i enjoy it when focus is used as a creative photographic tool and not the most important aspect of an image. i also enjoy it when IMO an out of focus image creates a stronger photograph than if sharp critical focus had been employed on the subject/focus of that image (pun 50% intended), whether on purpose or not.
personal preference, no opinion is more right than the other.
Thanks.
I agree with 90% of this. There's a series of photographs of city lights, entirely out of focus. Bokeh, essentially. I can't find a link or remember a name. I really like those images. I, myself, have been a 'bokeh freak' for a number of years. I won't use lenses that don't do OOF well. I have a Canon 85/1.2L for goodness sake. I LOVE out of focus bits in photographs. But, if i take a photograph and what i intended to be in focus is not in focus, and or the image is simply 'soft' because i 'missed' focus, i regard it as a technical failure. If i can't rehabilitate the image somehow, i discard it.
To me, the purpose or intent IS important. Certainly, someone could call a mistake an intent and no one is the wiser. But, when the viewer perceives it as a mistake, i believe it's a failed image. Of course, not everyone will agree with that assessment, and that's the nature of art. My problem, though, is when something is called art, or deemed acceptable or valuable simply because it has a name attached to it. It's sort of a projected narcissism. Maybe it's not even projected - after all, the photographer decided to exhibit the image.
I'm sure that most of my attitude in this regard comes from my photographic education and then my work as a graphic designer/art director. For the latter, there are certain conditions that must be met, and technical proficiency is chief among them.
This is now a thread less about HC-B than about something akin to 'standards' and i apologize for hijacking it.
I have to ask, though: if focus is so overrated, why do we bother? Why do we spend thousands of dollars on lenses, scanners, printing?
