Am I being biased

Dollface · Jul 1, 2005

One of the issues I can never seem to get over, is the difference between a photo I love, and a photo that is good.
I am in two minds about this shot. Is it good, or am I just being biased because I know the guy. NB: Most of my band photos are crisp and sharp. I feel this one has a certain atmosphere about it - but then again, you might just look at it as a blurry photo.

Brutal honesty expected.

Canon 10D - 28-90mm : ISO 800 , Shutter- approx 1/60 (can't remember)

Thanks

JohnMF · Jul 1, 2005

I cant think of many instances where camera shake is good to be honest.

It does look a little bit 'rock n roll' which is relevant to the subject i suppose...

If it was a little bit of motion blur on the guitarist instead i think it would have worked better, but the lights in the background have gone wobbly too.

but if you like it and the guy in it likes it does it matter whether its a "technically good" photograph?

Christie Photo · Jul 1, 2005

Oddly enough, I find the eyelid and mic to be sharp enough to make the image useful. I agree... the streaky lights are distracting. When I cover them with my hand over the moniter, it helps bring my attention back to his face. I'm not sure just what the fix for this is, but explore doing something different with the background.

-Pete

terri · Jul 1, 2005

I would agree with Pete's comments that there is *just enough* sharpness on the face and mic to make the shot. I like it!

If you felt you should do anything to "fix" this image, I'd darken that background as much as you can, so the little lights are just a glow and the viewer is forced to pay more attention to the singer. Just a thought.

bogleric · Jul 1, 2005

motion is cool, but the camera shake is a bit annoying. I would be interested in seeing the results of terri's comments regarding darkening the background. This may really help the image.