| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/28/2006 03:14:21 AM · #1 |
Sharp as a Tack in focus. Even when it isn't supposed to be?
I think Every friggin challenge I have entered... Always out of focus this out of focus that.
Motion Blur.... Seems to be out of focus... (NO Schyt Sherlock whats your first clue?)
Im sick of this whole focus thing. And there is Nothing I can do about it. Thats why this is in rant.
I am so total fed up with voters.... commenters.... this site.
Finaly get a comment about the image on my soft focus entry.. and well there was a thread about it, so I post th ecomment anyway...
Something about soft focus doesn't mean out of focus....
Yeah Whatever BITE ME YOU ..........
granted, I wanted a comment about the image and not the subject.. but I think it was just a troll being a jerk because he/her/it/whatever doesn't understand photography. Whatever
Obviously I don't understand either... Havn't learned anything from this site. Im not growing.. People are turning more and more into jerks.... what is there left? pretty much nothing.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 09:27:44 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Im sick of this whole focus thing. And there is Nothing I can do about it. Thats why this is in rant. |
Why can't you do anything about it?
I checked a couple of your shots, and they are OOF - Did you intend them to be? |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 09:30:15 AM · #3 |
| Have to agree with jhonan. Do you have a tripod? Even a cheap tripod would help you out given that it looks like you do a lot of low-light shooting. |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 09:52:09 AM · #4 |
i have the same problems with alot of my photos. not so much now as when i had my rebel. i could never get that thing to focus even on my tripod.
Judging from the photos in your profile maybe you should consider taking a class on how to operate your camera. How long have you actually had that DSLR? Or maybe you should start off with a camera thats easier to use, and then work your way up. I think i'll eventually go back to a DSLR but not anytime soon. I still have alot to learn.
Message edited by author 2006-08-28 10:00:55.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 10:07:47 AM · #5 |
I think the thing you have to remember is that more people are going to like the 'sharp, in-focus' shots than are going to like the more out of focus, artsy stuff that you seem to like. This is a photography community, and not necessarily a collection of art enthusiasts.
While I'm sure there are some artsy places that would love some of the stuff you have, it's just not that highly ranked in a photographic sense because we're looking for two different things. If you are truly having trouble getting focus to be sharp, perhaps you should pick up a book on the subject dealing with digital photography and post-processing. Otherwise, maybe your camera is defective.
Originally posted by littlegett:
Sharp as a Tack in focus. Even when it isn't supposed to be?
I think Every friggin challenge I have entered... Always out of focus this out of focus that.
Motion Blur.... Seems to be out of focus... (NO Schyt Sherlock whats your first clue?)
Im sick of this whole focus thing. And there is Nothing I can do about it. Thats why this is in rant.
I am so total fed up with voters.... commenters.... this site.
Finaly get a comment about the image on my soft focus entry.. and well there was a thread about it, so I post th ecomment anyway...
Something about soft focus doesn't mean out of focus....
Yeah Whatever BITE ME YOU ..........
granted, I wanted a comment about the image and not the subject.. but I think it was just a troll being a jerk because he/her/it/whatever doesn't understand photography. Whatever
Obviously I don't understand either... Havn't learned anything from this site. Im not growing.. People are turning more and more into jerks.... what is there left? pretty much nothing. |
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 03:11:48 PM · #6 |
Well thanks for the replies...
it seems one of two things.. Im too stupid to operate a camera...
or the camera is broken. yet seem more people lean towards im stupid part...
Whatever.
This isn't about me or my skill as a worthless photographer....
Its about why in the hell does everything have to be tack sharp.
Damn can't anyone even read anymore. Wait.. its the internet of course people don't read.. to much effort.
Funny though, You say several of my images are wrong.... yet, don't even speak of what exactly. obviously no one wants to help, they just want to degrade. Yeah, I take it as an insult being told to take a class. Because it means everything I have done in photography doesn't mean nuffin. Have you even Looked at my Port??????
