Kevin Waterson wrote: > > It was "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who wrote wrote: > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2142532 > > > > Sometimes I like it. Others, I think it's horrible. If you have an > > opinion, feel free to share. > > I saw a response to this saying the panning was good, which, for me, > begs the question, what is good panning? > > Kind regards > Kevin
I'm one of the ones that doesn't particularly like this shot. Why? Because the cyclist is a blurred double image. I think there are two possible goals when panning a shot. One is - if you'll excuse the use of the word - artistic. That's what Frank's horizontally framed cyclist shot does. There's less focus or concentration on the subject (the cyclist) than there is on the scene as a whole. The subject is central to the photo, of course, but the goal is not technical perfection but capturing the feeling. More like war photos, I guess. . . The other goal is to display the subject in as good a focus as you can, with minimal blurring, without regard to the back- or foreground. In other words, make the shot with strict regard to getting the moving subject as clear as possible. Were this from a photo session of mine, I would have culled this image from the lot as not being displayable. Not what I'd like my images to portray. . . A black cross on the proof sheet! "Don't print!" But then, as a Chinese art professor once told me, I was WAY too tight! I had problems with letting go, flowing the watercolor on, making bold brush strokes with feeling. I admit to that limitation. My photo painting is more like laboring over Grandma Moses' miniatures, instead of Frank's free-flowing Toronto cyclist photos! Neither "wrong" with either, just a difference in approach. Having said that, I can accept and even learn to like Frank's image, and who cares if it's something I wouldn't have displayed? It's Frank's work, not mine! <bg> Keep it up, Frank! keith
