Motion blur or no motion blur

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

A hovering kestrel allowed me to fool around with exposure times. The first image was taken at 1/2000s, the second at 1/200. Please help me decice; does the motion blur add to the image or do you perfer the image without motion blur? The background was washed out white sky which I could bring back a little bit with a mask, not optimal but sometimes things are what they are.
_DSC8906-Verbeterd-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
_DSC9040-Verbeterd-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I would agree with Ken and Owen. With a bird such as a hummingbird, whose wings flap insanely fast, a bit of motion blur works. But for a hovering kestrel, to me it seems out of place.
 
This reminds me of something I've considered. I will take images of BIF against a blank sky just for nailing focus practice; I can assure you that doesn't happen all the time. I have a gizillion images of a BIF against a blank sky. I don't know if this image was just for BIF practice or what, but I have concluded that BIF against a blank sky, or even against a few clouds really is not that exciting, other than perhaps for a record shot. Outside of nailing focus, I try to capture the bird doing something, hunting, or landing or taking off or fighting or carrying a stick or something; or have something more interesting in the background, say landing on a dock or a pier or on a tree.

The cold hard truth is that once one can nail focus reasonably well, and can operate one's camera by muscle memory, then it's all about fieldcraft; knowing where and when birds are around and how to get relatively closer within reason, at photogenic locations. It took me awhile and after a lot of trial and mostly error to realize it's not so much about the camera as about working on one's fieldcraft skills. This image just reminded me of all the ones I have of a BIF with nothing else going on. I realize your specific question was about the motion blur/no motion blur, but this is what the image brought to mind for me.
 
This reminds me of something I've considered. I will take images of BIF against a blank sky just for nailing focus practice; I can assure you that doesn't happen all the time. I have a gizillion images of a BIF against a blank sky. I don't know if this image was just for BIF practice or what, but I have concluded that BIF against a blank sky, or even against a few clouds really is not that exciting, other than perhaps for a record shot. Outside of nailing focus, I try to capture the bird doing something, hunting, or landing or taking off or fighting or carrying a stick or something; or have something more interesting in the background, say landing on a dock or a pier or on a tree.

The cold hard truth is that once one can nail focus reasonably well, and can operate one's camera by muscle memory, then it's all about fieldcraft; knowing where and when birds are around and how to get relatively closer within reason, at photogenic locations. It took me awhile and after a lot of trial and mostly error to realize it's not so much about the camera as about working on one's fieldcraft skills. This image just reminded me of all the ones I have of a BIF with nothing else going on. I realize your specific question was about the motion blur/no motion blur, but this is what the image brought to mind for me.
True, a more interesting background would definitely be better, this bird presented itself at an unexpected spot and I couldn’t resist taking some shots and then when it stayed fooling around with exposure. Also to get a feel for how low I could go and still have a sharp head.
 
If the back wing was fully visible (as the front one is) then it would’ve worked fine. It’s just that the bird looks so odd having one “full” wing and one wing that isn’t “fully there”!
 
Back
Top