On 8/27/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, Frank ... it does nothing for me.
I certainly accept that not everyone will like this type of shot, and I appreciate your honesty and candor, Shel. I always appreciate all comments made by everyone, because I'm happy that people look at some of my photos and feel compelled to take the time to comment. > This type of work seems to have > become your forte, like the signature main course at a frequently visited > restaurant. It's nice every now and then, but after a while it's time to > try something else on the menu. Personally, I'd like to see some more > photos that are well focused and carefully composed. Quite honestly, Shel, I have to take issue with that paragraph. I've taken some "blurry shots", and yes, I've posted other PAWs that feature panned shots of two-wheeled vehicles. Some have had a great deal of motion-blur, some not so much. But, do me a favour and look at my PAW folder: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=381188 Admittedly, there's a lot of crap in there, but how many photos are similar to today's post? 91 photos over about a year and a half, and I count three shots that I see as being similar - two blurry pans of bicycles, and one other scooter shot with much less motion blur. Now, admittedly, in my CMWC folder: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=509434 there were some panned shots of bikes, but it was a bike race after all <g>, and as I explained, I went to New York with one lens (a 40mm), so was limited in what type of race photos I could take. You know, Paul posted a series of slow-shutter-speed pans of hot rods and muscle cars a couple of weeks ago - I'd say at least 1/2 dozen of them. I really enjoyed them, but did anyone say that he should move on and "try something else on the menu"? Yes, I do take these sorts of shots more than some other photographers, but (again), look through my folders and you'll see that the vast majority of my photos are "well focused and carefully composed" - okay, maybe not "well-focused", but I did try to focus, and I did carefully compose most of them, even though I may not have accomplished my goal. BTW, a final word, why do you think this wasn't "well composed"? Just because it wasn't a static shot, just because I had to react quickly, just because it was a one-shot grab, do you think I didn't try to compose in the viewfinder? The scooter was pretty close to where I wanted it to be in the viewfinder, I was well aware of the pattern of the scooter/pedestrians, and I felt at the time I released the shutter that this was the moment I wanted and the composition I wanted. It may not be perfect (I wish I hadn't cut off the bottom of the tires), and I guess I'm not necessarily saying it's "well composed", but it is certainly deliberately composed. Just so you (and the list) know, I'm not angry or in any way upset with you or the contents of the paragraph in question. I know that reading text means that one is missing the "emotion" of seeing and hearing the author in person. In fact I'm not upset at all. I just wanted to express my thoughts WRT what you said, because IMHO, you're simply not accurate (but I certainly accept that you're being truthful, as I'm sure you believe what you said). And again, this has nothing to do with whether you like the photo or not - I like it a great deal, so anyone can say they don't like it and it don't bother me a bit! <LOL> As always, I appreciate that you commented, Shel. cheers, frank > -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
