1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Panning - tack sharp or blurred

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by AdrianSadlier, May 12, 2017.

  1. AdrianSadlier

    AdrianSadlier Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]

    Freedom by Adrian Sadlier, on Flickr

    I recently posted this image on Photocrowd.com in a mini competition on "Big Dogs". I described it as a "Panned shot of an Irish Red Setter running on a beach. It's an attempt to encapsulate their galloping, free, happy style of energy."

    One "competitor" posted the following comment - "Pan shot did not work. The dog is all bury."

    Now besides his lack of knowledge of english (or more likely the use of predictive text) I am included to disagree with him, strongly.

    Before responding I wanted to do a sanity check

    - does this qualify as a panning shot?
    - is it too blurry?

    For the purposes of clarity (not sharpness) the image came out as I had envisaged it.

    Don't hold back........

    Adrian
     
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  2. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    You were panning, so yes.

    There's only one valid measure of that ....

    So it can't be too blurry, if that's what you intended.

    Do I like it? No. Does that matter? No.
     
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    It is very clear what you set out to achieve. The commentator has a limited knowledge of panned shots and you are being too forgiving of the spelling. I'm not a dog person so the following might not be correct but to me the dog's head (skull) seems a bit small in proportion to ears and jaw. The head seems turned toward you which might be why. Otherwise I think this is a great shot. I've tried panning like thiis to lose background at Chester Races where faces at the barrier behind the horses are inevitable but it has never worked for me. You get one chance every 30 minutes which isn't enough to practice.
     
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  4. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    The panning technique is good, borne out by the near perfect horizontal streaks in the sand. Panning an animal is a million miles away from panning a car etc. The animal has moving bits in all other directions, so near impossible to get no blurred bits on the beast.
    I would politely tell him to wind his neck in!
    I personally don't like the image itself but that doesn't alter it's validity as a panned shot. If it's as you planned, then it worked.
     
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  5. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    I tend to agree with him to some extent.

    The shot (IMHO - repeat - IMHO) needs some part of the dog to be sharp. If it were the head that was sharp (and all the rest as it is now) you would have a real cracker.

    But what do I know - just my opinion.

    MickLL
     
    daft_biker and AdrianSadlier like this.
  6. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    A panning shot? Yes - I reckon that your competitor is either talking b*llocks, or he's just trying to trash the work of his competitors.
    Too blurry? No - quite the opposite, IMO.

    I rather like this image, but for me, it begs to be monochrome, and I'd also say that it's too sharp(!) in the places where it isn't blurred. I think it's an image which works as an 'abstract', and I would say, therefore, that sharpness is somewhat undesirable. I would also add a small amount of fine grain, and possibly, a little additional blurring to the background.

    Just my two penn'orth... ;)
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  7. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Adrian,

    I really like it, as it stands, and I think converting to mono would ruin it.

    Some pans work best when they're sharp, and some when they're like this one. There's no universal rule. The slavering tongue is a bit frightening, though. I'm reminded of Round The Horne: "Ahhh, young master.... ahhh... the Beast of Orbiston Parva, a huge dog with eyes like coals of fire and great slavering jaws. We call it Spot."

    (From memory: no script handy).

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  8. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    I'm with the fine as it is, but maybe just a tick better if it happened to catch his eye fairly sharply mob. Many animals do keep their head very steady as they run / fly so it can happen, but this does all I'd want of it and the tongue is wonderful.
     
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  9. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    For me, it's a great shot. The other competitor either doesn't know what they're talking about, or was trying to unsettle you. It fits your description.

    Yes, it could perhaps be improved along the lines RM suggests. But few things in the real world are perfect.
     
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  10. AdrianSadlier

    AdrianSadlier Well-Known Member

    Well I responded to the poster, starting off by telling him he was a prat and ended up by telling him to "stop wasting bandwidth". In between I mentioned the fact that I had requested feedback from this forum, sharing a link with him (not quoting any responses).

    This was his reply "

    I went to the webpage and read the comments. Most people didn't even like your photo. You know why? The dog is mostly out of focus. You do realize the webpage you references is for amateur photographers (no professional photographers) even the amateurs don't like the photo. Know why? The dog is mostly out of focus. Most people don't like an image which is all blurry and does not have a subject in mostly sharp focus.".

    My next response is probably going to be "I bet you voted for Trump".
     
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  11. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I wouldn't waste your breath on that idiot. I like it a lot, it's good vision.
     
  12. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't waste the energy!
     
    AdrianSadlier and Roger Hicks like this.
  13. AdrianSadlier

    AdrianSadlier Well-Known Member

    Thanks Nick. But I might waste some bandwidth - it's always easy to wind up the ignorant. Plus his photos could do with a lot of guidance and feedback - maybe I will give it to him (with both barrels). I can have a sharp turn of phrase when I want to (I never use it on this site - I'd be shown the door quite quickly.

    BTW, in case anybody hasn't copped, Photocrowd.com is the one used for APOY. And these are the people doing the crowd rating!!!
     
  14. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    I love the photo and agree that your respondent is a bit of a pratt. On the other hand, you did publish it and invite criticism - so don't get upset if it comes from someone who sees the picture differently from you. Your own initial response to him did not exactly exude warmth!

    You can see where he is coming from. In most cases the purpose and intent of "panning" is to get the main subject sharp and the background blurred. You had a different vision and it worked for you.
     
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  15. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    There are countless very stupid people on the internet. And probably more who are profoundly and proudly ignorant. Avoid engaging with 'em as far as possible. Yes, I know I don't always succeed. And there's often an "ignore"option. Use it on the people who are just bright enough to upset you, but not bright enough to say anything worthwhile.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  16. AdrianSadlier

    AdrianSadlier Well-Known Member

    I agree that I was somewhat tart with him - but then I had looked at his entry before posting my response. His entry is a panned shot and I would not describe it as sharp (never mind any other critique one might offer). On another of his shots, of a bird, he described it as sharp; it is anything but sharp!.

    He either needs a new pair of glasses or a dictionary, or maybe both. I'm afraid he just comes across as an opinionated boor (and I guess an American) IMHO. Anyone who makes a critique of someone else's work should do so with genuine intent - as happens on this forum. His approach does not speak to me of good intent.

    But then again, I can be a grumpy old man!
     
  17. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    Never wrestle with a pig in shit, it soon becomes difficult to tell who is who.
     
    AdrianSadlier and Learning like this.
  18. AdrianSadlier

    AdrianSadlier Well-Known Member

    Thanks Roger. I don't value his opinion so it doesn't upset me. At this stage any responses I make will be for sport - a bit like teasing :)
     
  19. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Adrien,

    Then why bother? Why not save your energy for arguing with those whom you respect (even if not very much)? Or for taking pictures...

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    AdrianSadlier likes this.
  20. AdrianSadlier

    AdrianSadlier Well-Known Member

    Roger, I love a good dialectical argument and I respect everyone's opinion, whether I agree with it or not. But if someone criticises, not to give genuine feedback, but to try and inflate their egos at someone else's cost, then I consider them idiots.

    And I love baiting idiots, I consider it somewhat like a cat chasing a laser pointer. And to be clear, I hold the pointer :)
     

Share This Page