| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2007 10:31:48 PM · #51 |
 by  levyj413
Here is another use of blur: to complicate and/or obscure symbols.
For symbols to work, they have to be known by the viewer. But if the viewer already knows what a symbol means, then the symbol is a cliche. This is the Catch-22 of someone who wants to create a meaningful work. The artist must come up with strategies to circumvent it.
In this photo, we have the symbol of the framed photograph. It is clearly a family photo of a child. To show that photo and not the child is a symbol of the child being absent. Next we have the symbol of the man in darkness. The darkness tends to represent the man's own misery. The man is clearly looking at the photo. This symbolizes the importance of the girl to the man.
If this were all there was to the picture, it would be a cliche. But obscurity complicates these symbols, and that obscurity is a combination of darkness and noise (blur). The obscurity does not help the symbols as symbols. Quite the opposite. For example, it is difficult to tell what is holding the picture up. Close examination reveals that it is sitting on top of a bookshelf, but the bookshelf is so dark and obscured as to be ghostly. The viewer ends up spending a lot of time wondering, what is the position of this child in the family, bringing up metaphorical notions like what is her role? and what is her status? Also, the high position of the photo causes the man to look straight ahead, with his chin up, in a position more proud than defeated. His whole posture echoes that. All of which makes the viewer want to look at his facial expression for additional clues.
Ah, but no such luck! The dark face, which in a slouched position would be a cliche, an expected piece of the puzzle, now becomes a mystery, a missing piece of the puzzle.
Jeffrey's inspiration for this photo is Louis here:
His strategy is different, but very effective. Instead of using blur, he uses an unknown symbol: part of a couch, instead of a photo. Whatever he is looking at is either out of frame or completely gone. But two key elements are in common here: the ambiguous posture, erect but leaning, and the darkened face.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 11:03:52 AM · #52 |
 by De Sousa
Let's take a look at Jorge's goals for this challenge:
- Use the blur as a main element for the overall composition;
- Do not completely destroy the back/foregrounds as usually done with the blur technique;
- Since blur destroys details, the colour will be used to compensate that;
- Do not try happy accidents. Each photo should be done following the above orientations;
- Last but not least. Have all this together with oneiric/poetic harmony. I hope to get there ;)
What particularly intrigues me is goal #4: no accidents. That is an ambitious limitation to put on oneself, and one that will interfere with goal #5. After all, how will the purposeful, unwavering mindset produce either poetry or dreams? Simply blurring an otherwise commercial photograph will not necessarily achieve this. From my own experience as a poet and more importantly what I've read about poets and artists is that in order to achieve poetry, the artist must transcend his own mind somehow. Every artist comes up with different techniques, some involve "accidents," others might involve trance-like states.
It is of course possible to know exactly what you want before you press the shutter, before you even set up the shot. Alfred Hitchcock said that making movies was boring to him because by the time he got to the set he had already figured out everything he needed to do for the picture. As a poet, I can sympathize with this approach, because the poet cannot depend on some last-second fortuitous accident. Writing a poem is a deliberate process with no single instant defining it.
However, if you do choose this course of careful planning, be aware that your plan is your poem. It is at this stage that you must be open to "accidents of the mind."
I enjoy this photo as a representation of the control you wish to wield over your art. An orchard of a single tree, with green grass, yellow flowers, blue sky. Everything where it should be, as expected. The blur, instead of threatening the order, is simply a final flourish, evidence of the control of the artist, i.e., it is still perfect in spite of the blur.
But I would challenge you to let wolves into your garden, or it will die of flourishing. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 11:53:39 AM · #53 |
posthumous-you seem to be working overtime here. where are you partners in this adventure?
Thanks for your effort. Really appreciated. Cheers! |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 10:56:14 PM · #54 |
 by rheverly
This contrasts nicely with some other photos I've looked at. For one thing, it is confessed to be an accident. The "art" here was the art of selecting the right accident, cropping it to the size and shape it wants to be, and then processing it. This is a valid and common way for an artist to balance the left and right brain, the ego and the id, the conscious and the unconscious.
Next, in contrast to Jeffrey above, blur in this case makes the symbols *more* symbolic. It is impossible to think of the bird as one particular bird. The rainbow, too, is impossible to think of as the weather condition of a particular day in a particular photographer's life. The viewer is forced to look at these subjects as symbols, and to an extent viewers like seeing such an authoritative stance from the artist. It's like reading a novel by Dickens, an authoritative narrator.
The danger, though, is that the image will be too simple. It will be too obvious what I should think. But the obvious message that normally would resonate from these symbols is missing, and that would be the message of aspiration and progress. This image is not a corporate success poster.
How did Rob avoid that? Well, for one thing, the bird is practically sideways, not soaring upward. Also, the composition is cramped. The bird actually seems trapped by the rainbow. The rainbow itself has more personality than you normally expect from a rainbow. It's a little crabby, looks a bit neon and brittle. For me, the image represents a frank look at change, how it forces transcendence but at a painful price. For you, it might be different. But that room for interpretation is NOT an accident. It was built in by the artist. |
|
|
|
08/14/2007 11:22:18 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
posthumous-...
Thanks for your effort. Really appreciated. Cheers! |
Ditto.
|
|
|
|
08/14/2007 11:26:22 PM · #56 |
| Sure would like to know if I have any idea about this or not, so if you will....pick something and let me know....or do I pick something...well however I would appreciate some pointers. thx. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 09:20:20 AM · #57 |
Yes, thanks, posthumous. I've gotten a few comments from some of the other BPers, but your comments go into the most depth.
I'd like to suggest something a little different as one example: compare and contrast these two images. On the surface, they seem similar in that they're both swirls, probably made by spinning the camera. But there are real differences in them. Do they both work? Why or why not?
Full disclosure: the one on the right is mine. I had taken it before I saw JPR's image, and on seeing that one, decided to upload it to see the reaction.
I'm truly curious and I greatly appreciate all thoughts in any direction.
 
