Shutter speed for street shooting

[hammam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did a few snaps of people walking in the streets the other day, and I was amazed to see that even at 1/125th. there is still some motion blur. Granted, most of the shots were of people crossing my line of sight at right angle, but they were going at a normal walking pace. Would you say that this kind of photography requires an even faster shutter speed? Thanks.

[nhabedi]

I did a few snaps of people walking in the streets the other day, and I was amazed to see that even at 1/125th. there is still some motion blur. Granted, most of the shots were of people crossing my line of sight at right angle, but they were going at a normal walking pace. Would you say that this kind of photography requires an even faster shutter speed? Thanks.

 

I'd say this depends very much on a) how far away these people are from you and the focal length. Yes, you can certainly have motion blur with 1/125, so if you want everything to look "frozen" you might need shorter times depending on the circumstances.

 

Keep in mind, though, that often motion blur is or can be an interesting element of a "street" shot. I've seen lots of "street" shots that looked totally artificial because everything was sharp and frozen - pretty unreal.

[hammam]

I'd say this depends very much on a) how far away these people are from you and the focal length. Yes, you can certainly have motion blur with 1/125, so if you want everything to look "frozen" you might need shorter times depending on the circumstances.

 

Keep in mind, though, that often motion blur is or can be an interesting element of a "street" shot. I've seen lots of "street" shots that looked totally artificial because everything was sharp and frozen - pretty unreal.

Well, the lens is a Summarit 35, and the people were at approximately 5 meters, like across a narrow street. Framed head to toe, and then some. In this particular instance, I wanted them to look sharp, but I agree with you that some motion blur can be interesting. But it has to be enought to really introduce a notion of movement. In this particular case, the blur is not quite enough to look interesting, and it's too much to not look like operator error, if you see what I mean.

[Anguish]

My understanding is that digital blurs at about a stop faster than film. If this is true, the motion you are capturing at 1/125 digital is the equivalent of a 1/60 exposure on film.

 

Why, I don't know, but I was told this years ago when digi first came out and I have held it as a truth since and experience appears to have proved this out.

[Guest mc_k]

1/125 is actually what I would guess to safely stop them, 1/30 for an "artistic" blur. But the street shooters can correct me; maybe there is a rule of thumb.

[nhabedi]

My understanding is that digital blurs at about a stop faster than film. If this is true, the motion you are capturing at 1/125 digital is the equivalent of a 1/60 exposure on film.

 

Why, I don't know, but I was told this years ago when digi first came out and I have held it as a truth since and experience appears to have proved this out.

 

That would be true on crop cameras like the M8 given the same print size, but it shouldn't be the case for a full frame digital camera. Of course, as I've said in other threads already, you should always judge by the prints you want to make. In the digital age it is tempting to pixel-peep on your screen, but it's wrong.

[Guest mc_k]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...you see what I mean.

 

can't really say without seeing the pic

[rob_x2004]

1/125 is actually what I would guess to safely stop them,

 

Depends how close they are. Twenty feet out 1/125th will be fine. Five, ten feet out the same movement will arc a across a larger part of the negative. When you are shooting very short lenses, you may have a forgiving depth of field, but motion blur needs to be considered.

[trs]

A teacher said that he shoots in shutter priority @ 1/250 because that is what he found he could avoid the blur.

 

I like 1/125 because I find my M8's shutter sound quitest there and I do get blur as well often, both subject and I are moving, so totally expected.

[Guest mc_k]

1/125 is actually what I would guess to safely stop them....

 

because he said "5 meters."

[Guest mc_k]

True...double the distance and you can get by with double the exposure time. This is irrespective of the direction of the subject. To be clear, I am talking about subject motion, not camera motion.

 

...When you are shooting very short lenses, you may have a forgiving depth of field, but motion blur needs to be considered.

 

hmm, with a shorter lens at the same distance you will need LESS consideration of motion blur. Halve the focal length and you can get by with double the exposure time.

[ndjambrose]

It depends on the direction the person is walking in as much as anything.

 

If the subject is walking towards camera you can get a perceptibly sharp image as low as 1/60. If they're walking at right angles to the camera you may need as high as 1/500 before you stop motion blur. There are no concrete answers, as it depends on other factors such as walking speed and subject to camera distance.

 

I take a lot of my street shots when the subject is walking and I am walking too, which obviously increases relative movement even further. In short - it's not really possible to answer your question in absolute terms, except to point out that if sharpness is critical to you, it's best to use the fastest shutter speed you can get away with relative to the DOF that you need for focusing. On a bright day, you could have the benefit of working at 1/1500 or more, which would be adequate for all conditions.

[Guest mc_k]

sensible