Why is the motion blur in this image so ugly?

The photo is fine or whatever. But look at the hands. It's just extremely unsettling, and I know my Canon dslr (while struggling in low light) wouldn't ever make such a monstrosity.

>>4443450 (OP)
>Why is the motion blur in this image so ugly?
Because the motion is AI slop.

>>4443476
Nope, it's a real Associated Press reporter's photo:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/04/politics/donald-trump-policy-bill-celebration

also, I tried google, all I can see is that it's probably snoy, since AP has a contract.

>>4443480
You think AP isn't using AI?

>>4443487
what ai?

>>4443480
>AP would never use AI bro
lol It's clearly AI slop. Stop kidding yourself. There is no integrity in modern journalism.

>>4443495
>The photo is fine or whatever. But look at the hands. It's just extremely unsettling,
That AI you obtuse retard. The picture is based on a real photo. The blur, the out of focus elements, the effects are all added. It's edited slop to create motion and focus.

>>4443526
How though?

>pet dog meme

>>4443450 (OP)
AI puke
posting AI slop on /p/ must be banned

>>4443630
IT
IS
NOT
YOU
LIAR:
>>4443480

Ridiculous.

>>4443631
SAAR DO THE NEEDFUL SAAAAAAAR
WHY DO YOU MAKE THIS LIEEEEEEEEE
SAAAAAAAAAAR

>>4443631
Kek, wtf

>Julia Demaree Nikhinson
This woman is clearly lying. She used AI slop.

>>4443487
>>4443523
Maybe you aren't as smart as you believe.

why is everyone saying this is AI? this a photography board? they just sat there with a slowish shutter speed and spammed a thousand pictures until they got one where johnson sat still. its been edited to highlight him but nothing really screams generative AI here.

>>4443692
it does. it has that no grain, smooth and polished ai slop look

>>4443703
it's heavily compressed and low res you fucking retard how can you even make those claims lmao go be a pretentious faggot somewhere else together with all your tranny brigade friends ITT

>>4443704
compressed? I seen it both on her insta and on this news >>4443480 article. everywhere it looks like AI slop with enhanced and artificial skin texture.

>>4443707
>photographer adds radial mask in lightroom
>AI SLOP AI SLOP AI SLOP

you are a moron. why would a DIGITAL picture shot with a slow ass shutter speed, probably at base ISO have fucking GRAIN?

>>4443707
You are visually illeterate

>>4443709
>>4443711
IT'S NOT AI SAAAAAR

>>4443703
>no grain
Not everyone shoots with a camera from the 1980s poor

>>4443716
You have literally no soul. You are a void of aesthetics. Fucking selling your shite.

>>4443717
there is zero chance you take good pictures.

>>4443718
Actually, I am one of the best photographer. Very few people know me right now. I'll achieve critical acclaim one day.

>>4443717
what fucking "grain" would there be in a picture taken by a digital camera
what you're talking about is noise and there's pretty much no noise when you shoot at proper exposure at iso 50

>>4443722
>Actually, I am one of the best photographer. Very few people know me right now. I'll achieve critical acclaim one day.

>>4443450 (OP)
The sad ugly truth is that not only was this photo created by AI, none of these people actually exist. America is run by a cadre of lizard people. AI was invented in 1867 and all photographs in human history have been created using AI.

>>4443724
You won't get it. I prescribe looking at great photography for at 2 years.

>>4443726
Keep projecting mate. But I know I am good.

>>4443727
Go back to plebbit retard

>>4443727
delete this

>>4443716
>>4443717
grain is nice

>>4443722
i am the photographer ever

>>4443724
noise, since 2000 we call it grain.

>>4443756
I'm in ur attic

>>4443774
>i am the photographer ever
I am not memeing. I have been fucked by my health issues otherwise I would have been the new hotshot in photography world.

>>4443692
I bet its miro four thirds cope

>>4443703
Yep, there it is

>I know my Canon dslr (while struggling in low light) wouldn't ever make such a monstrosity.

The average canon shooters mind, people.

>>4443806
Do you seriously think the image looks normal?

What could cause this?

Others saying ai are obviously silly. But maybe she's using software to combine images? I have only gotten smears like picrel when lightpainting with my phone (screens can look like that in long exposures).

>>4443817

oops picrel

>>4443818
That's how motion blur looks with canon/sony/nikon shutterless pro cameras.

>>4443818
That's just low shutter speed blur

Every now and then, you get a thread that brings out all the retards in one go.

it's artistic intent.....
baka................

>>4443833
imagine simping for lying bitch.

>>4443840
>artistic intent
result is fucking trash therefor usage of ai remains unjustified

>>4443843
You don't know what I'm "simping" for when I make a remark that encompasses everyone in the thread. Keep jumping at shadows, like the other retards.

You are right where you belong, whether you realize it or not.

>>4443846
What would you recommend?

>>4443824
>shutterless
oh dear. This is awful.

>>4443827
Right, motion blur. Except it looks like vomit.

On Canon, blur is beautiful. Wellll.... on my dslrs. idk about the mirrorless ones, the R series.

>>4443935
some mirrorless cameras have like 3-4 shutter types, and if im not mistaken, the electronic shutter options do have a noticeable effect on things like bokeh and motion blur.

>>4443936
Does the a7iii (non-s) have this problem? How about the a6ii? I am interested in them because they are 24mp and have high isos. Like maybe in the next 1-10 years, maybe. The prices have to drop a LOT. Plus if the blur looks like that, I don't want them at all ever.

