Re: 3-D motion blur

[Linnstaedt@xxxxxxx]

This is one of those parameters of art which must be under control:  it can
spoil a picture, or add an important element.  A little blur can suggest
motion especially if it so rapid that one might easily expect it to seem like
a blur in real life.  If it is the blur created by someone wiggling during a
low speed exposure, it is usually a ruined shot.  There can be no rules
abridging judgement and creativity in art-photography.  Using it judiciously,
as a technique among your pallet of options will help you avoid the
"snapshot" appearance.

Recently, I stereophotographed in Jerusalem, Israel at the Church of the Holy
Sepulcre which is so dark, human eyes cannot see all there is to see.  A time
exposure lets one see what the tourists saw, and the things they could not.
 I made a 30-second exposure at the traditional site where the cross of Jesus
stood. It's surrounded by "beautifying" icons, hanging lamps, candles and
gold -- stunning in 3-D.  There is a blur:  a Korean Christian silently
approached the altar, knelt underneath to pray, and then left -- all while
the shutter was open.

Is this shot ruined?  Under the altar, the blur is transparent enough that
one can still make out details of the scene.  It is impossible to view the
holy sites without occassionally having other persons block your view.  But
is it accurate to portray the place of ultimate sacrifice, without the
presence of one for whom sacrifice was made?  I kept the shot; the shadowy,
ghostly presence of a worshipper conveys the motif of humble spiritual
devotion at an awesome experience.

Rev. Robert Linnstaedt


------------------------------