Your opinion .... IMO, flash produces generic shots in this instance. And as Arnie gets better by practice, his results will improve, and the cars will blur less and less. But if he starts to rely upon flash just to "get the shot" he won't be practicing what he said he wants to practice, and will never learn how to do it right.
I'm reminded here of Pezentti's (sp?) eagle photography, done without autofocus and without magic exposure. His stuff is great ... and it got great because he practiced focusing, and he got to know the patterns of the eagles, and was able to get relatively close to them. He used to stand by the highway and practice focusing on the license plates of the cars that drove past. There are several ways to get a result John ... the quick and the easy in the case you're making for flash, or by practicing and learning the subject, and maybe getting even better pictures. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. John Francis wrote: > > Garbage. The "generic" photo is the blurred, lack-of-detail car, typical of > the kind of shot that is produced by people who don't know how to do better. > If you want to blur the car, then blur it. But if you're trying to get it > sharp (which is the purpose of trying to pan with it), then get it sharp.
