Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I understand that. Yet, I find it curious that something that is not in focus can be "distracting" as opposed to everything being in focus wouldn't be accused of being "distracting" because you get to see "everything".
To me it's paradoxical (to put it mildly) that something that is selectively in focus could be perceived as inducing a distraction. And then when they come around explaining what "distracting" means, they have their personal interpretation, yet the word "distracting" is in itself "distracting" from the overall comment because it's just thrown out as-is, as if being dismissive (sometimes bordering on contempt).
Then again, that's just me. Some are very critical of not-everything-in-focus images, some are very critical of not-exactly-explanatory comments.
It'd just be nice to see some consistency in such reactions (e.g. an explanatory, non-distractingly simple "that's distracting" comment)
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'd argue that there are photographers that indeed make the image, presented as-is. I think it's like complaining that free-style poetry is distracting because it's missing conventional sentence structure, and it makes --my oh my-- poetic interpretations or jeux des mots instead of literal, novelist ones. Judging poetry as lacking because it's not a novel misses the point.
Photography is also a very broad field; not all points of view must fit to make them "worthy" of being looked at.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sure. Anything can be done, and done successfully. It's just that some things are more difficult than others, especially if you're jumping onto an already overloaded bandwagon.
Cheers,
R.
Thomas-Paris
Member
Which works fine until it shows up on the front page of the newspaper: http://www.youkioske.com/prensa-europea/le-monde-26-mai-2011/
What was this photographer thinking?
This can be said about Photography as a whole though too...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
AndySig
Established
I think what we define as "distracting" is where we do get into subjective areas based on our own aesthetic perceptions. Consider some of the examples posted on this thread. On #289 the bus stop is, rightly in my opinion, a bit out of focus. It is clear what it is so it does not distract in the sense I posted above and it probably needs to be out of focus in that shot because if it were sharp an informal portrait would have perhaps been reduced to a dull suburban snapshot.
The same applies to the cafe shot in 226 although I think with that picture one could have gone either way: maybe have maximum OOF of the background to render it really abstract and irrelevant or have everything sharp to put the subject in context. However, in my opinion, the picture works well as it is.
The second shot on #29 (the pale one) is IMO a masterpiece in the use of OOF to achieve a dreamlike picture. There's not much more one can say except perhaps that the subject matter really lent itself to that treatment.
Similarly the cherry tree (I assume it's a cherry tree) on #332 barely has a subject but we do know that the OOF rest of the picture is more of the same and for me this is a picture that gets better with contemplation i.e. the reduction of elements through the use of OOF makes the picture.
In short there was nothing in any of those pictures which I found distracting and the use of OOF in them ranged from entirely justifiable to sublime.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
My (rephrased) point is this:
"Photography" is a very wide and rich field. Criticizing a photo for "lacking" this or "having too much" of that (distractions, blurriness, sharpness, --insert pet peeve here--) shows more about either some narrow-mindedness, astigmatism or misunderstanding from the critic than anything.
If one reads a poem, and one accuses it of "lacking in words" or not having a defined plot, shows more about a novel-minded ("novel" not meaning "new") mind and less about someone who appreciates the words as being a poem. Or looking at a hut and complaining that it lacks a solid concrete foundation. Or complaining that a Picasso is too unrealistic, even saying that Bach's Cello Suite No.6 relies on gimmicks and that the fact that one needs a fifth (E) string is "distracting".
Yes, "Distracting" is subjective, but is 99% of the time thrown out there as-is, absolute, as if it means something concrete and thus not requiring an explanation. They take the time to say the negative/lacking issues without even explaining why, prompting others to make a critique of sorts of the critique (sic).
That, to me, is the real distraction: taking the argument outside of the image. A critique is more often than not an enumeration of "what is wrong", and hardly ever does it cite "what is right". *That* is "distracting".
