The decline of motion blur in modern photography.

[gsgary]

Yep. His "City of Shadows" series is exactly a case which wouldn't faux blur easily. I'm not about to say it's impossible, but it's certainly beyond the ability of most, and would take hours and a lot of effort to blur in that kind of detail.

ALEXEY TITARENKO | PHOTOGRAPHY

Have you seen the video of him shooting where he picks up the camera and gives it a quick swirl at the end of exposure

 

[unpopular]

No. I haven't. I'm familiar with his work, not so much him as a photographer.

 

[gsgary]

No. I haven't. I'm familiar with his work, not so much him as a photographer.

Shoots with a film Hassleblad

 

[unpopular]

Shoots with a [...] Hassleblad

What a moron.

 

[gsgary]

Shoots with a [...] Hassleblad

What a moron.

Better than digital

 

[Buckster]

As with fake bokeh, it is easy to fake a motion blur in uncomplicated cases. Where the blur direction is uniform and running perpendicular to the focus plane shouldn't be too much of an issue. In many cases where you'd want motion blur, this will be the situation.

That's exactly true, which is why it works just fine without much fuss at all in the majority of cases.

But, say a runner or cyclist moving at an angle to or from the camera, getting motion blur that is physically accurate won't be easy.

It doesn't have to be "physically accurate" in the strictest sense of the phrase though, and we should keep that in mind; It only needs to be "acceptably believable". As long as it doesn't call the wrong kind of attention to the viewer, it's fine.

The techniques to manipulate and control perspective, direction, opacity, curvature, etc aren't a mystery, even in the cyclist situation you describe. Obviously, it's not as easy or straightforward as the straight pass mentioned previously, but it's not that much more complicated if one is familiar with the basic tools and techniques in PS.

Speaking of control, in some cases super-smooth very controlled blurs that are impossibly perfect (think of comic book hero The Flash's trails) might be exactly what's called for in a particular piece, rather than a real blur as-shot that doesn't provide that kind of effect, and certainly not the control one might desire to have over the rendition of the piece. It's just another reason to have that skill in the toolbox, even if seldom needed or used, IMHO. And again, it's just knowledge of the tools and skills used throughout the program, applied to this.

It just depends on the level of complexity and realism that you're going to need.

Which is, again, "acceptably believable". No more, no less.

A bad fake blur though will always be distracting.

Well, yeah... a bad anything will always be distracting, fake or not. Bad light, bad pose, bad expression, bad white balance, bad background, bad foreground, bad (_______ fill in the blank another 10,000 times).

So yeah, don't make bad fake blurs, everyone. In fact, don't make bad "real" blurs either.

But IF you find yourself in a situation that calls out to you to make a fake blur after the fact, then definitely make "acceptably believable" fake blurs, not "bad" ones, because, let's face it, "bad" is not "good".

If you don't know how to make acceptably believable fake blurs yet, but would like to be able to, then take some courses. They're not terribly expensive, and it's well worth having those skills - for whenever you'd like to use them. It's not rocket science or brain surgery either. With a bit of knowledge, practice and patience, anyone can learn to do nearly anything that can be done in Photoshop, short of digitally painting a masterpiece from scratch on a blank canvas, or something like that.

 

[paul'dee'dowling]

Just for fun ... strictly amateur !!

 

[Braineack]

Motion blur image is out and paper thin depth of field is in.

so missed-focus blur is in and motion-blur is out?

 

[Derrel]

Braineack--you showed three fine photos this week--all built around motion blur. The kid with the fountain...basically built on getting just the right blurring effect on the water streams...

 

[Braineack]

im a poet, and didnt know it.

 

[PixelRabbit]

I personally like the fact that most modern photographers stay in the mainstream and go for sharp over blur and use post over manually controlling it with the camera/panning/technique, nothing will ever compare to it imho and it leaves a wonderful area for some to play in

 

[Max_Schröder]

I sometimes get motion blur when shooting planes at touchdown (both from the backround, the rims and the engines), a similar thing counts for trains (locomotive sharp, carriages blurred).
A whole different kind of it is when I shoot with my dog (and photo-model) Mali, and she either can't hold still for long, or is just too friggin exited (a tail can move from left to right FAST).

I usually prefer slight motion blur over too short exposure/too high ISO.

Max

 

[pgriz]

It's another tool in the tool-chest. But to also be truthful, it takes a lot of practice and some serendipity to get just the right effect. I really like Judi's work (with motion blur), and Mishele's flower shots are both dreamy and very pleasing to the eye. In sports photography, it gives a certain excitement when properly done. It's a tool. A useful one to practice and have available for the appropriate image that is enhanced by its use.

 

[runnah]

Try shooting sport on a dimly lit high school football field and then you get all the motion blur you can handle!

 

[PJoneil]

Motion blur, undesired motion blur, was a huge issue back when I shot Kodachrome 64 as my preferred color film in the early and mid-1980's. I tried Kodachrome 25 for about ten rolls of 36, and it was useless as teats on a boar. It. Totally. SUCKED. When. Shot. Outdoors. As did Kodak Panatomic-X, an ASA 32 B&W film.

Today, a modern Nikon FX 24MP d-slr shot at ISO 250 to 320 has higher image quality than Kodachrome 64, in my estimation. Finer detail, better resolution, more-accurate color, wider dynamic range, and a BIG advantage in shutter speeds, which leads to steadier shots, made at higher shutter speeds. The old days of street shooting with ASA 100 or ASA 200 B&W film with f/4 wide-angle lenses (or slower!) is what created so,so many shots that had motion blur. When the top speed you can muster on old film is 1/25 second, there will be MANY scenarios where anything moving will exhibit motion blur. I found that ASA 25 and ASA 32 films were simply unacceptable for most real-world, non-flash shooting scenarios...just too much wind blurring, hand shake, camera movement, camera vibration, and subject motion blurring in far,far too many shots to waste the 35 cents per frame that it cost...equivalent today to about $1.15 per click indexed to the price of a gallon of gasoline...even ISO 64 demanded a LOT of waiting for breezes to die down, waiting for no wind, tripod-mounting the camera to get to even f/8 early or later in the day or in the shade, and ridiculous exposure times to get to f/16 for depth of field.

Motion blur in most old photos, I am convinced, was something that had to be tolerated many times, and was not really the "ideal", but there was just no way to get past it in many shooting situations.

I really enjoy your informative posts!