This is one of those shots that has so much wrong with it...I really shouldn't like it. ; But I just do! ; I had the wrong lens (F4 max) because I had no intention of shooting the parade...I was actually out shooting long exposures on tripod. ; I couldn't get enough shutter speed even at ISO6400, so there's motion blur. ; ISO6400 was noisy, and motion blur plus noise reduction cost lots of detail. ; High ISO and underexposed cost color fidelity. ; But for some reason, I find it interesting and endearing - almost more than a perfectly captured shot might. ; I was going to delete this, and took it very much on a whim...and now I can't bring myself to get rid of it:
I like it to....the womens face in the center is in focus ; to me the motions blur very much fits the mood- I would have kept it to!!!
Thank you - I think her face was part of the reason too, I agree. ; It feels like the motion blur almost circulates around her in a way. ; I was trying to weave through the crowd to get from Frontierland over to new Fantasyland for some tripod night shots, and got stuck for a few minutes due to the parade, so that's why I was there with completely the wrong lens and no intentions to shoot the parade...but I'm glad I went ahead and snapped a few throwaway shots and ended up with something interesting to me!
A perfect example of why "tack sharp" isn't always the goal. ; The blur conveys motion--exactly what was happening at the moment. ; Capturing dancers in complete stillness is good when showing form. ; The lighted costumes and grouping of the couples lend themselves better to motion. Great job.
Thanks Peter. ; That's probably why I like it, even with all the other flaws. ; If I could shoot it again with a faster lens and less noise, I'd probably still want a bit of the motion blur in it...good point.
You're right, it probably shouldn't be a keeper, but I do like how the dancers stand out against the background. Erich
The lesson here is to keep everything that's not a total loss. ; You may learn a technique in the future that allows you to do something with a photo that looks like garbage today. ; Or you may just look at it differently a few months from now and see something you like.
I hardly delete anything- for that exact reason- with the "digital art" that ; I do- image is secondary- light is primary- followed by color- I have been know to crop and filter layer and manipulate many a shot into something someone loves ; they never even knew its was what most people would have put on the cutting room floor- spectromagic shots that are blurred and over exposed where some of my favorites.. ;D-
I keep trying to get myself to delete more shots I'm not satisfied with to free up storage space, and here you are advocating.... LOL Erich - who also keeps waaay to much
I recently did a big purge of photos from my online galleries - and typically do in my home collection too once a year or so. ; This was one of those that was an obvious delete...but then I just couldn't. ; With all that's wrong with it, it just pleases me somehow. ; I've probably had just 1 or 2 shots a year that are this bad that I decide I still want to keep - most others in this condition would be gone. ; But sometimes it's not just about sharpness, detail, noise-free, perfection...sometimes it's just some undefinable thing that you like about it! I do enjoy a good purge of photos though - I'll horde all year long, throwing almost nothing away, but when I finally set my mind to it, I can really get going - I'll typicaly wipe out 35-50GB of shots. ; Most of them are the 'keepers' that made the first cull way back when I first loaded the photos, but were duplicates or multiples, where I then selected one out of 3 or 4 as the best one to process or crop - especially with wildlife/bird photos I'll often have 3-5 shots of the same bird and angle that pass the first cull, then I'll analyze them all up close and pick one as the photo to process and post...at the end of the year, those other 3-4 can be deleted.