Not everything has to be a masterpiece. Not every photo has to be a prize-winning one (and let me tell you, there are some really lousy prizes out there). Yes, there's a lot of crap out there. Why spend the energy on pointing it out dismissively? That accomplishes nothing. It's like burping loudly at a restaurant to let everybody know the food made you gassy. No one is required to do that. And it's distracting (to say the least).
"Photography" is a very wide and rich field. Criticizing a photo for "lacking" this or "having too much" of that (distractions, blurriness, sharpness, --insert pet peeve here--) shows more about either some narrow-mindedness, astigmatism or misunderstanding from the critic than anything.
If one reads a poem, and one accuses it of "lacking in words" or not having a defined plot, shows more about a novel-minded ("novel" not meaning "new") mind and less about someone who appreciates the words as being a poem. Or looking at a hut and complaining that it lacks a solid concrete foundation. Or complaining that a Picasso is too unrealistic, even saying that Bach's Cello Suite No.6 relies on gimmicks and that the fact that one needs a fifth (E) string is "distracting".
Yes, "Distracting" is subjective, but is 99% of the time thrown out there as-is, absolute, as if it means something concrete and thus not requiring an explanation. They take the time to say the negative/lacking issues without even explaining why, prompting others to make a critique of sorts of the critique (sic).
That, to me, is the real distraction: taking the argument outside of the image. A critique is more often than not an enumeration of "what is wrong", and hardly ever does it cite "what is right". *That* is "distracting".
Not everything has to be a masterpiece. Not every photo has to be a prize-winning one (and let me tell you, there are some really lousy prizes out there). Yes, there's a lot of crap out there. Why spend the energy on pointing it out dismissively? That accomplishes nothing. It's like burping loudly at a restaurant to let everybody know the food made you gassy. No one is required to do that. And it's distracting (to say the least).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
But at that point, we can never discuss anything. The point of any critique (including my original post) is simply to make people think about what THEY do, and about what THEY like. If more people thought more about their pictures, there would be fewer lousy pictures, no matter how you care to define 'lousy'.
Or are you now going to argue that all pictures are identical, so it is meaningless to say that some are better than others? Because I can't see where else your argument leads.
Cheers,
R.
Steve Ash
Established
dof
dof
I do prefer shots with shallow dof, which more precisely means images with foreground and background oof focus but the subject within dof. What I do not like too much if this is overdrawn and the subject itself is only partly within the DOF. So one has to take care to stop the aperture down depeding on the distance to the subject.
Regards,
Steve
dof
I do prefer shots with shallow dof, which more precisely means images with foreground and background oof focus but the subject within dof. What I do not like too much if this is overdrawn and the subject itself is only partly within the DOF. So one has to take care to stop the aperture down depeding on the distance to the subject.
Regards,
Steve
scottgee1
RF renegade
Link doesn't work; perhaps this one will:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x100/sample-images/DSCF2596.JPG
btw, while we're at it, shall we all pitch in and buy Ken a smell chucker?
Last edited:
rogerzilla
Well-known
Check this out.
http://artatm.com/2010/07/76-amazing-examples-of-bokeh-photography/
Willy-waving? Not in all cases. There's some great stuff here.
http://artatm.com/2010/07/76-amazing-examples-of-bokeh-photography/
Willy-waving? Not in all cases. There's some great stuff here.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(1) No. Your interpretation and my intention are not necessarily the same thing.
(2) Some are: some aren't. We should ALL think about what we do more.
(3) Read what I said, not what you want me to say. Lousy photos can be lousy for all sorts of reasons: I did not limit it to shallow d-o-f. The clue lies in the phrase "no matter how you care to define 'lousy'"
Over the course of my life, I've learned quite a lot from other people (in fact, you could say, 'almost everything I know', just like everyone else). Quite often, I've learned from disagreeing with others, and from thinking about why I disagree. But the key word is 'thinking'.
Cheers,
R.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
True. But my complaint with critiques is that a vast majority of them are unhelpful. An opinion does not make a critique (or vice-versa) just by its mere existence. I would argue that critiques need critiquing. Just like "everybody's a photographer", "everybody's a critic", and most are bad or mediocre at either.
