The decline of motion blur in modern photography.

[ak_]

High ISO capable cameras, aperture priority - have these contributed to a scarcity of motion blur now in street photography and similar genre pictures? Motion blur is still commonly seen in sports photography - as the photographer tracks the action. Is it a forgotten part of image-making to a generation of younger street photographers?

 

[480sparky]

Aperture priority isn't anything new. My Pentax ME Super had that back in the 80's.

 

[ak_]

Everyones' ME Super had it back in the 1980s.

 

[Derrel]

High ISO capable cameras, aperture priority - have these contributed to a scarcity of motion blur now in street photography and similar genre pictures? Motion blur is still commonly seen in sports photography - as the photographer tracks the action. Is it a forgotten part of image-making to a generation of younger street photographers?

MUCH of the motion blur we saw in old, classic street photography from the 1930's to the 1950's was the result of fairly slow B&W films, especially at the earlier end of that time range. Grainy, slow-speed, rather low-acutance B&W film was the norm in the small format cameras of the 30's and 40's. I think a good deal of the blurring was not artistically mandated, but really was more a result of slower film speeds, and a lack of really "fast" lenses in anything except the normal focal lengths; wide-angle and ultra-wide lenses were VERY slow until the beginning of the modern era (in the 1960's). ANd a lot of people did not have access to that high-end, fast glass from Leitz or Nikon, but had much more common-man kinda' lenses.

 

[ak_]

True. Yet it became highly prized to become a stock in trade device - the best press and documentary photography uses it, the majority of so-so photography never uses it. Aside from the homogeneity of first-world cityscapes that are street-photographed now, the lack of motion in the pictures.

 

[snowbear]

My Minolta HiMatic 7s rangefiner (1975) has aperture and shutter priority. Maybe (newer) people just don't want it.

 

[Bebulamar]

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

 

[Th0r4z1n3]

There's something about the pre-digital aesthetic that's grabbed my interest lately. I've been reading some old photography books to lear & practice some of the techniques. I don't think you can fully replicate the aesthetic with digital, but they're nifty little tools to have in the arsenal.

There's a "fake" motion blur technique I like where you use a slower shutter speed and zoom in or out while the shutter is open. I used to see this quite often in magazines and stuff as a kid, but had totally forgotten about it until I read about it in one of those books.

 

[dennybeall]

Photoshop now has a set of Motion Blurs in the filter set and it works very, very well. Kinda fun if you're into post processing.

 

[limr]

Why are fake motion blur effects needed? If you want motion blur, why not just shoot at a low ISO and shutter speed? It's not like cameras can't do this anymore.

 

[dennybeall]

If you shoot for Motion Blur then that's all you have, but if you shoot for sharp you can apply Motion Blur in PP and see which you like best.

 

[limr]

Whatever.

 

[Overread]

Thing is if you edit in motion blur its going to either be global over the whole photo (where its closer to handshake) or you're going in and spending quite a lot of time adding the effect - especially if you've a complex image and really want it to look authentic.

So it just makes practical good sense to shoot the effect when you want it - it also means that you'll get a clean effect; whilst with editing there's always the chance that you'll miss minor or small details of blurring and as a result get a fake-look.

 

[unpopular]

Whatever.

If you use an image that is sharp then the client will say it need to look like it's going "fast". If you use an image that is blurry the client will complain because it isn't clear. But, of course, everything else looks great!

This isn't a concern for us art photographers and hobbyists. It is a big issue with graphic designers. Clients will always disprove of something that is "otherwise just fine", and they all watch CSI and think photoshop can unblur a speeding car taken at 1/30s.

 

[limr]

Whatever.

If you use an image that is sharp then the client will say it need to look like it's going "fast". If you use an image that is blurry the client will complain because it isn't clear. But, of course, everything else looks great!

This isn't a concern for us art photographers and hobbyists. It is a big issue with graphic designers. Clients will always disprove of something that is "otherwise just fine", and they all watch CSI and think photoshop can unblur a speeding car taken at 1/30s.

I understand that pros have to have quite a few tricks up their sleeves to satisfy clients. It's yet one more reason I have no desire to be a pro. It also seems that some of these tricks end up being more complicated than simply taking a wider variety of shots to begin with.

*shrug* As I said, I'm not a pro, I have no desire to be a pro, so what the hell do I know? Just seems silly to take 15 steps to do something that can be done in 5. (Yes, numbers were chosen arbitrarily to make a point.)