Totally bokeh

I like oof photos if I take them, but generally am not that interested in seeing other's oof images. Does that make sense?

247593811_uQ3SZ-L.jpg


notice the careful rule of 1/3rds composition here. This is the result of using 1 camera and 1 lens for 1 year. It was also at this point that I realized that the 3:2 format was not as ideal for me as a more square format like 4:3...
 
Last edited:
Neare said:
Jackson Pollock throws paint onto a canvas. He does not 'paint' a subject, yet his work is what is simply known as Art.
He earns more money than you or me probably ever will. He is regarded as one of the most influential painters currently living.

I wonder what his school art teacher would have thought of him if he was asked to 'paint' something and simply flicked paint at his canvas?

I'd bet you they wouldn't be impressed.
Click to expand...

OOF images have been made for many, many years... they are nothing new, I'd say they are one of photography's many cliches. You are referencing a specific time in art when his (JP's) idea was fresh. OFF images aren't fresh... Can they be nice at times? Yes. Are they typically covering up for lack of vision in "traditional" photography? Perhaps. Are they successful most of the time? No. Should anyone who wants to work this way be told not to? No.
 
Pollock died in 1956.

Can OOFs be regarded as non-representational? I can see a tree, snow, people, fence... above. Not abstract in the sense of Pollock or Rothko.

I love OOF images, especially architecture and cityscapes. They are hard to do well, you still have to think about the composition and the exposure. I have two hundred OOFs of a monkey at the zoo, because it was jumping around too fast. No artistic merit, just an out of focus monkey. I'd rather have had him in focus. YMMV.

best regards,
Alex
 
Bokeh to me is a representation of the world now.

Fast food, fast fashion and for those who remember......Fast Eddie.

If you think of the hundreds of trillions that was lost in the recent global meltdown, who exactly shouldered this loss? Some retiree in Biloxy? Some struggling single mother in Bogota? Well there are still some that have the tetra bucks.

Shallow focus. This is how I got my pic to become blurry. I just wanted to make a statement that the world has become very myopic. Just like someone famous said History always repeats itself....... (and I may add) and this is helped by people in the financial world demanding for bigger and bigger returns.

Wealth today is not based on gold or silver in the vault. It is based on IOU.

Some countries are borrowing on their future income and the next generation will have to repay not only the amount borrowed but also the interest. Where exactly does this income or wealth come from anyway? Not gold or silver in the vault.

Let me ask, with the new digital leicas, does that make your M3 obsolete? If there wasn't a digital leica, what would you do?

I can make a sharp picture but sometimes a blurry picture is soothing to the eye after 12 hours of looking at computer where everything has to be 110% correct and it was needed yesterday.

So bokeh or not bokeh, its an individual choice.

Just my 2cents
 
I always thought that Capa's D-day photos had the emulsion cooked by a darkroom tech who turned up the heat on the drier because he was eager to see the negs. They look out-of-focus because the emulsion ran a bit down the base.

That said, IMO out-of-focus shots work occationally, especially if there is one small area in focus.
 
KenR said:
I always thought that Capa's D-day photos had the emulsion cooked by a darkroom tech who turned up the heat on the drier because he was eager to see the negs. They look out-of-focus because the emulsion ran a bit down the base.
...
Click to expand...

I think this is a story "cooked" up by Capa in order to support his image. My reasoning follows:

Capa was not above changing his version of reality to suit his professional needs. His name "Robert Capa" was not his given name, but one he chose to get noticed. He chose Robert because it sounded ubiquitously American and supposedly Capa because he wanted to be confused with filmmaker Frank Capra.

His Falling Soldier out take (different soldier, exact same pose) throws his veracity into question. Personally, I believe that Capa actually captured a soldier, shot in the heat of battle. Which picture is it? I dunno ...

Capa insisted that the technician who allegedly cooked his film not be disciplined as would be called for if any random tech had ruined critical war film by using non-approved methods to process it. I have heard of a process that involved rinsing the film with 93% rubbing alcohol, then lighting it on fire - extinguishing the film exactly when it has perfectly dried, yet, not burnt at all.

Right.

I wonder if Capa, having landed on the Normandy beach in an early wave, found himself under enemy fire, and dove for cover. I am amazed that he was able to point an open shuttered, correctly exposed shot in the direction of a recognizable face at all! His photograph of the soldier coming ashore on D-day is amazing no matter what the back story. It is easily one of the greatest photographs of all time.

Aside from the few frames we have seen from this roll of film, there may not have been any more pointed in the right direction, and exposed so that there would be recognizable elements.

Would a persona as large as Robert Capa have wanted anyone to have ever seen those? No. I believe he suppressed the bad pictures.
 
For the life of me, I cannot figure how a thread clearly meant to be for fun could turn so sour so quickly.
Have fun, guys! I had never seen the term "bokeh" until I returned to photography as a serious hobby eight or so months ago.
The word even sounds fun. Say it three times real fast: bokeh-bokeh-bokeh ... :)
 
All bokeh doesn't do it for me sorry. There needs to be something sharp in the image to give the OOF meaning IMO. Like light and dark!


300mm019-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom