:55 -0400, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2011 12:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:26:04 -0400, PeterN
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2011 11:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
>>>>> future Photoshop release.
>>>>> < http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop-will-end-blurry-pics-forever>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> timing is everything. I was shooting long exposures just after low
>>>> slack, and was so caught op in the beauty of long exposures that I
>>>> forgot the boats and floating docks moved. I have a glass bay with
>>>> blurry ships and docks. I will just have to wait for the confluence of
>>>> low tide, sunrise and slight fog.
>>>
>>> The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
>>> "Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
>>> photo is difficult to do.
>>>
>>> There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
>>> these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.
>>>
>>> A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
>>> bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
>>> type of image has become a cliche.
>>>
>>> My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
>>> competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.
>>>
>>> It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
>>> last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
>>> couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)
>>>
>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
>> pendulum would have worked better.
>
> Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
> photograph.
>
> I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
> Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
> blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.
>
> However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
> pond. It was good, but not great.
>
>

As you pointed out: deliberate motion blur is not easy. My own suspicion
is that is why most CC judges like frozen objects. My bird images with
motion blur in the wings usually receive a comment that the wings are
blurry. Yet to me blurred wings can be a much nicer image.

--
Peter

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:27:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

>>>>> The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
>>>>> "Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
>>>>> photo is difficult to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
>>>>> these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
>>>>> bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
>>>>> type of image has become a cliche.
>>>>>
>>>>> My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
>>>>> competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.
>>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
>>>>> last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
>>>>> couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
>>>> pendulum would have worked better.
>>>
>>> Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
>>> photograph.
>>>
>>> I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
>>> Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
>>> blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.
>>>
>>> However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
>>> pond. It was good, but not great.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>As you pointed out: deliberate motion blur is not easy. My own suspicion
>>is that is why most CC judges like frozen objects. My bird images with
>>motion blur in the wings usually receive a comment that the wings are
>>blurry. Yet to me blurred wings can be a much nicer image.
>
>You want motion blur?
>
>I got motion blur.
>
>See first http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2254.jpg
>
>and then http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2256.jpg
>
Great subject, but you wouldn't have fared any better than I did. The
judges confused most of us by wanting more blur in some photos and
more sharpness in other photos. What they wanted was an image where
part of the subject is sharp and part is blurred.

The photos they graded high were images of something like a bicycle
with the rider very sharp but the spokes blurred. Some of the "zoom
blur" shots fared well, but they were shots where the blur was created
in-camera and not in Photoshop.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

> You want motion blur?
>
> I got motion blur.
>
> See first http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2254.jpg
>
> and then http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2256.jpg
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

That works very well!

David

On 10/12/2011 6:45 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:27:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
> <> wrote:
>
>>>>>> The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
>>>>>> "Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
>>>>>> photo is difficult to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
>>>>>> these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
>>>>>> bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
>>>>>> type of image has become a cliche.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
>>>>>> competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
>>>>>> last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
>>>>>> couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
>>>>> pendulum would have worked better.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
>>>> photograph.
>>>>
>>>> I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
>>>> Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
>>>> blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.
>>>>
>>>> However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
>>>> pond. It was good, but not great.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As you pointed out: deliberate motion blur is not easy. My own suspicion
>>> is that is why most CC judges like frozen objects. My bird images with
>>> motion blur in the wings usually receive a comment that the wings are
>>> blurry. Yet to me blurred wings can be a much nicer image.
>>
>> You want motion blur?
>>
>> I got motion blur.
>>
>> See first http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2254.jpg
>>
>> and then http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2256.jpg
>>
> Great subject, but you wouldn't have fared any better than I did. The
> judges confused most of us by wanting more blur in some photos and
> more sharpness in other photos. What they wanted was an image where
> part of the subject is sharp and part is blurred.
>
> The photos they graded high were images of something like a bicycle
> with the rider very sharp but the spokes blurred. Some of the "zoom
> blur" shots fared well, but they were shots where the blur was created
> in-camera and not in Photoshop.
>

I was thinking of you last night. Someone submitted an image of a small
boy staring at a school of koi. The boy was tack sharp while there was a
bit of blur in the koi. The judge commented that he could not see the
boy's face. Watcha gonna do. (Not my image.)

--
Peter

On 10/12/2011 8:11 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:45:52 -0400, tony cooper
> <> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:27:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
>>>>>>> "Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
>>>>>>> photo is difficult to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
>>>>>>> these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
>>>>>>> bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
>>>>>>> type of image has become a cliche.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
>>>>>>> competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
>>>>>>> last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
>>>>>>> couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
>>>>>> pendulum would have worked better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
>>>>> photograph.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
>>>>> Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
>>>>> blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
>>>>> pond. It was good, but not great.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you pointed out: deliberate motion blur is not easy. My own suspicion
>>>> is that is why most CC judges like frozen objects. My bird images with
>>>> motion blur in the wings usually receive a comment that the wings are
>>>> blurry. Yet to me blurred wings can be a much nicer image.
>>>
>>> You want motion blur?
>>>
>>> I got motion blur.
>>>
>>> See first http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2254.jpg
>>>
>>> and then http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2256.jpg
>>>
>> Great subject, but you wouldn't have fared any better than I did. The
>> judges confused most of us by wanting more blur in some photos and
>> more sharpness in other photos. What they wanted was an image where
>> part of the subject is sharp and part is blurred.
>>
>> The photos they graded high were images of something like a bicycle
>> with the rider very sharp but the spokes blurred. Some of the "zoom
>> blur" shots fared well, but they were shots where the blur was created
>> in-camera and not in Photoshop.
>
> How about this one then - from 50 years ago.
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Ard...Jan%201961.jpg
>

You did it nicely. Try a crop at the top to get rid of the white and
about 1/3 on the left, you will get a long lean look. The car will
appear to be even faster.



--
Peter

I think I have a good motion blur photo:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/cdjpgs/zlinsmoke.jpg


--
m-m
Photo Gallery:
http://www.mhmyers.com