>>4443946
The only cameras where this matters are compacts and flagships
>RP, R8, A7C, A7CII, A7CR
These are EFCS only, shutter speeds 1/1000+ deform bokeh balls and banding is an occasional issue. Blur might look a little strange. No shutter shock concerns.
>A9III, A1/II, R1, R3, Z9, Z8
These are meant to be used in shutterless mode most of the time, and are, to not be disruptive at events etc, and in the Z8/Z9 case can only be used in shutterless mode. Banding is more likely and motion blur can look strange.

>>4443954
>flagships
shame about flagships. I won't want to get them, ever. I like the flagship feel. So I'll be sticking to film and dslr, unless they fix the blur image quality problems with a firmware update.

>>4443956
Flagships are meant for soulless snapshits, not art. They hand them to unpaid interns and tell them to keep the guy in the middle of the frame.

The photo in the OP may have actually been an accident.

>>4443956
It's not a firmware thing, its a physics thing. with the EFCS option, it has to do with the difference in the how the unfocused light hits the sensor bewteen the "electric" front curtain and mechanical rear shutter. thats what affects the bokeh.

any mirrorless camera with a full mechanical shutter option is fine.

>>4443956
Yup, that's why no one at all ever uses the flagships
Totally unusable

>>4443962
I'm shocked. The result is disgusting looking.

>>4443959

>Mfw dual-wield F5 and D4

>>4443962
the people using flagships arent artists and dont give a fuck about anything but getting the shot. they are newspaper photographers. the finer subtleties of the look and feel of an image, especially down to blur character, distant foliage, and surface texture, mean so little to them sony successfully marketed a $4000 camera (a9iii) with m43 dr and canon’s top 3 models (r3 r1 r5ii) all have NR detected in raws at every ISO setting and have almost the same shadow recovery ability as a sony a6700, lumix g9ii, or fuji xt5. canon is even giving them AI NR in camera jpegs. photographers shudder. journalists cheer.

>>4443968
Yeah, I want to collect all of the flagships. But looks like I'll be skipping this gen of shutterless models.

>>4443976
This makes sense. You can have your friend be the "photographer" as a basically fake girl job.

>>4443976
>average photography fan
>noooo you have to take the greatest photo of that thing to ever exist
>you have to take a photo not of a thing, but of an idea
>nooooo stop just taking pictures of things
>you don't have enough tonality! it's not capturing the feeling like 6x9 film would
>how can you even call this photography? look, the reds in this tiny crop look kind of flat.

>average reportage enjoyer
>*snapsnapsnapsnap* haha, wow. this camera is awesome. i'm having a blast.

>>4443983
I'm not commenting on how you live your life. You don't have to be a photographer.

Photography is kind of angst adjacent.

Anyway, I was just looking at a hideous image and wondering why it was so awful. Turns out it's a shutterless problem. So now I know I don't want one of those, ever.

>>4443989
I think its funny that despite all of photographers angst about ~tha look~ and the tech specs that go into it, reportage makes up the majority of photography that actually gets viewed, and the majority of fine art photography including huge landscape prints and fashion work is done with reportage grade cameras, not hasselblads.

>>4443983
I wish more anons would just have fun doing the hobby instead of getting assblasted over non-perfect shots.

>>4444005
I'm not commenting on the shot, though. I was genuinely wondering why it looked so bad from a technical perspective.

>>4444040
Because the ultimate in snapshit technology is starting to noticeably decrease image quality compared to prior years snapshit machines.

>>4443824
What differences are there apart from a rolling shutter effect? And surely that wouldn't be very noticeable on something moving the speed of a hand.

Butlerian jihad when?

>>4444040
Nah wasn't a comment on the OP question. Just a general observation inspired by linked anon

>>4444040
What part is bad about it?

>>4444135
>>4443818
picrel. So I may not have a "wine critic" way of describing the badness here. It's bad. Apparently shutterless cameras do that.

>>4444135
>>4444147
Also, now that I have slept on it, I think this consolidates:
>>4443976
so basically ACTUALLY they are VERY NOISY CAMERAS. They have fake low noise at high iso. This becomes a problem in blurry areas, because the algorithms have no idea what to do.

So the motion blur at low isos is probably fine enough.

>>4443976
>the people using flagships arent artists and dont give a fuck about anything but getting the shot
True. Got so pissed off at my Fuji X-T200 missing shots, that I rage-bought a Z8. The main difference between the bodies is the ability always to get the shot in a split second.

Buying a speedlite and an ad200 was a greater artistic upgrade than changing cameras.

>>4444152
Should have just got an a7iii instead of spending $4000 on a meme camera lmao. Bad autofocus is only a fuji/panasonic thing, and a thing for the dead brands (pentax and olympus).

>>4444147
Any camera can do that, you are being misleading thinking that is only a shutterless thing, that's just how blur can look sometimes

>>4443480
>Nope, it's a real
why do you believe this?
You do not have sufficient evidence yet believe it anyways.

>>4444164
What is the sufficient evidence that it's not real?

>>4444158
>can do that
I can only replicate the image in post.

Apparently the problem is there is fake high iso that has lots of nr. The nr falls apart in motion blur (and maybe with camera shake even).

>>4444164
I don't have enough for the court of law. I have enough for The Court of Anon.

>>4444178
You should learn more about photography then

>>4444154
Make that $6k kitted out with one lens and accessories. Yeah, any non panafuji would have worked just as well.

>>4444205
there's no hope for you shitlibs

>>4444210
went out to get flashes on ebay. got me FOUR, because I won 2 auctions, oops. Now I just need stands lol oh and rechargable batteries