Granted I don't know everything. don't even know half.. probly not even quarter.
I wrote this in rant because I am sick of it all.
I need to vent about it.
people are not going to understand what Im thinking no matter how hard I try to type it out. Obvious from the replies.
Can't do anything about it because people have their opinions.... and they won't hold anything I do in high opinion because their opinion of my out of focus image is low.
This is a Rant a Vent, a Release of pent up frustration.
Please do not continue to tell me I need to take classes or read books or whatever. I don't care how bad you think I do. I don't want to hear that... Really don't want to hear anything.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 03:41:58 PM · #7 |
Why do things need to be in tack-sharp focus? They don't.
I need some clarification though. Do you mean, in focus *all the time everywhere*... or.. in focus on DPC?
If the former.. then the answer is, they don't. Do what you like, like it for yourself. The classic cliche. However, know that the majority of people like to *see* what you are offering, and out of focus, motion blurred, etc. photos tend to make people's eyes hurt a little. It's a physical reaction. People don't like to be uncomfortable.
If the latter.. DPCers are a sheep breed. The masses. The mob. They like what everyone else likes. Your job on DPC is to figure out what everyone else likes, at the time, and cater to that. One thing I can guarantee is.. OOF photos aren't ever in the category of "what everyone else likes".
So, and you've said it yourself, it might be time for a break. Time for reflection. Find out who you're shooting for. Yourself, everyone else, or some kind of mixture of the two.
That's when frustration ends and you begin to feel better about your photos, and/or people's reaction to them.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 04:05:37 PM · #8 |
Littlegett,
I have taken a look at your portfolio. It's true that with few exceptions, there are no images that really look sharp in there. Now, if you choose to pursue OOF as an artistic goal, that's certainly your preogative. But as Artyste has pointed out, that doesn't resonate well with the mass of voters in DPC. Lord knows I can attest to that, because I used to make a lot softer entries than I do now.
Nevertheless, there are a significant number of images in which the lack of sharpness/good focus seems to have no purpose, it just looks like failed execution. Consider this image:
Now, that's a shot that just based on what we can SEE, is crying out to be sharper, higher resolution, whatever. The abundance of crisp, small-scale detal on the scale face NEEDS sharpness; or, failing that, the whole thing needs to be a LOT softer, more ,isty-looking; as it stands, it looks sloppy. Here's the same image with nO changes except sharpening with USM:
See the difference? Isn't that more effective?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 04:10:07 PM · #9 |
There is a time and place for for tack-sharp.
There is a time and place for not-so-sharp.
Your job as the photographer is to figure when one or the other is appropriate.
Admittedly, DPC has a bias towards tack-sharp, so don't take it personally.
Looking through your portfolio, I see several images where you have used image blurring effectively, but also many where it is out of place. |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 04:13:39 PM · #10 |
Thanx Bear_Music for your example.
Yet, I wanted to take the viewer back in time a tad I prefered the softer look to the image. To me personally I like the soft look in this image.
Just with my eyes, the sharper does not look good. I havn't tried it a 'LOT' softer, but I thinK I would lose to much. (might try it)
Although my middleground isn't that great From others eyes.
For me, it really is not more effective. But, if I want to score high, I can not shoot for me.
Maybe this is a dead horse. Just wish people would open their eyes to other things.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 04:20:48 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Thanx Bear_Music for your example.
Yet, I wanted to take the viewer back in time a tad I prefered the softer look to the image. To me personally I like the soft look in this image.
|
Just a quick opinion, but if you want to take the viewer back in time, combine the "soft" focus with other post-processing techniques to give the viewer something to hang on to. A nice sepia-tone might help or some grunge. Just throwing ideas out.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 04:29:00 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Just wish people would open their eyes to other things. |
I bet you tend to eat the foods you like, rather than stuff you find disgusting, right? Is that wrong of you? Are being narrow minded about that? Perhaps you should eat things that make you sick just so you can appreciate other things.
