engine blades

[shadowsierra88]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/van88/2287363737/" title="DSC_0005 by shadowsierra88, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2287363737_b91fbb183b_m.jpg" width="161" height="240" alt="DSC_0005" /></a>

Model: NIKON D40X
Shutter Speed: 125/1000 second
F Number: F/5.6
Focal Length: 55 mm
ISO Speed: 1600

What do you guys think of this?



*I still need to do a lot of experimentation...XD

[geotography]

Hi shadowsierra88,

Your question (what do you think?) is very general but I will do my best.

First, I am going to assume by your exif and the image that your intent was to capture the motion of the blades. My tip when capturing motion in a photo is that you must have, along with the moving object, a stable, fixed, tack-sharped focused element in the photo. Doing so gives the viewer the contrast between something moving and something not. That relationship is very important in motion type images. Imagine a photograph of the front wheel of a bicycle wheel spinning against a sharply-focused, motionless bike frame, forks and handlebars. The viewer is clear about the wheel motion because of its relationship to the rest of the bike.

[shadowsierra88]

I was wondering whether the motion came out right, since the thing was moving fairly slowly. so the tips are blurry but the center focused?

*thanks for the tip :D

[geotography]

Hi shadowssierra88,

I apologize for not getting back sooner.

so the tips are blurry but the center focused?


I am not sure I can answer that straightaway because I am not familiar with the context of this machine. If the center of the wheel is normally fixed, then the answer would be: yes; and, as I mentioned before, an essential in a motion shot is to show the the viewer a relationship between that which moves and that which does not move. So, the center of your mechanical wheel may not be enough information for the viewer to make that distinction. I don't normally include images of my own in critique threads, but I think it is appropriate here to demonstrate the point. Below is my own mentronome experiment with the motion concept and believe me, there was a lot of experimentation. Another point here is to test the different shutter speeds until you get the right effect. This particular image was 1 second, which captured the moving object in the way I desired. This photo, BTW, does not represent my final product. I am only taking a rest from it with the hope to bring new skills to it in the future.

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/GeotographyPublicPhotoGallery/photo#5161785075235961826"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/g.rubaloff/R6JYLXhaO-I/AAAAAAAAB8c/PKG2OTccuIs/s400/IMGP3301.DNG.jpg" /></a>

EXIF: Shutter 1", f/6.3, ISO 100

Keep playing with it. I think motion in still photography is very exciting. I never thought about when I did film because I then captured moving pictures. Here you have one image to capture movement.

Have fun and don't hesitate to ask anyone for help here at DPS.

Best,

P.S. I thought of another example of the relationship between motion and stillness in this photo I took a few months ago.

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/g.rubaloff/GeotographyPublicPhotoGallery/photo#5159103581124180210"><img src="http://lh6.google.com/g.rubaloff/R5jRX3haOPI/AAAAAAAABTc/wfVIxe3fcKo/s400/recropped%20without%20car%202748.jpg" /></a>