(Jonathon Newton - The Washington Post)
According to the
article in the WaPo, the photographer stated...
Quote: I set the shutter speed at 1/30th of a second, with the aperture setting at f11. The ISO rating was 200. The slow shutter speed created the blur and I rotated the lens slightly -- about 10 degrees -- to create a sense of motion. I focused the camera on Strasburg and when he pitched his head remained still enough to keep that part of the photograph in focus.
Not knocking the photo, but I don't buy the explanation of the technique.
If the lens was actually "rotated" as I believe was stated in the article, with the camera centered on Strasburg's face, then the in-focus crowd on the left would be rotation-blurred just like the crowd on the right. If he had done a lens rotation with the camera centered on the leftside crowd, Strasburg would be blurred just as much or more than the rightside crowd, because he was closer to the camera and thus would have exhibited even more angular movement.
If the lens had been "zoomed" everything would have exhibited some blur, even the people in the left side background who are as sharp as tacks. This would be true even if they were the original center of the image and what we are seeing is a cropped version. And in this event, Strasburg would be even more blurred than the rightside crowd since he is closer to the camera.
I'm also having trouble with what appear to be two distinct zones of focus... Strasburg AND the background crowd. Even with perfect hyperfocal technique this would be hard to pull off with a 200-400mm zoom, even at f11 the DOF just isn't there.
I'd love to have someone explain how this could really be done in-camera and account for all of the apparent discrepencies. Because otherwise...
Mike