My eyes ARE open, which is exactly why I actually like to SEE things.
I do not like photos that are so dark that I can barely tell what it is about, nor do I like out of focus pics that makes my eyes hurt.
People even get prescription glasses made so they can see clearly - why is it so wrong of me to enjoy the same clarity in a photo?
I am not a fool just because I like to see properly.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 04:48:23 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Just wish people would open their eyes to other things. |
I bet you tend to eat the foods you like, rather than stuff you find disgusting, right? Is that wrong of you? Are being narrow minded about that? Perhaps you should eat things that make you sick just so you can appreciate other things.
My eyes ARE open, which is exactly why I actually like to SEE things.
I do not like photos that are so dark that I can barely tell what it is about, nor do I like out of focus pics that makes my eyes hurt.
People even get prescription glasses made so they can see clearly - why is it so wrong of me to enjoy the same clarity in a photo?
I am not a fool just because I like to see properly. |
You are funny.... Now lets have you talk about some other things you don't know about me.
First of all, I am very adventurous. I try everything at least once, if the opportunity comes my way. I have probably eaten many things that would make a person stomache turn for months on end.
Now.... anyway.. Like I said you are intitled to your opinion.
Yet, I really have to ask you... What is Proper? You can only answer what is Proper for you. You can not answer what is Proper for me, nor anyone else. You can not say what is 'proper' for my idea.
Don't take this to a personal level. Because you have no idea what I have seen, heard, tasted, touched, felt or been through.
So far, your reply has been very closed minded and a personal attack.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 04:56:54 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Just wish people would open their eyes to other things. |
I bet you tend to eat the foods you like, rather than stuff you find disgusting, right? Is that wrong of you? Are being narrow minded about that? Perhaps you should eat things that make you sick just so you can appreciate other things.
My eyes ARE open, which is exactly why I actually like to SEE things.
I do not like photos that are so dark that I can barely tell what it is about, nor do I like out of focus pics that makes my eyes hurt.
People even get prescription glasses made so they can see clearly - why is it so wrong of me to enjoy the same clarity in a photo?
I am not a fool just because I like to see properly. |
You are funny.... Now lets have you talk about some other things you don't know about me.
First of all, I am very adventurous. I try everything at least once, if the opportunity comes my way. I have probably eaten many things that would make a person stomache turn for months on end.
Now.... anyway.. Like I said you are intitled to your opinion.
Yet, I really have to ask you... What is Proper? You can only answer what is Proper for you. You can not answer what is Proper for me, nor anyone else. You can not say what is 'proper' for my idea.
Don't take this to a personal level. Because you have no idea what I have seen, heard, tasted, touched, felt or been through.
So far, your reply has been very closed minded and a personal attack. |
I am very open minded and you yourself have made a blanket statement that I and many others aren't, which in all reality could be construed at a personal attack. |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 05:01:13 PM · #15 |
No it isn't a blanket statement, it is a General statement of observation.
From my observation I learned that people 'in general' do not like images that are not sharp as a tack, and in my opinion that makes me believe these people are not 'open' to other types of images which are not sharp as a tack.
So from my Observation I made a general statement of opinion of my data which most people are closed minded.
There is no personal attack there.
I did say Beetle is closed minded, and that is my personal opinion of him from reading his post above.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 05:06:54 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
I did say Beetle is closed minded, and that is my personal opinion of him from reading his post above. |
Beetle, close-minded --- ha ha!
Oh and he's a she ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 05:11:36 PM · #17 |
I would say that in general, your images are simply out of focus in ways that don't enhance the image.
There are plenty of OOF images that do work and are really fine images. If you like to work with OOF images, then it's up to you to make them work. I don't think you're there yet.
It's not about being close-minded, it's about doing quality work.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 05:16:42 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I would say that in general, your images are simply out of focus in ways that don't enhance the image.
