| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/01/2005 10:24:37 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Artistic or just a joke? You decide... |
The challenge was 'Conflict' and it sure expresses that. Its form and colour are explosive.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 10:38:50 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Artistic or just a joke? You decide... |
I must say interesting, Jacko, and 202 out of 202.
And ultimately, we each have to decide what photography means to us and can mean to our viewers. I am up for and a fan of most things. I find humor in man's world and meaning in God's creation. But that image is a feline nightmare. What is the word..... ailurophobia.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 11:13:02 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Artistic or just a joke? You decide... |
I must say interesting, Jacko, and 202 out of 202.
And ultimately, we each have to decide what photography means to us and can mean to our viewers. I am up for and a fan of most things. I find humor in man's world and meaning in God's creation. But that image is a feline nightmare. What is the word..... ailurophobia. |
Which fits the challenge exactly...........and yet it was last?
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 11:21:44 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
Originally posted by Cutter:
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Artistic or just a joke? You decide... |
I must say interesting, Jacko, and 202 out of 202.
And ultimately, we each have to decide what photography means to us and can mean to our viewers. I am up for and a fan of most things. I find humor in man's world and meaning in God's creation. But that image is a feline nightmare. What is the word..... ailurophobia. |
Which fits the challenge exactly...........and yet it was last? |
Which, incidentally, was exactly what he was going for; look in the details :-)
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 11:24:10 PM · #30 |
Last you mean? He understands his audience very well doesn't he? To bad he wasn't surprised and proven wrong!
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 12:59:30 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
Artistic effectiveness is really what we mean when we say artistic. We all have a message or point or purpose, but conveying it ineffectively will get us all nowhere. |
I understand, and largely agree with, your full post, but you seem to assume that clear focus in some part of the image necessarily conveys the thought more effectively than a blurry picture. If we restrict the discussion to photojournalistic, factual photography then I might agree with you. But if you regard photography as a form of communication which also conveys emotive or non-factual content, I think that a blurry image may convey the photographer's meaning better than a tack-sharp one.
For example: I don't think that I saw a photograph of Las Vegas which was in focus until I was in my teens. Prior to that time the few dozen published pictures I'd seen were all slightly out of focus, with a low shutter speed and lit exclusively by neon lights. After seeing more photojournalistic pictures of the place, I think that the images I was first exposed to gave me a much better feel for the character of the place than the photographs which were technically flawless. I think that it really just comes down to what definition of artistic effectiveness we're using. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 01:16:18 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
If being out of focus enhances the viewer's experience with the image, the technique is validated. If it detracts from the experience, the viewer will move quickly away. As in life, experience will predicate response. |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
(snippet)
these are both fantastic examples of good out of focus images .....
There is a huge diffence in that and not focusing your camera, thinking it looks cool and expecting everyone else to feel the same way. |
Spot on perfect post. My sentiments exactly. Those are excellant images and obviously done with purpose and works very well. Big difference there as opposed to just thinking that a photo that turned out not focused and saying it looks cool after the fact, IMO. |
Sometimes with these automatic cameras it's hard to get it intentionally OOF. In the case of my "Rain" entry, I was having to "fake it" anyway (we were in the middle of a heat wave -- not even clouds/fog), so I was rather happy when this one came out severely OOF and -- to me -- quite impressionistic in both subject and effect, with almost no editing. It is so OOF that the drops appear to be falling in front of the flowers, when to the best of my recollection, they were all landing in back, well away from the lens (I was shooting a macro of the flowers).
But, as with the original Impressionists, it is a style/effect which is liked by some and not liked by the majority. That makes it neither right nor wrong, good nor bad; it merely means it is less-popular than some other styles. So be it ...
 |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 01:23:00 AM · #33 |
| Back to the initial topic: I agree with JuneBug28 (the original poster) in principle, but in practice I think that there's a lot of drek chalked up to art. I'm all for creating something as a form of catharsis, but expecting the result to be as meaningful to others as it is to it's creator is analogous to a parent saying that their child is clearly the most adorable creature on Earth. The only difference is that the self-dubbed artist is less likely to realize how myopic their perspective on the issue is. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 07:32:20 AM · #34 |
Art is exploration, risk taking, originality and I hope, a personal journey to a unique personal expression. When we all express the same message, the same way, we and the art becomes boring and stale.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 07:46:45 AM · #35 |
Some people seem unable to understand the difference with a photo that is 'out of focus' and a photo that uses a 'soft focus' technique.