Catch-all shorthand adjectives begin to lose meaning after overuse. If people were a bit more focused and eloquent, there wouldn't be misuses of words, and hence it wouldn't be prompting to elaborate on such (e.g. "lousy")
No, no. There are really bad photos, and there are really good photos. Yet most are unexceptional: among the Unexceptional Sea, semi-sentence cries of "best photo ever" and "worst photo ever" mean nothing.
What I'm arguing is that there are no absolutes, and pointing the absolutist finger at everything is ridiculously blind. If only we could articulate better our likes and dislikes, we wouldn't be going around in trying to figure out what everybody else is saying. Mental laziness adds to this problem. I think it is lazy to dismiss something just because one doesn't like it.
Sometimes there is context (social, cultural, historical) which makes us believe that due to its value it makes it "good" or "bad". How many people here thinks that Doisneau's "The Kiss" is good? Technically, it's bad. Yet to many it's good.
Getting hung up on only one aspect (technical, historical, cultural, emotional) makes us blind to what is good or bad in a photo. And in this thread you see a lot of "if it's not in focus it's not serious/good" or "if it's too much in focus it's too serious".
Each photo is unique (whether it's bad, mediocre or good), and there is much more to it than just the image or the gear. Unique is not necessarily exceptional. And there is this obsession with "exceptional" sometimes to the point of being religious.
If everything were simple to explain, simple to make, everything would be boring. Yet we gravitate towards stating dichotomies like "all Lomo photos are bad" or "if it's not like Ansel Adams, it's not serious" or "give me Warhol or give me death".
I guess, in short: I don't like extremism. To me, it has no place anywhere. Including photography. And we see and read a lot of "philosophies" gravitating towards it (one lens/one film/one camera/one style/one aperture range to avoid/one look to have).
I believe that us humans devolve once we get stuck on a specialty.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: The original post was not so much a critique as an observation. A critique normally refers to a specific picture or pictures.
Highlight 2: We agree completely about extremism. Re-read my original post, and indeed any of my subsequent ones. I do not think you will find any extremism on my part. I repeatedy say that the technique can be used well. At most, I am complaining that all too often, it isn't.
Highlight 3: Likewise, where are the dismissals? The consensus seems to be, "Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't." Few if any have said, "It always works" or "It never works."
Highlight 4: And you're complaining about generalizations?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes. That all of us should think more. Indeed, if you care to reverse it, that none of us thinks quite enough. If you find that presumptuous, I can't understand your thought processes either.
Are you absolutely confident that you always think enough? About everything? If you genuinely believe that you have never made a mistake, or taken a wrong turning, through not thinking something through, then you are either unique among humanity or very, very arrogant.
Cheers,
R.
Chinasaur
Well-known
Roger? You're sounding like Nick. And this thread is about OOF backgrounds. Ok?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Oh, dear. But all I was suggesting is that OOF backgrounds are, indeed, something to think about. It needn't be a lot of agonizing, but equally, we all do things sometimes without thinking them through. Or at least, I've never met anyone who hasn't.
Cheers,
R.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Roger - I'm not talking about the OP (as I've stated in more than a few posts back). It's the hodgepodge that followed (in the typical "Good" vs. "Evil" fashion) There is just about everything in here.
I think we can all agree that there are way too many moving ducks to keep tabs on the first or second one.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Gabriel,
Sorrry. You have indeed stated that. I was just a bit low when I wrote the last post in the middle of the night. I couldn't sleep because during the day we had been robbed of 60 euros by a couple of gypsies, through our own carelessness. They arrived at the door purportng to be collecting money for a good cause. We took them at their word, foolishly neglecting to ask for any identification, and gave them 10 euros. When they asked for a gass of water, we gave it to them, and they stole 50 euros from Frances's wallet. The theft was bad enough, but the way that they traded on our goodwill as well as our stupidity left a very nasty taste in the mouth. The gendarmes were very good, but as they said, these people will soon move on...
Cheers,
R.