There are plenty of OOF images that do work and are really fine images. If you like to work with OOF images, then it's up to you to make them work. I don't think you're there yet.
It's not about being close-minded, it's about doing quality work. |
Thanx for the comment.
However, since everyone wants to make this about me. What are you talking about, and how would I work on it to make it work?
You say some OOF works... which ones? Some Don't... Why Not?
This really reminds me of old christmas tree lights. One goes out so the whole cord is bad. Yet, you have to check each one wasting countless time to find the bad one.
yet seems there is someone who knows which one is out and could tell you, but doesn't. Just says there is a bulb out.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 05:17:28 PM · #19 |
I looked at some of your recent challenge entries. You seem to use pretty slow shutters and I am wondering if you are getting camera shake. The scale image that Bear posted has a shutter speed of 1/10. Do you have a good tripod?
Liza |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 05:53:20 PM · #20 |
An attempt at the constructive ...
There is an active challenge called Soft Focus. To see what works, I recommend studying the top 10 when the challenge is over. They will have a, well, "soft focus" that voters liked. If you want to pursue further, PM the photographers and ask for their help. What were they thinking and trying to create with their soft focus? How did they do it? I'll bet they all respond (I would if I had an entry in that challenge) and that their responses are helpful.
Speaking for myself, soft focus shots are most pleasing "to me" when something in the photo is sharply focused. So for example, in a shot with shallow DOF, the subject is usually in good focus, while less important background or foreground details are blurred. There are many great examples in the Shallow DOF Challenges that illustrate this. Additionally, motion often blurs some or all of a photo. I, and again I am speaking for myself, like these photos when something is in focus and the blur from motion provides "go fast" contrast to the thing in focus. There are some great examples in the Motion Blur challenges.
Some subjects are better for soft focus than others. Your scale photo (Diet Lollipops)is full of minute details, which as Bear points out, beg for sharp focus. Your Hidden Look or Deadly Assets photos seem to me to be better candidates for a softer approach. So choosing a subject that works well with a soft focus will please more viewers than choosing one where a stronger focus might be expected.
Another commenter observed you tend to shoot with long exposures. I happen to like natural light photos which often require long exposures. However long exposures require a steady support for the camera which doesn't allow it to move while the shutter is open. A tripod is the obvious solution, but resting the camera on or against something rock steady will work as well.
Finally I would suggest an exercise for you to try. Shoot a subject that is interesting to you but shoot it intentionally tack sharp. Both your Sony and your Canon are capable of this. Now in post processing, add gaussian blur with a radius of between 3 and 6 pixels and then fade the blur effect to between 25% and 50%. Does this give you the soft focus you like? Are parts of the image in fine focus with an atmospheric blur on the rest. Maybe there's another path to soft focus for you that will please more voters.
I don't know anything about you. Please forgive me if I am telling you stuff you already know.
btw ... I spent some time on your website. You have some photos there which are brilliant. I love the shot of a Herren in flight. You've got an edgy shot of an oil rig which makes quite a statement! Your fire study is interesting.
If as your photography evolves you'd like to PM me to get reactions to what you are doing, I would be happy to look at them and tell you what I think. And what I might try to improve them. If you're not comfortible with that, no worries. But in any event ... good luck in your photography where ever it evolves.
Message edited by author 2006-08-28 18:29:34. |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 06:46:53 PM · #21 |
Thank you for your Comment Dr.Confuser, It was very well written and thought out.
To answer some stuff from the posts.
yes, I have a tripod, it is a PoS, and I can not afford a new one. Trying to stop camera shake in this area is hard, for even traffic driving by gives a slight vibration to the floor. I would put the camera on timer because I can not afford a switch yet.
I take several shots to help avoid camera shake.
yet, with a lot of my images, I may add a gaussian blur to them anyway.
I have used unsharp mask and stuff. I really don'r care for how they react to my images.
