Blurred photos

peterm1 said:
This kind of photography is very trendy at the moment
Click to expand...


If it's a trend, it's a very long trend. I remember when I was learning how to develop and print, that many of the "seasoned" members at the community darkroom had a "blurry" thing going on.

You could tell that there were two main veins, each with their small dissident core: the younger/newbie ones, always striving to have everything in focus, and have those prints as sharp and contrasty as possible (with MC paper). Their prints would be the flattest.

Then there were the older/seasoned ones, always striving to have their prints have the tones they wanted, really taking their time rinsing/washing their fiber paper. Their prints would be, of course, the wrinkliest.

Then there was the oddball who would have a mix of Anal-Adams-retentiveness when it came to exposure, development, and printing, and then the other extreme where the guy would make it a point to go against common sense and use spent developer, spent fixer, slightly expose film to light before development...and he used Rolleiflex and Hassies.

Anyway...it was the seasoned art students who tended to make those "ghastly", "sickly", "unfocused" prints, while the new students tended to make sharp sharp sharp shots of buildings, walls, gardens, trees...it was literally night and day.

There was one journalist who used the room for nonjournalism work. Best stuff I saw. It was by watching him that I learned a lot.

But I'm on a tangent.

There is a very fine line between "blurry" shots and "lacking discipline". While in some B&W photo magazines I sometimes see what I saw in that darkroom, most of the "trendy blurry" stuff really doesn't work well on a poorly-printed medium such as a newstand magazine. Part of that process is the print itself. That gets lost on the magazine. Magazines are more about "the image" rather than "the work".

Hobbyists haven't been very exposed to the whole spectrum of what is possible in the world of photography. Hard-core wannabe "artists" think they can get away with anything by calling their stuff "art". It takes a very dedicated craftsman/craftswoman to be true to the Photography medium.

There are a lot of people who cut corners, financially, artistically, mentally. These are the kind that tend to spend more time marketing themselves. It is very very very difficult to assess the real worth of one kind of photography when one is bombarded with really mediocre sources and streams of it.

I would not so quick to judge one style based on something one sees in only one type of media.
 
We must all remember that there are many many shades of grey, and that grey isn't just "grey". Same with "sharpness" and "blurriness".
 
KenR said:
All of the RFF members who anguish over which lens is sharper - the regular or the ASPH are wasting time and money. I just received my B+W Special Portfolio Issue - about half of the photos are blurred or out of focus. No need to bother with expensive lenses! Just shoot away - near subjects, use f/1.4 and set camera at infinity; far subjects, use f/1.4 and set at 3 feet. No thought involved, no time wasted on selective focusing or depth of field - what could be simpler? At least there were no nudes wearing Mardi Gras masks, but there was a blurry chicken. (I feel much better now that I got that off my chest.) :)
Click to expand...

As long as it made you feel better. But I can assure you, there is plenty of skill and talent involved in making prints by people like Michael Ackerman and Antoine d'agata...
 
I think all have touched on the key points - blur to show movement, blur in one area to focus the viewer's attention on another area, etc. That is blur for a reason. I have used it myself, sometimes planned and sometimes not, but NOT as an end unto itself. But, the sense from those in the magazine, when someone produces a portfolio of blurred pictures, is "blur because I can do blur." There seemed (to me) no valid reason other than to produce a "trendy" portfolio of blur.
 
Philadelphia side street
Nikon S3 w/ 5cm f/1.4 wide open
5468772529_c53a471ca9_z.jpg


NYC Subways
Mamiya C33
5513661208_0a90891946_z.jpg
 
Some very nice samples here.

Often, blur is seen as a defect. Some with a keen eye see it as an effect; like in painting: pointilism would have been seen as madness by pantheists. Impressionism as technical laziness by the realists. Realism as intellectual laziness by cubists.

Etc.

But just grabbing a can of tomato soup does not make you a graphic genius, but merely a graphic commentator.

Etc. etc. etc.


Si las cosas que valen la pena fueran fáciles, cualquier tonto las haría. --- Fulano de Tal
 
the first roll from my Voskhod, with self-made red-scale film (Kodak Max 400, i think).
Never can get use to the vertical control setting, hence the blur...
i am quite fond of that dreamy effect
">">">
 
Please excuse me for being the old curmudgeon but I noticed that those who decry the excessive attention to lens resolution and optical performance specs, almost always use expensive Leica's (M6, M7, M9, etc.) and the finest lenses which were not, to my knowledge, designed to provide a "dreamy" look.

Actually, I would think that lens performance means image control - if you want a clear sharp image or a blurred one, you can do it more predictably and with greater control.
 
This recent shot came to mind immediately for me. But after looking at some of these, maybe this isn't blurry enough! Next time I'll be sure to focus to infinite and beyond!

18220008_RF.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom