| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/01/2005 01:55:25 PM · #1 |
| Just because something isn't in focus doesn't mean it's wrong! some thing are more interesting out of focus. What happened to being artistic? |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:06:33 PM · #2 |
Is it:
a. Some things are out of focus, or
b. All things are out of focus?
If it's "b" you'll have to be a pretty damn excellent artist to carry it off! (IMHO) |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:10:22 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by JuneBug28:
Just because something isn't in focus doesn't mean it's wrong! some thing are more interesting out of focus. What happened to being artistic? |
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:11:23 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Is it:
a. Some things are out of focus, or
b. All things are out of focus?
If it's "b" you'll have to be a pretty damn excellent artist to carry it off! (IMHO) |
lmao. true. |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:13:37 PM · #5 |
Nothing sharp in this one, and it seems to work fine, albeit it's not in the "excellent art" category, so I wouldn't go that far :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:22:01 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Is it:
a. Some things are out of focus, or
b. All things are out of focus?
If it's "b" you'll have to be a pretty damn excellent artist to carry it off! (IMHO) |
lmao. true. |
i'll third that.
And if the viewer cannot see an obvious reason for the image to be out of focus or the main subject matter to be out of focus, then you have failed to present your image properly. |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:25:45 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Nothing sharp in this one, and it seems to work fine, albeit it's not in the "excellent art" category, so I wouldn't go that far :-)
R. |
Not to split hairs, bear....but that appears to be motion blur. |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:33:00 PM · #8 |
Just the wrong audience, I think.
 |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:34:02 PM · #9 |
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.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:34:44 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
Originally posted by Uusilehto:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Is it:
a. Some things are out of focus, or
b. All things are out of focus?
If it's "b" you'll have to be a pretty damn excellent artist to carry it off! (IMHO) |
lmao. true. |
i'll third that.
And if the viewer cannot see an obvious reason for the image to be out of focus or the main subject matter to be out of focus, then you have failed to present your image properly. |
I hope that not everything has to be obvious! It is important to expend effort to understand......
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 02:52:27 PM · #11 |
I see an out of focus "artistic" shot as being the photographic equivalent of singing a song out of tune and calling it a masterpiece.
In other words, why would intentionally abusing a piece of equipment whether a camera, vocal cords or a tennis racquet bring enlightenment to a subject. In tennis, I could hit a moon ball every shot because it is different and rarely effective, or I could slam a winner up the line. 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.
The camera is created to be used correctly and using it to relay an image or thought is the whole idea. I say, if you love out of focus pictures so much, take clear ones, and then when you view it...
just squint.
Message edited by author 2005-09-01 14:54:01.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 03:06:22 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
I say, if you love out of focus pictures so much, take clear ones, and then when you view it...
just squint. |
LOL! That is the funniest thing I've heard all day!
(Not able to agree with everything else you've said, but that's my problem.) |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 03:13:34 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
I see an out of focus "artistic" shot as being the photographic equivalent of singing a song out of tune and calling it a masterpiece.
Artistic effectiveness is really what we mean when we say artistic.
|
What nonsense is this?
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 06:14:09 PM · #14 |
Explain to me where I am wrong azo. what do you mean by nonsense? for by you calling my explanation nonsense, you are clearly deeming yours to be the very opposite: sensical. So explain to me where my logic is wrong (in terms of the part you quoted me) and then explain to me why yours is correct. Is not the goal of any enterprise to be effective? And if you can not relate that effectiveness, shouldn't you quit that path and try anew?
Is an effectively blind man simply viewing the world artistically? Or are we using our eyes in such an obvious boring manner as to be called clear? Or should we simply rebel against beauty to distinguish our own beauty? Only in the last century have certain chords been "acceptable" to our ears. Just 300 years ago an F-B-D chord would be been deemed discordant to our nature, but now is viewed as an alternative to a transition in mood. Mathematics are simple even in absolute complexity because they equate. The reason people don't accept blurry or incomprehensible images is for the same reason. My point is harmony and clarity are values which have always been understood and appreciated. Only recently, in these rebellious and individualistic times, have dissonant principles in art and music found a home. Why is this? I don't know altogether, but I would argue that it is better to err on the side of naturality and cohesiveness. And I believe clarity fits this bill.
Message edited by author 2005-09-01 18:15:27.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 06:15:50 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Is it:
a. Some things are out of focus, or
b. All things are out of focus?
If it's "b" you'll have to be a pretty damn excellent artist to carry it off! (IMHO) |
be hard to judge that unless you looked at an entire collection every time you looked at one photo. lol
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 06:16:00 PM · #16 |
| There was some photographer who made this technique famous... I can't think... |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 06:18:44 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by saintaugust:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Is it:
a. Some things are out of focus, or
b. All things are out of focus?
If it's "b" you'll have to be a pretty damn excellent artist to carry it off! (IMHO) |
be hard to judge that unless you looked at an entire collection every time you looked at one photo. lol |
:)
It was a question for the OP, whom I apparently scared away. |
|
|
|
09/01/2005 06:32:51 PM · #18 |
Yeah, here are some of my favorites that are perpousfully out of focus, but which I love.
 
These are just a few of nshapiro's photos. I recommend looking at his portfolio.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 06:39:56 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by SCI 009:
Yeah, here are some of my favorites that are perpousfully out of focus, but which I love.
These are just a few of nshapiro's photos. I recommend looking at his portfolio. |
these are both fantastic examples of good out of focus images - why? because the viewer instanly sees a purpose for the motion blur.
These are abstact images of flowers - i can tell that from the thumbs. They are dynamic and vibrate. Nshapiro is making a statement about the colours, he has used motion to make the image about the brightness and beauty of the colours in the flowers.
Furthermore, he focused the camera before he moved it.
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.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 06:48:48 PM · #20 |
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.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 07:26:35 PM · #21 |
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.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 10:02:24 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
Explain to me where I am wrong azo. what do you mean by nonsense? for by you calling my explanation nonsense, you are clearly deeming yours to be the very opposite: sensical. So explain to me where my logic is wrong (in terms of the part you quoted me) and then explain to me why yours is correct. Is not the goal of any enterprise to be effective? And if you can not relate that effectiveness, shouldn't you quit that path and try anew? |
Am I sensical, gee I hope. I do at times get a little carried away but it is because I get frustrated with closed minds ( I am not saying you have a closed mind but your statement was a little extreme). An out of focus shot is no more, no less, 'right' than a focussed one. If it is the intent of the person making that decision then that is enough. Only time and understanding will determine it's merit. How we express (method, form, process) an idea is best determined by that idea. We use whatever means best conveys the idea.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 10:05:49 PM · #23 |
agreed. a focused could be deemed more right than out of focus shot, but if an abstract image conveys the intent, then that is fantastic. Just difficult, rare and less tangible.
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 10:19:07 PM · #24 |
and maybe 'more' precious.......
|
|
|
|
09/01/2005 10:20:02 PM · #25 |
Artistic or just a joke? You decide...
|
|
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 07:48:15 AM EDT.