I have a set of shop lights, a pos tripod. I think I do pretty good. I know there are shots not everyone will like. But it does get tiring hearing that every shot is out of focus. That is the reason for this rant.
Some images I do not even see the OOFness to them. yet, the gaussian blur effect is probably why I don't see it, because I know what I did.
Keep going back to the scale. a sepia I didn't care for, because the colour of the loli-pops. To me it didn't fit right. As did the sharpness. To me the tick marks on the scale don't matter, but to everyone else they did. I feel what I wanted is what I got.
As for the subjectmatter of soft focus. Again I don't understand why this really matters so much. It seems if it is not a little baby or a half naked lady, it should not be in soft focus. Ohh yeah. I have seen tons of weding images that to me are overly soft.
So it seems, my subject matter, my equipment, and my ideas are at fault. Maybe some day those will change... but I guess for right now... they can't.
You play with the hand you have, sometimes you fold, sometimes you roll with it. Well I have been rolling with it for some time... sooner or later something will work.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 07:02:59 PM · #22 |
OK then, here's a soft focus effect that looks more intentional; is this any closer to any effect you were looking for?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 07:13:00 PM · #23 |
A majority of the voters like sharp photos.
You like applying gaussian blur to most of your photos for some unknown reason.
Do the math... |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 07:14:49 PM · #24 |
I can see why you have not learned anything here. You like what you like and when anyone disagrees with you they must be closed minded. Thus you dismiss their opinion and learn nothing.
If you are as open minded as you claim, maybe you should consider that some people other then yourself have valid opinions.
Also, keep in mind that comments are just other people's opinions and you should be thankful they were kind enough to share them with you. The opinions expressed in comments are not always right, but they are never wrong.
Message edited by author 2006-08-28 19:15:32.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 07:49:46 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I can see why you have not learned anything here. You like what you like and when anyone disagrees with you they must be closed minded. Thus you dismiss their opinion and learn nothing.
If you are as open minded as you claim, maybe you should consider that some people other then yourself have valid opinions.
Also, keep in mind that comments are just other people's opinions and you should be thankful they were kind enough to share them with you. The opinions expressed in comments are not always right, but they are never wrong. |
L()L you are another funny one.
There can be wrong comments.
And I understand peoples opinion. I respect them, what I don't understand is why everything has to be tack sharp.
Hello, get back to the topic of this thread.
it is a RANT A VENT... man you really irritate me. People like you really boil my blood. There is no reason you should have written anything in here.
Nor is there reason for routerguy to have written what he did.
OBVIOUSLY if I am talking about why does everything have to be tack sharp... is because the majority of people like sharp photos.... Don't need to tell me and no math Involved.
And No I am not thankful of a comment that says... out of Focus.. and that is it.
I am not thankful for comments that don't back up anything they say.
for some unknown reason
Think I stated my reason.... did you state yours????
I have not learned anything because of comments that hold no ground. Hold no substance to help me improve. The Every Greatful 'WHY'
It is funny how many people think I don't listen or read everyones comments. It is funny how many people think I don't take into concideration what people say, It is funny how people think that I believe it is my way or the Highway... It is funny how these people are wrong.
Give me a valid reason. Solid concrete reason why I should change my opinion on the matter, and well... I just might.
But, most people can not do that. Why, because they can not see through someone elses eyes. They refuse to listen, like LoudDog and Routerguy... Yeah I am picking on the two of you, because there was no reason for the two of you to post.
This is a Vent A Rant. I stated that. Yet, it seems you don't read.
I understand a lot more than you think.
-----------------------------------
Bear_Music, thank you again for the example. but to me that also looks off. Seems too dark around the edges, and gives a harder/meaner look to the image. It doesn't seem to balance in that manner.
it does give me someone elses perspective though and I thank you for that. I will need to play more and see what medium ground I might be able to find. If any.
Thanx again.
|
|