Whilst I can understand that some people do not like 'soft focus' I am struggling to understand why some people cannot see the difference.
I feel frustrated when I use my 'soft focus' filter only for people to comment that 'its blurred', 'its not sharp', 'there is no or little DOF'!!, 'I cant see the point of focus in this shot''
Jebus!!
Moan over!!
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 08:39:51 AM · #36 |
It would be wonderful if all different approaches to photography good be accepted and celebrated here...........
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 09:03:28 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
I feel frustrated when I use my 'soft focus' filter only for people to comment that 'its blurred', 'its not sharp', 'there is no or little DOF'!!, 'I cant see the point of focus in this shot'' |
Mike, I might very well be one of the guilty parties there too, so perhaps I should explain.
Before making a comment like that, I take a look at the image in different ways to determine if the OOF appears intentional. If I am not sure, I say nothing but vote it down a point or two. If I can't see any way it could be intentional, I get annoyed at sloppy work taking up my time and bandwidth and having loaded it, forcing me to respond to it ... and will say so and mark it no higher than 3.
Yup I will definitely get it wrong at times but can't apologise for it. If the intention's not clear and the message is lost in the translation, then it's a lesson learned by the photographer.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 09:14:01 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Yup I will definitely get it wrong at times but can't apologise for it. If the intention's not clear and the message is lost in the translation, then it's a lesson learned by the photographer. |
The lesson is likely more yours KiwiPix learn.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 09:55:51 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
A ccomplete lack of a subject in focus will, on this site, usually garner a bunch of low votes; the DPC voter pool, IMO, does not often reward such an experiment, unless it very obviously "just works." Wht you'll prolly find is that you receive a significant number of higher votes as well, but your average is likely doomed to be low :-(
I submitted an unusual subject/technique for "D&L" and am receiving a low-average score. I expected that; I still like the shot, though it did lose something in the translation to 640px, LOL. |
Completely agree...I put my shots out there because I like them and hope that someone else finds the image pleasing - my shoe entry is focused, not on the shoes but I like it that way..won't come anywhere close to winning a ribbon, but it isn't a closet full of dirty sneakers either. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 09:58:42 AM · #40 |
well, this is my two cents and I know this is going to make someone mad...
I'm a student and a working photographer and to adress the out of focus issue, only and only time this work is if there is no real subject matter and it's color that makes the frame interesting. Can you name any great painters that painted things blury? how about one of the great photographers that tooke out of focus pictures that sold? The reason why people around here want the pictures sharp is because they reflect the consumer point of view. you can't take out of focus pictures all you want but they wont sell, and as a working photography I understand all to well if you don't sell you don't eat. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 10:00:12 AM · #41 |
| and I forgot to say this....If you look in my port. I have a frame that is tastefully out of focus and it's selling. So there is a market for it, you just have got to know what your doing and do it with taste |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 10:16:19 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by gi_joe05:
Can you name any great painters that painted things blury? how about one of the great photographers that tooke out of focus pictures that sold? The reason why people around here want the pictures sharp is because they reflect the consumer point of view. you can't take out of focus pictures all you want but they wont sell, and as a working photography I understand all to well if you don't sell you don't eat. |
The Impressionsits, Andy Warhol, The Field Painters such as Mark Rothko......etc etc.......there is more than just the commercial point of view........
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 10:31:06 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by gi_joe05:
well, this is my two cents and I know this is going to make someone mad...
I'm a student and a working photographer and to adress the out of focus issue, only and only time this work is if there is no real subject matter and it's color that makes the frame interesting. Can you name any great painters that painted things blury? how about one of the great photographers that tooke out of focus pictures that sold? The reason why people around here want the pictures sharp is because they reflect the consumer point of view. you can't take out of focus pictures all you want but they wont sell, and as a working photography I understand all to well if you don't sell you don't eat. |
Out of focus also works if the subject is mood or motion.
