Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Hobbo has written a great narrative. How much of that might apply would be interesting to find out, but it certainly goes with the image.
As this was taken a few years ago, how does this relate to your photography today?
First of all, if you wanted it all blurred, then that's fine, it works for you.
Moving water is a marmite thing, you either like it or hate it.
It's great to see such experimentation in both taking the original image and in post processing.
Both images have their merits and to a large extent it's down to personal preference which one is preferred.
I used your colour version and did a mon oconversion from that.
There's nothing wrong with using higher ISOs if the conditions warrant it, but here yes you could shoot at say 400. The animal isn't moving so you don't need to stop the action.
V3 is helpful as it shows how big a crop V1 is, which only magnifies the inherent softness. It's more impressionistic in its look, though a blurred woman and sharper phone booths or vice versa would make for a more visually engaging image. Or taken at a slower speed so there's more movement blur in the background thus enhancing the feeling of rushing along the street.
Would it make a good print and would it sell are two very different questions.
I have to admit it doesn't look unnatural to me, rather effective.
They eye needs to be perfectly sharp - it's only just off here so by applying extra sharpening selectively in software will help.
This does look sharper than yesterday's. There are still a couple of dust spots visible.