akochanowski Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Some stuff I did a couple of years ago that I dug up again reminds me that focus is not everything. There is a difference between lack of focus and blur. Comments welcome, post your own.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 another<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 last<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 last for sure<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_stockton Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 >focus is not everything. [There is a difference between lack of focus and blur] <p> Neither is stillness (camera stillness). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 No "personal" offense intended, but focus is important. Nothing you posted does anything for me. I simply do Not know what your are trying to say with your photos. Now then,sharpness is not always everything....I did a triptic with a Holga of views of a church. Using the Holga I new what I was getting and what I wanted. You need to think about your objectives rather than just randomly take out-of focu photos. I am attaching a series of my St. Mary's church triptick using the holga.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Holga Photo<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_johnson12 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 I beg to differ. I think your shots are beautiful and evocative and far more communicative than the piece from the in-focus "Our Lady" triptick [sic], which says little to me. I guess there's no accounting for taste... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Her's a couple taken the night of the blackout. Light supplied is from a generator powering the supermarket where these people were. Olympus XA2.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 #3 in series. I also agree that your photos are very creative an intreging, and I would encourage you to keep working with what you are doing. I am just sharing some similar optionns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 This one got me 6th prize(!) in the last contest we had. Still waiting for the cheque Travis....<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 I'm not sure about totally out of focus images. I suppose it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I've seen a few that were cool in context to an objective, but not many. I do love very narrow DOF images, and try to get some where appropriate at weddings. Here's one that's dangerously close to being 0 depth of field. However, in the 8X10 print the petals in the basket are sharp and easy to see.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
this gallery is no longer Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 ..Sydney Olympic Stadium<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Here's another very shallow DOF example from the same wedding this past Saturday.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Wow, the oof pics are great! I find the Holga pix incredibly sterile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 >Now then,sharpness is not always everything....I did a triptic with a >Holga of views of a church. Using the Holga I new what I was getting >and what I wanted. These don't even look very 'Holgaish' to me at all. Just very plain. And, by the way, it is 'triptych'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Todd, have you seen Marc Tuckers plunger cam? I love Holga photography as well. http://marktucker.com/plungercam/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shel_belinkoff2 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Another OOF photo ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_freeman1 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 <a href=http://www.rcmphotographs.com >Richard Copeland Miller</a> does some effective work with OOF, some combined with intentional blur...jf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Thanks Jerry, those examples are excellent! Proof that it can work extremely well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 I've got Miller's book, it's excellent. <p> I sometimes shoot with the camera on a tripod and turn the focus ring to defocus during a long exposure. This gives an interesting result occasionally, much more so than this same trick with a zoom.<p> <center> <img src="http://www.spirer.com/colorport/images/halluc.jpg"><br> <i>Hallucination in the Pink City, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer</i> </center></center></i> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay t. Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 The gushing over out of focus has to be a joke, right? Totally OOF photos generally don't work, looking mainly more like poor technique than considered effort. OOF portions as a part of shallow DOF does work because it can isolate and enhance a particular element. I think part of the reason for the positive responses is that the sample OOF pictures might remind some of super grainy photos, and it is the grain which causes that gritty feel of realism that some might find intriguing. The New York and Techno pictures don't work for me - they don't seem very dynamic to me. Cigarette and Road work a bit better, the latter because the inclusion of the rear of the car seems to give the road a feeling of loneliness, which we can probably all relate to from our own experiences with road trips. Cigarette I can't quite put a handle on. Again a feeling perhaps of isolation. But would these photos have been stronger with one or another element in focus? The Richard Copeland Miller photos work better but the blur is of a different quality, more akin to impressionist paintings, which I would assume was his objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 just while walking<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_freeman1 Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 In B&W August 2001 Miller states that heavy darkroom maninpulation is required to get the impressionist mood he desires. Works for me...jf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 How did this bus get on my roll of film?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now