I think the problem may be that people in general are always looking for a visual subject - they watch too much TV. ;)
Yes, many artists paint out of focus pictures. And there is expressionism and abstract art also. Not everything has to be commercial. Not every one has to take pictures like Thomas Kinkade paints. (sorry, his popularity is a pet peeve of mine.)
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 10:46:12 AM · #44 |
| That would be Thomas Kincade Incorporated wouldn't it? He and his legions of artists do crank out "real" oil paintings by the boxcarload ... |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 11:00:14 AM · #45 |
| Most of those registered to this site are students of photography within the first 15 years of their study. Many are aspiring to reach a level of competence that will produce winning entries in the challenges in which they chosse to enter. That is logical and right while on this site. If one looks at the top tier winners, in EVERY challenge they are tack sharp and edited for clarity. The aspiring student thereby embraces this standard while usually voting and commenting to exclude any alternative techniques that defy that standard. This is mind focus and is a desirable trait for the determined student. Only later, after self-assurance with one's own abilities will extraordinary examples become of interest. This site is not inclusive because it is a school of technique. A good school of a good technique that encourages stock photography for mainstream consumption. Not a bad place for a beginning photographer to hang out, but a tough place for an explorer to receive encouragement. Unless the exploration is branching from the foundational tree, as in the case of some daring young photographers here. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 11:16:37 AM · #46 |
The (potential) problem arises that their 'mind focus' limits their exploration and may stifle their creativity.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 12:11:03 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by gi_joe05:
well, this is my two cents and I know this is going to make someone mad...
I'm a student and a working photographer and to adress the out of focus issue, only and only time this work is if there is no real subject matter and it's color that makes the frame interesting. Can you name any great painters that painted things blury? how about one of the great photographers that tooke out of focus pictures that sold? The reason why people around here want the pictures sharp is because they reflect the consumer point of view. you can't take out of focus pictures all you want but they wont sell, and as a working photography I understand all to well if you don't sell you don't eat. |
Out of focus also works if the subject is mood or motion.
I think the problem may be that people in general are always looking for a visual subject - they watch too much TV. ;)
Yes, many artists paint out of focus pictures. And there is expressionism and abstract art also. Not everything has to be commercial. Not every one has to take pictures like Thomas Kinkade paints. (sorry, his popularity is a pet peeve of mine.) |
lol I understand the thomas Kinkade thing. |
|
|
|
09/02/2005 12:15:29 PM · #48 |
I have a hard enough time getting the focus right... Purposely missing the focus would make it so easy it would blow my mind. Too bad that's not the goal for me and many others.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 02:03:47 PM · #49 |
Soft Focus!
Out of Focus!
|
|
|
|
09/02/2005 02:13:46 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
I feel frustrated when I use my 'soft focus' filter only for people to comment that 'its blurred', 'its not sharp', 'there is no or little DOF'!!, 'I cant see the point of focus in this shot'' |
Mike, I might very well be one of the guilty parties there too, so perhaps I should explain.
Before making a comment like that, I take a look at the image in different ways to determine if the OOF appears intentional. If I am not sure, I say nothing but vote it down a point or two. If I can't see any way it could be intentional, I get annoyed at sloppy work taking up my time and bandwidth and having loaded it, forcing me to respond to it ... and will say so and mark it no higher than 3.
Yup I will definitely get it wrong at times but can't apologise for it. If the intention's not clear and the message is lost in the translation, then it's a lesson learned by the photographer. |
Hey Brett I dont want any apologies and maybe you are one of the guilty parties,or maybe your not. Anyway there is no lesson for the photographer (me) I acheived exacatly what I set out to.
It may stem from my experience of using film and I guess a lot of people here have not experienced this (not pointing any fingers at anybody). I guess a lot of people on this site are just unfamiliar with the 'technique' of soft foucs and mistake it for out of focus?
Message edited by author 2005-09-02 15:18:25.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:43:42 PM EDT.
