I've been reading through some old magazines which, (despite being 6 years old and having the newest 3.1MP digital SLR's..), have heaps of interesting ideas. Probably no more than I can get from other people at things like flickr meetups but still. There was this huge thing about using blur as an artistic effect and to be brutally honest, it just looked shit. I'm not sure what it was meant to be but it looked like a smudge of yellow.

Well I went out taking photos at twilight (just for practice), when I saw what would have been a great shot but I didn't notice the slight breeze. When I tried to re-do the photo the breeze just got stronger and the first happened to be the best. Just make me think, how bad is it to use blur to convey movement in a picture? Or are pictures just *supposed* to be still?
Here is mine:

I think it's a shame that it's blurry. I wanted to have it as my desktop background image but I think if I look at it too long my eyes are going to get sore just trying to focus it.
WOE is me. If only I had $659 for a 50mm f/1.4 lens... *wishes for donations*
poorly Maz