Zoom blur. Creative image or mess?

I just processed this image to email to someone and it got me thinking. Is this a nice creative and different image of life on a coral reef or is it just a mess? I can't decide!

The zooming effect was done in camera - my aim was to emphasize the busy life on a coral reef. Do you like it or not really?

Alex

I like the effect, but what's missing and makes it a little messy for me is not having something sharp to focus on; I think I'd prefer a rear curtain synch type motion shot.

I like the idea of it. There is a potential for a really cool shot if you get lucky with one fish head on in focus. But to get one head on, it'd have to be swimming at you, would you being doing the opposite of using zoom? mooz? LOL!

Really, to me anyway, it's that bit on the left halfway down that kind of looks a mess.

Rand

I like the idea of using blur to portray busy life, but not sure if zoom is the answer. I would agree with others that it might be better if some aspect of the image was sharper/more defined.

It does take me back to the photo mag stories that were published when zooms first started to get introduced widely ....

Very cool, lets call this the "Star Wars" effect... :-) I think the coral needs to be sharp, not blurred. However the more I look at it the more I think I'm a fish moving over the reef...

-Wyatt

I like the abstractness of it a lot. Composition wise it might have been better angled up a slight bit. You should try how it looks without that coral head, might be interesting if you could get one fish in the middle in focus.

Not underwater (at all ) but I took a photo using a similar technique a while back

Alex

The zoom blur shots I have always liked are hard to get.

I like them visually the most when there is a area that is not affected or a lot less affected in the center that shows what the subject(s) are.

In your example here, even though the zoom blur is done well the majority of fish appear on the outer limits of the image and less in the center.

No idea if it would look better, but thats my opinion of what makes land zoom blurs work, so maybe would be better for UW too.

I know you might consider this taboo but probably doing this in post with a filter masking out fish you want to keep sharp would work. Possibly an in camera double exposure as you like to do would be another possibility.

Hi Alex,

What is the difference between a digital master calling it 'creative zoom burst effect',

and some poor beginner being told to hold his/her camera steady?

As Rand said, if it was a single subject with some point of focus, yeah maybe, but?

I'm sorry Alex, but it is not to my liking.

Are we all really being creative, or is everyone just getting bored 'shitless' because it seems as if it has all been done before underwater?

Seems like when digital arrived, everyone ran out and re-took all their old film photos, then got bored. . . .

Seems like when full frame digital arrived, those who could afford it, ran out and re-took all their old 'cropped' digital photos then got bored. . . .

Seems like 'creative genius with artistic flair' is going to be the next frontier. . . .

Bugger, I forgot the 'Pool Photogs'. . . . it doesn't seem to be catching on but it is certainly 'creatively artistic'.

IMHO. . . . and down on one knee at the foot of a master.

Bruce...

I like the zoom shot you showed last year of one fish where the head was in focus. I have to agree with the above that if everything is OOF, it gives the impression it was just sloppy photography. I've always wanted to do a WA shot, slow shutter rear curtain sync to see what that would look like...just haven't had the right opportunity yet.

I think it would also work better if there were more 'symmetry' ... by that I mean more harmony between the 'directionality' of the fish and the zoom effect.

I agree with the comments about a central, in-focus subject ... but also feel that if the fish were 'lined up' better with the effect, that would also help to make the image look less "messy".

Do you know what I mean?

Alex,

I thought you would like my first reaction to it (don't take it wrong, but I think it is valuable input).

When I first looked at it, I noticed nice, bright colors/images - then immediately I got a bit dizzy/nauseous (and I don't get that way very much, not even, ever at sea...)

You are so creative Alex and are probably on an innovative track, but this one affected me - as above. Lovely colors though.

Best Always, Carol

I lean toward the mess.

Here's what I like about it:

If you slice the image diagonally by drawing a line from upper right to lower left, I do like the part below the diagonal line, in other words, the bottom right portion of the image. It looks like it has a tremendous amount of potential and has a lot of good things going for it.

Here's what I don't like about it:

Again, if you slice the image diagonally as above, I don't care for the part above the diagonal line, in other words, the upper left portion of the image. As the others have said, it's out of focus and it is not appealing to me at all.

Ellen

Well you know I think of you as a god of photography, and I do like the idea, but was a couple of spots that was distracting (my eye kept on wandering). The one fish just above mid left sort of threw it off for me, the center and the coral though came through well, perhaps cropping it a bit? Either veritically by trimming off some of the sides or horizontally below that one fish. The colors are still stunning though...

As a "one-off" it's a nice shot, and I suspect that viewed as a large print centered at eye level it would be very exciting, particularly next to less dynamic images. I'm in favour!

Tim

Thanks for the feedback all. Its always been an image that has divided my own opinion. I think that the general consensus is that it would be a lot stronger if it had some in focus elements in the image.

I don't remember if I took it with the RS (with 20-35mm) or F100 (with 17-35mm). It was a while ago. Shot in available light using a CC50 Red filter.

Alex