Over these last few months I've never attempted to take a blurry picture. So I cannot claim ANY artistic intent. But, shockingly(!), I have taken a few, maybe even more than a few. Most are just garbage and are treated as such. Some I liked the underlying image enough to sort of hang onto just to be bummed that it didn't come out well. But some I find myself really liking and in ways that I might not if they were in focus. And for reasons I can't begin to describe or predict - it just seems to be luck.
So I'm looking for input. Not so much on the quality of the examples here, but just in general - what makes blur work or not work for you.
The first is one that I think I would have liked but for the blur - I think it wrecks what might have been a decent photograph. Perhaps that means its not blurred, its just out of focus!
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4951578048/" title="Blur (3) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149636 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur (3)" /></a>
Next, here are two examples of motion blur, which I think is pretty well accepted as OK, fine, good, etc. Probably better if intended (and these were accidents), but OK nonetheless. The first is pretty subtle, the second a bit more severe.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4950986337/" title="Blur (4) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149637 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur (4)" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4950986195/" title="Blur (2) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149638 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur (2)" /></a>
The next is a shot I've shown here before (in color) that I love and I don't know if I'd like it as much if it was in focus. I might, but I suspect I wouldn't. I can't explain it, but the overall image blur gives it just an air of mystery, of that netherworld between a photo and a painting, fantasy and reality, etc. The blur isn't extreme, but its a pronounced part of the photograph.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4951577870/" title="Blur (1) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149639 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur (1)" /></a>
And, finally, this one has been in my reject pile but I just can't bring myself to toss it. It HORRIBLY blurred - I clearly must have jerked the camera while taking it and the photo is nothing but overwhelmingly blurred. But on some level I sort of like it anyway. In a very abstract way.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4951577778/" title="Blur by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149640 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur" /></a>
So what do you folks think? Not so much about the underlying photographs, but about whether the blur in each is a help or a hinderance. I've seen a number of shots with some blur in them from photographers around here who I have a lot of respect for and I generally have liked them. I'd be interested in whether they tend to be intentional or just happy mistakes. This is not a topic I've thought much about in the past, but some of these shots (particularly the young girl in the dress, who reminds me a LOT of my younger daughter about 5-6 years ago) have made me think about it a bit.
-Ray
So I'm looking for input. Not so much on the quality of the examples here, but just in general - what makes blur work or not work for you.
The first is one that I think I would have liked but for the blur - I think it wrecks what might have been a decent photograph. Perhaps that means its not blurred, its just out of focus!
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4951578048/" title="Blur (3) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149636 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur (3)" /></a>
Next, here are two examples of motion blur, which I think is pretty well accepted as OK, fine, good, etc. Probably better if intended (and these were accidents), but OK nonetheless. The first is pretty subtle, the second a bit more severe.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4950986337/" title="Blur (4) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149637 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur (4)" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4950986195/" title="Blur (2) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149638 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur (2)" /></a>
The next is a shot I've shown here before (in color) that I love and I don't know if I'd like it as much if it was in focus. I might, but I suspect I wouldn't. I can't explain it, but the overall image blur gives it just an air of mystery, of that netherworld between a photo and a painting, fantasy and reality, etc. The blur isn't extreme, but its a pronounced part of the photograph.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4951577870/" title="Blur (1) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149639 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur (1)" /></a>
And, finally, this one has been in my reject pile but I just can't bring myself to toss it. It HORRIBLY blurred - I clearly must have jerked the camera while taking it and the photo is nothing but overwhelmingly blurred. But on some level I sort of like it anyway. In a very abstract way.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4951577778/" title="Blur by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 149640 "1354" height="1050" alt="Blur" /></a>
So what do you folks think? Not so much about the underlying photographs, but about whether the blur in each is a help or a hinderance. I've seen a number of shots with some blur in them from photographers around here who I have a lot of respect for and I generally have liked them. I'd be interested in whether they tend to be intentional or just happy mistakes. This is not a topic I've thought much about in the past, but some of these shots (particularly the young girl in the dress, who reminds me a LOT of my younger daughter about 5-6 years ago) have made me think about it a bit.
-Ray