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 04:13:51 PM · #58 |
I'm having a few emotions here; they're very contrasty. Initially, I am incredibly grateful for the discussion and the effort being made here. It's very rewarding to me personally, and I appreciate it a great deal.
For another, I'm learning a lot about the language that can be used to think about images. I look a lot, I try to see each time I look, and I try to understand, but I can't always put all of that into coherent thoughts, let alone words. Sometimes I just give up (I haven't commented in a few days, though I've wanted to, because I've been at a general loss for the words needed to talk about what I've seen). So, reading this allows me to expand the way I think about thinking about seeing. That's incredibly valuable to me on so many levels, and I can't clearly express how helpful it is.
And, frustratingly enough, I have more to say and can't express it right now. I will come back to this, to say more, but for now, let me just say thanks again to Don for this thread, and for posting, and to all those who have posted and discussed seriously the images here. And to you all for seeing, as best you can, what is here, and what could be here. It's invaluable, perhaps more so than you know.
Thank you.
Best,
Rob |
|
|
|
08/16/2007 09:33:45 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
|
Do they both work? Yes.
The comparison is easy enough. In one I can discern human forms, while the other is abstract. My comments on JPR's photo pertain to why it "works."
More difficult is to explain why your photo works, because it is abstract, at least to me. I can't make out any subject. It is very tricky to critique something completely abstract, and don't let anyone tell you different. I don't buy that you can react to something based on pure principles of composition and color. Composition cannot be completely separated from representation. If you say, "The white triangle interacts with the spiraling motion" then you have already admitted that a triangle is being represented, and a spiral. Not only that, the *interaction* is represented. Abstraction is an ideal. It is never realized. Pure abstraction cannot be seen, or listened to, or read. I read recently that one of the pioneers of abstraction, Kandinsky, was influenced by Theosophy and was making use of its symbols in his supposedly non-representational work. So if his work has symbols, then it is no more abstract than a stop sign.
Ironically, one of the goals of abstraction as I understand it is to create something more universal. After all, a painting of a bull will affect you differently based on how you feel about bulls. No subject, and no subjective bias. EXCEPT... no image is purely abstract, which means that the viewer will see it as a picture of something. The closer it gets to the ideal of abstraction, the more that "something" is determined by the viewer. In other words, the subject itself is a subjective decision. So as the photographer moves away from subjectivity, he moves toward it.
Your title is an attempt to shape the viewer's interpretation of your abstract photo. It offers not just a subject but one rich with themes developed by Lewis Carroll and the Matrix. But it is only an attempt: the photo itself is not so easily rabbit-holed pigeon-holed. Though I will grant you that it is a rather effective interpretation. I do indeed sense depth in your photo, whereas I perceive motion in JPR's. Perhaps that is what you were getting at when you asked for a comparison. Yours is indeed a hole, while his is a tornado: two different but equally valid vehicles of transformation. What interests me about your photo is that it feels like I can almost make out the subjects, but as I do I go deeper into the "hole." It is as though you are representing the very process of looking. To some degree, I think most great photos do this, but that's a whole nuther can of worms. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 03:04:59 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
... how will the purposeful, unwavering mindset produce either poetry or dreams? |
This is a great line. Please consider making it into a bumper-sticker ... : )
Oh, and the title of this thread is a great neologism -- whoever thought of that might want to trademark it.
Message edited by author 2007-08-17 03:25:09. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:08:33 PM · #61 |
An effort to catalog some various techniques represented in the blur workshop.
The chosen categories may not be a complete listing, and undoubtedly excludes most cross technique, but rather a general overview of some of the popular and obvious explorations.
LENS FOCUS/APERTURE RING: (includes using aspects of: bokeh; dof; selective focus; lack of focus.) Use of aperture and the manual focus ring/button for a lens is the most effective, obvious, easily used method to introduce depth of field & out of focus elements into a composition. Most images in
Sharpless is such an august concept... employ this technique.
   
ZOOM DURING EXPOSURE: Usually requires a zoom lens & longish exposure, but effect can be also be created with a non-zoom lens with camera movement to or from a subject.
    
DELIBERATE CAMERA MOVEMENT: Related to camera panning. Another technique using longish exposure, photographer moves the camera during exposure, sometimes without looking in the viewfinder. Camera rotation; shaking the camera; swinging camera from a strap. The effect by nature experimental & accidental, causes various effects which can create spirograph/circular or arc blur patterns; jagged blury shape; or sometimes simply blury colour.
     
CAMERA PAN: Photographer maintains viewfinder connection with a moving subject while making an exposure.
   
SMOKE/FOG/HAZE:
   
VASELINE:
SPECIAL SOFTFOCUS/LENSBABY:
     
OTHER EXTERNAL TOYS - LENS/SCREEN: Weird stuff in front of a lens.
DRIVE-BY UNSHARP: Bouncing around inside a vehicle.
   
SUBJECT REFLECTION:
  
PHOTOSHOP/SOFTWARE BLUR: Has the potential (in edit) to create any kind of digital blur enhancement.
   
  
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 04:46:51. |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:15:29 PM · #62 |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 12:32:11 PM · #63 |
Fantastic info here, I'm joining a bit late, but this is one of my favorite areas of photography so I can't help myself.
Here are two of mine that I enjoy... 
using the blur to create a "dream" for the boy to aspire to
and, this one, shooting through a wet windshield.. didn't do too well in a free challenge
Jack |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 03:15:18 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
An effort to catalog some various techniques represented in the blur workshop.
The chosen categories may not be a complete listing, and undoubtedly excludes most cross technique, but rather a general overview of some of the popular and obvious explorations.
LENS FOCUS/APERTURE RING:
ZOOM DURING EXPOSURE:
DELIBERATE CAMERA MOVEMENT:
CAMERA PAN:
SMOKE/FOG/HAZE:
VASELINE:
SPECIAL SOFTFOCUS/LENSBABY:
OTHER EXTERNAL TOYS - LENS/SCREEN: Weird stuff in front of a lens.
DRIVE-BY UNSHARP: Bouncing around inside a vehicle.
SUBJECT REFLECTION:
PHOTOSHOP/SOFTWARE BLUR: |
Incredibly useful, and such effort put into it (both thinking of it and finding the images and posting them here). Should we add slow shutter speed, as well?
SLOW SHUTTER SPEED: Often used with other techniques, such as deliberate camera movement, or camera pan, but may be used on its own where there is movement in view.
   
I must say, after putting together just those four images to illustrate this one concept (and I hope they all do, it's harder to be sure when images don't have shutter speed in the details), I gained a much deeper appreciation for what André did in his post. Amazing the dedication in this thread (and a bit overwhelming).
Best,
Rob |
|
|
|
08/19/2007 10:28:17 PM · #65 |
SLOW SHUTTER SPEED: Often used with other techniques, such as deliberate camera movement, or camera pan, but may be used on its own where there is movement in view.
Rob: A primary & obvious technique and certainly a powerful tool that should be placed first on our list. Thanks for your kind words to me, but really thank you for your insight which shows me that what may be right in front of ones nose is sometimes overlooked. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 01:58:32 AM · #66 |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 02:04:49 AM · #67 |
| you can put me on the list les, when you get a chance. thanks lady! :) |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 02:50:03 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by ShannonLee:
you can put me on the list les, when you get a chance. thanks lady! :) |
go for it shannon, the list didnt work that well anyways! :)) |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 09:45:30 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by raish:
 |
How can an image be musical? One way is blur, because music occurs in the blur of one note into another. Music, after all, requires time: time for the notes to play, time for them to change, time for the pulse of rhythm. Blur suggests time, since it suggests motion. Your subject matter and composition continue this theme of motion over time. We have the child, blurred, from moving, living and, one subliminally feels, from growing. Add to that the highlight to his right follows lines of perspective and motion is once again implied, motion from background to foreground, or vice versa. And over (under?) all this is the rhythm of the texture of the repeating curves of flora. |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 10:05:19 PM · #70 |
Dear All,
Please accept my SINCERELY APOLOGY for being absent in this thread.
Unfortunately the Southern Winter has not been kind to me and my family and for the second time in two months I've been laid up in bed with the nastiest of all flus.
I truly hope to get to see the magic you've all produced - I'm very keen to read, learn and exchange ideas about this way of photographing - GRIN!
Lisa |
|
|
|
08/22/2007 10:12:22 PM · #71 |
I have one I would like some feedback on, it was taken some time ago and not in the actual challenge...
Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 03:42:38 PM · #72 |
another purpose of blur: it helps us to forget.
We forget who we are. We forget where we were going. We forget that we were looking at a photograph. We forget if ducks live in the air or in the water. We forget if water is blue or green. We forget that we can't see air. It's a pleasant sort of forgetting, like stepping off a porch into a rubber tambourine, wondering why rain goes up. Sometimes we don't want to drink the green tea, we want to swim in the green tea. Blur helps us do that. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 03:47:34 PM · #73 |
| Dropped a little acid at lunch, eh? Carry on. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 03:48:37 PM · #74 |
sometimes we want to remember: blur helps us do that. by blurring the street and the trees, they become the street of a past time. The green is now a field of corn from which the child that was you has eaten. The street leads to a dentist, bad, but afterwards you go to Rita's for a chocolate ice cream shake, good, and Dad tells you about making ice cream from trees and snow. and you believe him. blur helps you believe. |
|
|
|
08/29/2007 03:57:18 PM · #75 |
Blur is a painter. He tries to make a cartoon of our world, an irreverent graffito. You want this guy in your corner when the world inside your little frame is getting dull. If you are lucky, he will, like a good cartoonist, make an instant emotional connection with us, a story instantly told or imagined, a compelling, almost anxious, sense that something is happening RIGHT NOW! |
|
