Bill Pearce wrote:
> The whole subject of IS/VR vs. high shutter speeds turns into a discussion
> where we are talking past each other. One isn't a substitutue for the other.
>
I don't think talking past so much as having different priorities. And I
do think there is a very large area of photography where the two do
simply overlap. many of the natural subjects I like to photograph tend
to move when I want a sharp image.
> High shutter speeds can produce sharp results by stopping action and by
> reducing or eliminating the effects of camera motion. If sharpness at all
> cost is your goal, that's fine, and either will work. What IS/VR can do,
> that nothing else can, is reduce or eliminate camera motion WITHOUT
> afffecting subject motion. That can be highly desirable.
I almost put in a comment about intentional motion blur, but thought
that the opportunity to accomplish that was common and obvious. I didn't
see the controlled acmera movement with uncontrolled subject movement
combo as of much interest.
> Many photos are
> shot with high shutter speeds that would have looked better at slower
> speeds. Good examples are the car and motor racing photos of several of our
> members. Judging from the recent photos from AG, there are numerous good
> examples of great photos where some subject motion remains, and a few real
> clinkers where, although everything is tack sharp, there is no sense of
> motion.
>
Ya got me there, maybe. I freely admit that I seldom consider such
shots, or airplanes with propellers. The truth is that my personal
interest in taking or viewing images of motorsports, vintage aircraft,
etc. closely approach zero as a limit. I used to enjoy car races and
followed the sport. My interest waned and during the 1995 F1 GP in
Montreal, which I thought might rekindle it for me, I realized I just
didn't like it any more. Nothing against it or those who enjoy it; just
doesn't ring my chimes any more.
I have owned an early BMW, a 911 and an Audi 5000 Turbo Quattro (at the
time they were dominating some racing class), and the appeal of speed
that can't be used without great effort and/or danger of legal
consequences seems to have waned too. Maybe it happened when I had to go
to traffic school to keep my record clean and insurance down. A few
moments of thrills in exchange for endless hours of seriously painful
boredom? I don't know. I did like the way the Turbo lost almost nothing
at altitude.
So anyway, addendum to the rule to cover taking slightly motion blurred
photos of fast mechanically powered conveyances.
I say "maybe" above for a couple of reasons. First, it's a matter of
taste, and clear from published photos that many folks like the stop
action shots.
Second, I spent a little time with Steven Scharf as he was easing away
from OM in favor of EOS as his motorsports expertise and gigs improved.
He showed me some examples of panned shots where the vehicle is very
sharp and detailed with a strongly blurred background. They seemed
effective to me and he said it was a skill one really must develop if
trying to make a living at this work. As I recall, he said it worked
better without any IS. One quite large print of a motorcycle done this
way was a very impressive piece of photography - and almost interesting
beyond that.... :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|