[Leica] BLUR rebuttal

[lrzeitlin at aol.com (lrzeitlin at aol.com)]

 Well, my comments on BLUR certainly produced a reaction. Everyone told me I 
was wrong or made some nonsensical comment abut not being able to see 
hummingbird's wings or fan blades. But no one impugned my facts.


1. We don't normally see blur when we look at a moving object. It has 
nothing to do with physics, or biology, or even medicine. It's the way the 
eye works and the brain interprets the visual image. If your school told you 
otherwise, sue the school. We have learned a lot in the last few decades. 
Read the current literature.


2.? Photographic blur is an artifact of the photographic process. Cameras 
don't have to record blur. Lenses and sensors today are fast enough to stop 
a fan blade or a speeding bullet. I have a relatively inexpensive camera 
that records nice images at 1/4000 second. I remember when Leica was praised 
for releasing a camera with a 1/1000 second shutter speed.


3. We interpret blur as implying motion. This is simply a learned 
convention. There is no motion at all in a static two dimensional photo. Nor 
is their any depth. Our brains do a lot of image correction and processing 
to form a perception. The retinal image is altered by the brain to provide 
size constancy, shape constancy, and color constancy. If you are unfamiliar 
with these terms, look them up. The world we see is only partly out there, 
the rest is in our heads. We interpret photos in the same way as direct 
visual images. It is all learned.


4. Vision is a photochemical process. Naturally we can't see rotating fan 
blades, hummingbird's flapping wings or speeding bullets. The image flashing 
across he retina is too fast for the photochemical process to occur. But a 
camera can record it. In the Motion contest almost all the hummingbird's 
wings were quite clear. There were no speeding trains at right angles to the 
camera, and certainly no bullets. A lot of blurred bicycles and dogs though. 
If you actually bike or play with your dog, the image is clear.


5. I reject the concept that sports should be shown blurred to imply action. 
The sports photos on Scott Grant's website had violent action but were 
needle sharp. We all praised those pictures, even without blur.?


6. Finally I am very familiar with Ted's comments that motor sports should 
be shown blurred. In my distant youth I was a member of the the SCCA, the 
Sports Car Club of America, and competed in many races in a Porsche 
Speedster with a hopped up 1500 cc Super engine. A small trophy shelf proves 
it. ?I can assure you that even at 120 mph the roadway appeared perfectly 
sharp and I could see every pothole and oil slick. No blur at all. If the 
visual image had been blurred I probably would not be here to write this 
Jeremiad today.


If you still doubt what I have to say, I suggest that you introspect about 
your own visual experience. Look around the room. Do thing appear blurred 
when you move your eyes. Of course not. Can you drive down a road and see 
objects clearly. Of course. Just remember that blur in action shots is a 
convention. If you want to suggest rapid motion do it primarily by content.?


Sorry Ted. We and most of the LUG are old school. New photographers should 
try to emulate your son.


Larry Z