To focus or not to focus

[monelle]

Two photographers can look at the same photo and say, "Plenty of detail,"

or "Horridly blurry." Should photographs be detailed? Should only some parts

of them be detailed? Many of the same questions can be asked about

photography as are asked about painting; but because the camera mimics (or

replaces) the eye, we may demand of it what the eye sees. What do we want

from a photograph? To feel good? To think about something new? To have

something decorative to hang on the wall? What impact on these does detail,

or lack of it, have?

[randall ellis]

There is no one answer to any of your questions that works in every situation. Every one see differently. Everyone has their own unique life experiences. Every combination of artist and situation has its own unique answer to any of those questions, and only the person doing the creating can answer them.

 

- Randy

[marshall]

<em>Two photographers can look at the same photo and say, "Plenty of detail," or "Horridly blurry." Should photographs be detailed?</em>

<P>

Some should. Some are very expressive with softness and suggestions.

<P>

<em>What do we want from a photograph?</em>

<P>

So many, many things, depending on the day, the mood, the picture. Too big a question.

[marshall]

Dammit. Just clicking too fast. Supposed to look like this:

<P>

<em>Two photographers can look at the same photo and say, "Plenty of detail," or "Horridly blurry." Should photographs be detailed?</em> <P> Some should. Some are very expressive with softness and suggestions. <P> <em>What do we want from a photograph?</em> <P> So many, many things, depending on the day, the mood, the picture. Too big a question.

[monelle]

I am not looking for definitive answers. Just looking to open a conversation ... a forum, if you will :)

[frank uhlig]

Last I heard, there is no aesthetic police any more. Everything goes and you, the photographer, have to decide what you want to depict and how.

 

Maybe a while later you might think some other focal point might have worked better. You are the executive and the judge and the viewer of your own decisions, Monelle.

 

No "shoulds" in art, are there? Or -heaven forbid - should there be any?

[iliafarniev]

It does not have to be detailed..

[RobertChura]

My feeling is: if it is appropriate to be fuzzy it should be, if not it shouldn't.

 

How to decide which? If the photographer likes it it should. If the buyer likes it it should.

 

Kinda vaugue answer but I think most appropriate.

[SCL]

Pretty wide set of questions. Sticking with your topic header...to focus or not focus, I think the answer depends on what effect one is trying to achieve. In other words sometimes yes and sometimes no. Sometimes the main subject is in focus but not the background, sometimes both and sometimes neither. Sorry, but life just isn't a set of absolutes.

[beauh44]

Sometimes motion blur (or blur in general) in a photograph can be used to great effect, so sometimes sharpness is over-rated. But it's much easier to make a sharp photo blurry than the other way around. Good luck!

[william_john_smith1]

Which painter is correct, Rembrandt or van Gogh?<P>Which photographer is correct, Robert

Frank or Ansel Adams?<P>

[maris_rusis]

The only correct focus for a photograph is the focus the photographer wants. Amazingly, it seems the majority of photographers, casual, advanced, or even pro, are unable to actively want a particular focus.

 

Autofocus rules. Even though both the brain of the camera and the brain of the photographer can organise focus the camera brain is usually conceded to be smarter.

[david_senesac]

I can say with certainty that one can capture a range of images that are out of focus and or blurry that almost all of us would agree might be subjectively rated as unpleasant to just horrible. On the other hand one can also capture images where out of focus backgrounds emphasize a subject or with blur say by wind on vegetation or water add a sense of motion that appeals to our aesthetic senses. There are some images in fact some quite large taken with large format with such detail that when a few feet away, one almost feels part of the scene. It can be a wonderful experience. And then there are images of say colorful sunsets with dim foreground and middle grounds that whether the scene was captured by small format providing little detail or larger formats with more detail has little bearing on the resulting print. ...David

[monelle]

Thank you, David ... I guess what I really was wondering was why most of us seem to like sharp detail so much (and I should have worded it that way, instead of my long wordy question). I love your answer--that it makes us feel like we are part of the scene.

[dbcooper]

It depends on the photograph. Some photographs should communicate what the eye sees, and others should communicate what the soul sees. Both are valid.

[dangoldman]

It very much depends on the subject etc. A picture of a car at 150mph, with a sharp background, is not a picture of a car going 150mph. A picture of a car going 150mph with a very blurry background, is a picture of a car going 150mph. And so on and so forth. However, if the subject is neither sharp nor suggestive, then it simply isnt good, it has to be one or the other. It also depends on the genre, of course.

[jacob_brown]

"Should photographs be detailed? Should only some parts of them be detailed?"

 

Photos should be as blurry or detailed as they need to be.

[albertdarmali]

This reminds me of the picture I took a couple years ago when I just learned photography.

 

I alwas remember this comment from our fellow member Philip: "This is a terrific image and for all the wrong reasons! Critiquing this by the usual pictorial standard that seems to go along with this site you might find comments like; "Out of focus," and "Grainy and hot at the top," all the reasons that make this visually interesting! It does transcend the mundane almost "spiritual or religious," as another reviewer so aptly described it."

 

I agree with him that sometimes a picture doesn't need to be 'correct' in order to look nice.

[snakecharmer]

Breaking the rules is wonderful, liberating. Photographers that can do this and produce a successful image achieve greatness, at least in my book, because they make the viewer actually THINK about WHY they like the photo. This is why I don't consider Ansel Adams a great photographer. He tended to play by the rules.