Got myself a D90 there to muck about with. Still not convinced by digital - heres 3 just mucking about from various places

I like all of them, last one looks really good.

Its got everything for a good photo I think, a distant object and the blur of the water.

A lot of this, like everything else, is what you are used to. I did a good bit of film photography before I went digital, there are differences, but sometimes they are good differences. Doing stuff with a digital camera and images are usually far easier than film. Theres no film processing for a start.

You can scan images into a computer, but thats basically photographing a photograph.

I still have my old film stuff, including Praktica cameras, they just arent used any more, and most people are going that way. It looks like film is heading for niche markets with disposables on the bottom end and medium/large format at the other. Compacts have virtually been taken over now, theres no real difference in price between film and digital there. Film SLRs are vanishing too.

Quote from: MarkGot myself a D90 there to muck about with. Still not convinced by digital - heres 3 just mucking about from various places

(Image removed from quote.)

not exactly the photo you want to see after 10 pints & 3 bottles of wine

my eyez, they bleedz

Yeah the first pic looks a bit shakey.

Quote from: bearYeah the first pic looks a bit shakey.

Its a photographic technique. He zoomed in, or out, while taking the photo. look just at the door in the middle, that gives it away.

Its also used to make stationary cars look like they are moving towards you bu the easiest way to think about it is if you were flying towards the building in a very fast plane.

Quote from: Serious

Quote from: bearYeah the first pic looks a bit shakey.

Its a photographic technique. He zoomed in, or out, while taking the photo. look just at the door in the middle, that gives it away.

Its also used to make stationary cars look like they are moving towards you bu the easiest way to think about it is if you were flying towards the building in a very fast plane.

I zoomed with zoomFox to 300% and to me the door looks as blured as the rest of it.

Im afraid I must respectfully disagree with you there Bear, if theres a mistake in the first image its that the effect is centred slightly to the left of the door instead of bang on it, but the door is still a lot sharper than the rest of the picture.

Its an effect Ive always liked the idea of but rarely seen work out as well as I imagined. This is a pretty good effort.

I like the other two images a lot.

I thought that was what was being attempted, its not too bad, but I cant help but feel that a little more blur around the edges would have worked better?

Wouldnt it be better to focus on building and use a large apature and  fast time for a low field of depth to blur all but building ?

yeah but the bokeh is different? Doing that would just blur everything out in a diffuse/gaussian blur, but with the zoom effect its linear, giving the impression of motion, like in sci fi films with the stars streaking past...?

Quote from: bearWouldnt it be better to focus on building and use a large apature and  fast time for a low field of depth to blur all but building ?

No, because that wouldnt convey any feeling of movement. The "zoom while you expose" technique shown here is supposed to make it look like youre running towards/away from the subject.

K     I like the pic better zoomed out a bit

reason it looks slightly blurred is because when you move the zoom while taking the picture you are changing the focal length of the lens. The centre of the subject might start out in focus but by the end its not going to be.

The effect isnt everyones cup of tea but you wont get it much better than that.

Bear, if youve got a zoom camera, even an X3 compact, look at the image and zoom in and out. This effect uses a long exposure to take that all in one photograph.

There is also something called a Lensbaby which allows you to only have a specific area of the image in focus, this is not the same effect as rather than motion blur going out from the middle the image is stationary but out of focus the further from the focussed point.

Quote from: Seriousreason it looks slightly blurred is because when you move the zoom while taking the picture you are changing the focal length of the lens. The centre of the subject might start out in focus but by the end its not going to be.

If its a true zoom lens (I dont know what lens was used here, but most are at least very close) then changing the zoom doesnt change the focus point.

Some lenses are varifocal rather than zoom, and these change focus as you change the focal length. A lot of supercompact lenses are made this way as its less complex to design. Also some "image quality at any cost" lenses (eg some of the original Vivitar Series 1 lenses, the Pentax FA24-90, some older Zeiss and Leica Vario lenses, some others) are varifocal since the simpler design makes them easier to correct from a designers point of view, sacrificing ease of use at the alter of image quality.

I keep looking at lensbabys and thinking "its so cheap, and it might be a lot of fun, but when would I use it?"

Im bound to end up with one eventually!