So as a professional, what are you opinions on the 'Still' vs. 'Motion Blur' debate?? It helps to know what the target audience likes, so we can incorporate those into our shots.
Yes, the flame is real but very elusive!! It's very hard to hit the button just in time to catch a good flame (i think it lasts only like 3-5 frames), but if you anticipate, and are persistant enough, you'll eventually get it.
Stills vs Motion:
In old school there was no Photoshop so blurs were simply slow shutter speed. I remember the most difficult shot was the ZOOM shot, where you had to slow shutter and zoom the lens while shooting. It rendered a nice flare motion effect. Try that in 1/30th of a second in real life!
The entire SLR industry pushed to make faster shutters precisely to FREEZE motion. My OM-1 above has a top of 1/1000th of a second. Today's cams offer 1/4000 as in GT4. I have an OM4 cam with top of 1/2000th. Ah! But film is unstable above 1/1000th.
Digital cams are a cop-out in my view!
Composition and lighting (exposure) are probably more important to the final image than blur itself. And don't forget GT4 is not real. It has both tripod mounted (less blur) & hand-held positions within the 64 angle choices.
The rule is don't overdo it I suppose. I'm not a pro race photographer but photography is a numbers game, especially for fast moving objects.
Your shots are excellent! So trust your own judgment - if you cant stop looking at the shot, or it always catches your eye in TN mode at ImageShack, then you probably have a long-time seller 👍