Blurred photos

K

KenR

Well-known
Local time
11:11 AM
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
843
View My Gallery
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.) 🙂
 
This kind of photography is very trendy at the moment - and it can result in some good images. I sometimes buy "Color" magazine which seems to have a lot of this sort of stuff. I was inspired to try it myself recently. Not saying mine is any good - it was more an experiment.

Just a bit of fun!


_DSC4537a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


P1020870a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
 
I've seen many photos in B&W like what you describe. Also, I made a lens for my Leica IIIf that somewhat mimics this. It isn't something that I like or want to pursue but they do have a feeling different from a regular photo:

5674156654_034aab3fdd.jpg


and a little cheerier:

5674157136_208e47c3e5.jpg
 
I hate to say this because I love lenses like Summicrons, Heliars, etc, but some of my more interesting (and old timey looking) shots have come from cameras w/ crap lenses and out of focus subjects. Have no idea why.

That shot of Brian's is haunting, and it's a composition that really shouldn't work w/ all of those diagonals going all different angles, but just that little bit of dark in the bottom right balances it. The model was fortuitously placed too w/ the tree line behind her framing her head. We should have a forum just for composition.
 
Last edited:
But there is something different about out of focus and blurry. Blurry, to me, is not out of focus it is just a lousy lens. Now a lousy lens can be a really great thing. I thought that I had reached nirvana with a flipped Brownie Hawkeye Flash lens:

3083874260_18ba0372f0.jpg


But it looked like PhotoShop.

So I tried other homemade lenses to fit on good bodies:

3114009818_1f5a4ae3d3.jpg


I think this is a almost wide open Instamatic lens on my Leica.

Or a try at a Hollywood Reflex lens on a Pentax 6x7:

4260421054_d10ab281a8.jpg


Well, the search goes on, basically I think it isn't as easy as it looks.
 
There seems to be more to this that I had thought. I never fathomed the differences between blurry photos and lousy lens, as most of mine seem to combine the two qualities.

The first one here was from an Argus C3 that had a mis-focusing lens, and the second is basically bad film, bad processing, and a Zorki I w/ shutter issues.

5749091180_b517994c3b_z.jpg


5749091182_ba99be390e_z.jpg




None of these are very blurred though. This one is, the result not of a bad lens, but of a bad photographer, as the lens was on a Super Ikonta 531A.

5749125812_b1f70c358b_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sorry guys, not blurred enough. These were quite nice. I have gotten the same effect when I have taken an out of focus photo of my shoes with frame #0 - that's what this issue was filled with. I am seaching for my shoe photos to submit for the next special issue.
 
It was HCB that said sharpness is a bourgeois concept...

I never got caught up in the whole sharpness/lens resolution game...
Oye_Cuba_2961.jpg
 
Chris101 said:
Heh. I did that. When I read about Miroslav Tichy I made this out of a "Capt'n Crunch" binocular:
nycore.jpg
Pictures from it are here.
Click to expand...


Very nice!

KenR, last night I remembered that a trick for soft photos (not out of focus) that was used in the 60s-70s: it was to smear Vaseline on a UV, Skylight, or Haze filter. You will have better successful using a SLR or DSLR so you can predetermine the effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom