whoever said a good photo must be in focus?

V

visiondr

cyclic iconoclast
Local time
1:25 PM
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
1,200
...to elaborate; here's a recent pair of photos that are not really in focus and yet, I think convey "the moment" better than I ever have.

Please share your thoughts and your own out of focus, fuzzy, smeared gems.

Ron
 

Attachments

  • Guitar_boy.jpg
    Guitar_boy.jpg
    180.4 KB · Views: 0
  • guitar_boy2.jpg
    guitar_boy2.jpg
    183.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Lots of mine are well of focus. It's a non-issue for me.
 

Attachments

  • Blue House (at Night).jpg
    Blue House (at Night).jpg
    119 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
visiondr said:
...to elaborate; here's a recent photo that's not really in focus and yet, I think conveys "the moment" better than I ever have.

Please share your thoughts and your own out of focus, fuzzy, smeared gems.

Ron
Click to expand...
Your shot may not be sharp, but I think it IS in focus. There's just a lot of subject motion.. And that's why the shot works so well!

The reverse (no subject motion, but focus off) would be an absolute no-no.
 
Peter, I think you're probably right there. It is subject motion. My point is I think we sometimes get caught up in the notion of "perfection" in an image or absolute clarity. There are endless threads here and at other photography forums comparing this lens with that lens. I'll admit, all things being equal, I'd rather have the best tools available. But sometimes, none of that really matters at all.

Jon, That is just perfect!

Ron
 
I've always liked this photo of my girlfriend taken with a QL17 GIII... The problem is that I focused on the food (typical!) & at f1.7 her face is slightly oof when the pic is shown at full size. More annoying is that at smaller sizes it looks fine...

329855157_eb00d5b117_m.jpg


Recently I've come back to play with it again & I felt a bit of overall softening helped some, but I don't really like the cheesy glow.

329860800_1525be99ab_o.jpg


Peter
 
pvdhaar said:
Your shot may not be sharp, but I think it IS in focus. There's just a lot of subject motion.. And that's why the shot works so well!

The reverse (no subject motion, but focus off) would be an absolute no-no.
Click to expand...

How about something like this?

324282597_30489bc22f.jpg
 
Softness/motion blur - but good

Softness/motion blur - but good

I agree. I've attached a picture of my, er, well, I don't know. Her grandfather is my second cousin twice removed. I think. Whatever that makes her to me. But it's a great picture, I think even the father really liked it.

Tony07.JPG



Doctor Zero
 
Yes, we need deide on focus and on subject movement and on camera movement. We could talk about this lens being sharper than another lens but that is just technology and we need to undertsand how technoloogy affects art.
 
I agree with Jon. It's not something I consciencely think about.

I've attached a photo I took in Cambodia. I like the way the blur of the two guys in the street is in direct contrast to the stillness of the girl reading.
 

Attachments

  • market_vendor.jpg
    market_vendor.jpg
    172.6 KB · Views: 0
No one ever said a "good" photo had to be in focus. Each picture has it own aesthetic requirements. What works for one picture doesn't necessarily work for another. Motion blur and out of focus are two different beasts. I guess what is important it that as the photographer it was your decision to choose that shutter speed/plain of focus point/movement of the camera etc.. Having said that, we must leave room for the "happy accidents" that some times give us shots we did not expect. Is the picture supposed to be an objective representation of what was there or a subjective interpretation. It all depends. My 2 cents, fueled by too much coffee.
 
A couple of mine that I like. First has both motion blur and camera shake. The second was taken at F2, ISO 1600 and I was walking at the time I tripped the shutter, so it breaks all the rules;)
 

Attachments

  • EPSN2208_1.jpg
    EPSN2208_1.jpg
    113.9 KB · Views: 0
  • EPSN1612_1a.jpg
    EPSN1612_1a.jpg
    122.7 KB · Views: 0
Ron: What cracks me up about this is that the original post comes from an optometrist! Sorta makes all your work superfluous I guess! :D

Peter: I think you have a bigger problem than focus. If you are focusing on the food and not your girlfriend, then son, you have an "interesting" life ahead of you. :D

Here's one of mine. Any unsharpness is totally due to low light, and has nothing to do with Guinness.

305126783_906d81c16b_o.jpg
 
nksyoon said:
How about something like this?

324282597_30489bc22f.jpg
Click to expand...
Nah, you're trying to trick me into admitting I'm wrong..

Yours is perfectly focused where you wanted the focus to be.. And by Jove, what a fantastic bokeh does it have! :p
 
Alstublieft.
No,it was not accidental that is so much OOF. I especially cared that noghing will be in-focus in the shot. I was curious if anybody would understand its point, or would find an interpretation of the scene and why it is oof.
Do you?
 

Attachments

  • nito044_k.jpg
    nito044_k.jpg
    183.5 KB · Views: 0
This shot was taken of me and my daughter by my partner Angie who had never focused a rangefinder before. For some reason I love it.
 

Attachments

  • 179583240_0eac0e6ec7.jpg
    179583240_0eac0e6ec7.jpg
    65.2 KB · Views: 0
visiondr said:
...to elaborate; here's a recent pair of photos that are not really in focus and yet, I think conveys "the moment" better than I ever have.

Please share your thoughts and your own out of focus, fuzzy, smeared gems.

Ron
Click to expand...


No problem with it. Look up the OOF master, Victor SKREBNESKI. Rock your world!
 
It was always my impression that if an image were sharp and in focus with no motion blur, then it was very unlikely to be considered "art."
If there happens to be a recognizable subject then it's doubly damned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom