DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Missed Focus Part Deux...
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 62, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/17/2010 04:54:49 PM · #26
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Agreed. This is like those silly hate crimes laws. The crime is the crime. The motive does not make the crime more or less. Same here. Out of focus is out of focus. Why it happened is of no bearing.

Wow, that's quite an impressive leap from a blur discussion to hate crimes! You really need to turn off the rant and enjoy life a little more, Kev.


What rant are you talking about? It was a perfectly logical and reasonable analogy. Or are all analogies "rants" to you? Sheesh.
 05/17/2010 05:00:52 PM · #27
What I find maddening is how the description is, once again, at odds with the title. "Missed Focus" clearly implies an accident, even if it's a happy accident. But look at the description:

Originally posted by challenge description:
In some cases, having your subject be out of focus is desirable. Take a photo in which your main subject, at least, is out of focus. Other parts of your image may or may not be in focus.


The description clearly implies a conscious decision. Discrepancies like this just muddy the waters, IMO, and they happen so often I am beginning to assume they are intentional :-)

R.


05/17/2010 05:13:06 PM · #28
I see a big distinction between motion blur and missed focus. Each of those challenges is a chance to work on creating an effect that would usually be a flaw in any other challenge. By learning how to make that "flaw" serve your intent, and in creating that flaw on purpose, perhaps one can learn the conditions and settings that will create that "flawed" result. Then, just maybe, you can avoid making such flaws when you don't want to make them.
 05/18/2010 12:45:17 AM · #29
Steve is correct. There is a distinct difference between motion blur and something that's out of focus. When we have the "Missed Shutter Speed" or "I didn't mean to pan my camera" challenge than motion blur is what they are after. When a photo is "blurry" it's due to unintentional or sometimes intentional movement of the camera for creative effect. A skilled photographer can tell if it's radial, lens, Gaussian blur etc. They can also tell when the camera was perfectly still with zero movement and the focus is off. Two different and distinct things here.

05/19/2010 02:54:32 AM · #30
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What I find maddening is how the description is, once again, at odds with the title. "Missed Focus" clearly implies an accident, even if it's a happy accident. But look at the description:

Originally posted by challenge description:
In some cases, having your subject be out of focus is desirable. Take a photo in which your main subject, at least, is out of focus. Other parts of your image may or may not be in focus.


The description clearly implies a conscious decision. Discrepancies like this just muddy the waters, IMO, and they happen so often I am beginning to assume they are intentional :-)

R.

Hey this is my challenge I got a good chance to win, I got subject My subject is out of focus!
 05/19/2010 02:59:55 AM · #31
Originally posted by whiterook:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What I find maddening is how the description is, once again, at odds with the title. "Missed Focus" clearly implies an accident, even if it's a happy accident. But look at the description:

Originally posted by challenge description:
In some cases, having your subject be out of focus is desirable. Take a photo in which your main subject, at least, is out of focus. Other parts of your image may or may not be in focus.


The description clearly implies a conscious decision. Discrepancies like this just muddy the waters, IMO, and they happen so often I am beginning to assume they are intentional :-)

R.

Hey this is my challenge I got a good chance to win, I got subject My subject is out of focus!


I'll bet you it's sharp by the time you upload it! lol :¬)
 05/19/2010 09:41:33 AM · #32
Originally posted by hesitant:
Originally posted by whiterook:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What I find maddening is how the description is, once again, at odds with the title. "Missed Focus" clearly implies an accident, even if it's a happy accident. But look at the description:

Originally posted by challenge description:
In some cases, having your subject be out of focus is desirable. Take a photo in which your main subject, at least, is out of focus. Other parts of your image may or may not be in focus.


The description clearly implies a conscious decision. Discrepancies like this just muddy the waters, IMO, and they happen so often I am beginning to assume they are intentional :-)

R.

Hey this is my challenge I got a good chance to win, I got subject My subject is out of focus!


I'll bet you it's sharp by the time you upload it! lol :¬)

yeah you are probably right
 05/19/2010 03:03:44 PM · #33
Is it permissible to put something like plastic sheeting over part of the lens to create the blur?

Message edited by author 2010-05-19 15:05:37.
 05/19/2010 03:06:16 PM · #34
you can rub vaseline all over the lens if you want to :)

Originally posted by Yandrosxx:
Is it permissible to put something like plastic sheeting over part of the lens to create the blur?
05/23/2010 04:24:16 AM · #35
If I have an image that is perfectly in focus is it permissible to create the "missed focus" effect in post processing like with gausian blur for instance?
 05/23/2010 06:47:14 AM · #36
Originally posted by ThingFish:
If I have an image that is perfectly in focus is it permissible to create the "missed focus" effect in post processing like with gausian blur for instance?


Id say not. Under this part of the rules

apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process

Id recon that it would create a new shape
 05/23/2010 07:25:56 AM · #37
Originally posted by ThingFish:
If I have an image that is perfectly in focus is it permissible to create the "missed focus" effect in post processing like with gausian blur for instance?


Id say yes, because gaussian blur is allowed in the whole image in basic editing.
So it might be allowed also to some parts of the picture in advanced editing...
 05/23/2010 07:32:04 AM · #38
I would be creating no new shapes or features at all by applying gausian blur.
I don't even have to apply it selectively, i could just blur the entire image. Or alternatively I could desharpen the whole image to such an extent that it looks out of focus.

Message edited by author 2010-05-23 07:36:35.
 05/23/2010 08:02:41 AM · #39
Originally posted by ThingFish:
If I have an image that is perfectly in focus is it permissible to create the "missed focus" effect in post processing like with gausian blur for instance?


Clearly YES under advanced rules. Without a doubt.
 05/23/2010 08:30:57 AM · #40
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Here we go with the debates over focus blur vs motion blur...

Vote=1 for Motion Blur, you will be punished for your ignorance.
Vote=3 to 4 for in focus.
Vote=6 to 10 for out of focus.
 05/23/2010 08:43:55 AM · #41
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by ThingFish:
If I have an image that is perfectly in focus is it permissible to create the "missed focus" effect in post processing like with gausian blur for instance?


Clearly YES under advanced rules. Without a doubt.


As a purist, no. I hope to be able to differentiate between the two so I can dingaringadingding it.

Missed focus to me is trying to focus on a fire hydrant but you get the grass in focus instead that's behind it. Your focus missed the actual subject of your image. Blur is not missed focus, blur is movement by either the camera or the subject matter. Both will give what looks like an out of focus image but are not missed focus. A lens can focus precisely on an object but if that object is moving or the camera is moving then it'll be blurry and not out of focus.

05/23/2010 09:25:16 AM · #42
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by ThingFish:
If I have an image that is perfectly in focus is it permissible to create the "missed focus" effect in post processing like with gausian blur for instance?


Clearly YES under advanced rules. Without a doubt.


As a purist, no. I hope to be able to differentiate between the two so I can dingaringadingding it.

Missed focus to me is trying to focus on a fire hydrant but you get the grass in focus instead that's behind it. Your focus missed the actual subject of your image. Blur is not missed focus, blur is movement by either the camera or the subject matter. Both will give what looks like an out of focus image but are not missed focus. A lens can focus precisely on an object but if that object is moving or the camera is moving then it'll be blurry and not out of focus.


Actually, it's quite easy to get an oof image by taking your camera out of AF and manually focusing. I do this quite often by accident when I forget to change it back. I'd call that "missed" focus. LOL!
 05/23/2010 09:32:58 AM · #43
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by ThingFish:
If I have an image that is perfectly in focus is it permissible to create the "missed focus" effect in post processing like with gausian blur for instance?


Clearly YES under advanced rules. Without a doubt.


As a purist, no. I hope to be able to differentiate between the two so I can dingaringadingding it.

Missed focus to me is trying to focus on a fire hydrant but you get the grass in focus instead that's behind it. Your focus missed the actual subject of your image. Blur is not missed focus, blur is movement by either the camera or the subject matter. Both will give what looks like an out of focus image but are not missed focus. A lens can focus precisely on an object but if that object is moving or the camera is moving then it'll be blurry and not out of focus.


The question was not how you or others would judge it, the question was is it legal. To that the answer IS yes.

How people vote is an entirely different matter.

However, if an object is moving, that could be the cause the focus was missed (happens ALL the time) and therefore would be a perfectly valid image.
 05/23/2010 09:33:43 AM · #44
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Here we go with the debates over focus blur vs motion blur...

Vote=1 for Motion Blur, you will be punished for your ignorance.
Vote=3 to 4 for in focus.
Vote=6 to 10 for out of focus.


Where does, on your scale, an image fall that has the primary subject OOF, but something in the fore or background in focus?
 05/23/2010 10:12:59 AM · #45
Okay... here I go playing devil's advocate... but what if you have the camera in manual focus, you are panning, and you focus ahead of your subject??? The motion would create the out of focus background, but the camera would miss the focus on the subject, ergo meeting the challenge, right??? I'm curious cause I've been following this debate and it made me wonder....
 05/23/2010 10:17:24 AM · #46
Originally posted by Sirashley:
Okay... here I go playing devil's advocate... but what if you have the camera in manual focus, you are panning, and you focus ahead of your subject??? The motion would create the out of focus background, but the camera would miss the focus on the subject, ergo meeting the challenge, right??? I'm curious cause I've been following this debate and it made me wonder....


Technically, yes. If it looks like motion blur though, you may get low votes for it.
 05/23/2010 10:30:18 AM · #47
I'll vote the same as i vote on all the technical themed challenges - on how good and interesting the final image is to me. Doesn't make one jot of difference to me how you created the blur or out of focus - photoshop, motion blur, de-focussed lens, shallow DOF - couldn't care less. It's the finished photograph i'm interested in.
 05/23/2010 10:40:28 AM · #48
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Here we go with the debates over focus blur vs motion blur...

Vote=1 for Motion Blur, you will be punished for your ignorance.
Vote=3 to 4 for in focus.
Vote=6 to 10 for out of focus.


Where does, on your scale, an image fall that has the primary subject OOF, but something in the fore or background in focus?

6 to 10 range. :-)
 05/23/2010 10:40:49 AM · #49
Missed focus or motion blur? Both? DNMC? Legal?

05/23/2010 10:43:50 AM · #50
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Sirashley:
Okay... here I go playing devil's advocate... but what if you have the camera in manual focus, you are panning, and you focus ahead of your subject??? The motion would create the out of focus background, but the camera would miss the focus on the subject, ergo meeting the challenge, right??? I'm curious cause I've been following this debate and it made me wonder....


Technically, yes. If it looks like motion blur though, you may get low votes for it.

I would take this as an affront, you'd get a 1 and an obnoxious comment.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/11/2025 08:35:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/11/2025 08:35:22 AM EDT.