| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2003 03:49:46 PM · #1 |
Why is it that it seems that at DPC every challenge entry has to be totally, completely in focus? Why? I think soft-focus, or very slight blur, can be a very effective, and very beautiful. So why right away think, "Oh, not in focus, bad picture!". Why not look at it, and think about it. Maybe that was the intent, maybe the picture is better this way. Oh well. It's been a BAD day.
Ursula |
|
|
|
07/28/2003 04:01:38 PM · #2 |
I agree that a soft-focus can be effective. However, I also think that many attempts to use it are not successful in making it work. Many soft-focus shots are wonderful, but many times, the soft focus detracts from the image rather than adding to it. Not everything works well with blur.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2003 04:06:32 PM · #3 |
I think there is a difference (artistically speaking anyway) between 'soft' focus, and 'poor' focus; I also think differentiating the two can be difficult for the novice - intermediate user/voter. As I've said many times, the average photographer has to be really clear as to what his/her intentions were, or some will conclude that it was a mistake.
The same goes for exposure, lighting, shadows, cropping, composition...and on and on.
Once you're all famous and stuff you can do whatever the hell you like and everyone thinks it's on purpose. :)
Cheer up Ursula, we still love you even when you get lower scores than you like.
Pedro |
|
|
|
07/28/2003 04:11:34 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by pedromarlinez:
I think there is a difference (artistically speaking anyway) between 'soft' focus, and 'poor' focus; I also think differentiating the two can be difficult for the novice - intermediate user/voter. As I've said many times, the average photographer has to be really clear as to what his/her intentions were, or some will conclude that it was a mistake.
The same goes for exposure, lighting, shadows, cropping, composition...and on and on.
Once you're all famous and stuff you can do whatever the hell you like and everyone thinks it's on purpose. :)
Cheer up Ursula, we still love you even when you get lower scores than you like.
Pedro |
Hey, thanks Pedro! |
|
|
|
07/28/2003 05:04:45 PM · #5 |
| Don't worry about it, anyone can take a out of focus picture, few can achieve good soft focus. The same is true of the critics, anyone can say "that's out of focus", few would recognise soft focus. |
|
|
|
07/28/2003 06:10:12 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by uabresch:
Why is it that it seems that at DPC every challenge entry has to be totally, completely in focus? Why? I think soft-focus, or very slight blur, can be a very effective, and very beautiful. So why right away think, "Oh, not in focus, bad picture!". Why not look at it, and think about it. Maybe that was the intent, maybe the picture is better this way. Oh well. It's been a BAD day.
Ursula |
Any specific examples?
|
|
|
|
07/28/2003 06:25:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by uabresch:
Why is it that it seems that at DPC every challenge entry has to be totally, completely in focus? Why? I think soft-focus, or very slight blur, can be a very effective, and very beautiful. So why right away think, "Oh, not in focus, bad picture!". Why not look at it, and think about it. Maybe that was the intent, maybe the picture is better this way. Oh well. It's been a BAD day.
Ursula |
Any specific examples? |
OK - I'll use 2 examples from your portfolio, John (hope you don't mind).
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=24901
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=26899
One has intentional movement, and it works! That picture has more soul than a lot of other photos perfectly in focus.
The other is just a touch soft, but IMHO it's one of your best flower shots. It shows warmth and feeling, not just technical prowess.
Maybe I'm not saying this right, but I think that soft focus, movement, slight blur, are excellent ways to comunicate in photography.
Message edited by author 2003-07-28 18:39:17. |
|
|
|
07/28/2003 06:42:24 PM · #8 |
Let me add another example, from Jodie Coston's portfolio - I admire Jodie's work very much:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=16509
It's a beautiful picture! But it's not all over perfectly in focus. That's the kind of picture I'm talking about.
Franziska Lang (another photographer whose work I admire) has similar examples.
Message edited by author 2003-07-28 18:53:14. |
|
|
|
07/28/2003 08:08:33 PM · #9 |
That third one (Jodie's) is an excellent example of a soft focus - and finished very well in the voting. The first Setz pic only had, I think, one negative comment on the blur - I think the colors may have had more of an effect on the score on that shot, and the second one I agree is a great shot, but can't really be evaluated in the question of 'every challenge entry has to be totally, completely in focus', since it wasn't a challenge entry, and there aren't any comments. So (just from those examples) I don't think its a question of soft-focussed shots getting voted down, per se. I think that Pedro nailed it pretty much on the head - its a technique that (for me, at least) is more difficult to master, so if it's not carried out just right, stands out more as a flaw.
This is probably the kind of thing where the entire "story" of the picture has to be well defined too. If you take a motion-blurred picture of a puppy dog and title it "Fido", people might just think it's a poorly taken shot. If you title it "Nervous Energy" or "Puppy Power" or something more creative, that indicates that movement is what you're trying to convey. Also, if there's motion blur, or soft focus, and all other aspects of the photo are clean (color, lighting, etc.) - i.e. it's more easily interpreted that you were in control of what you were trying to capture - then the response will probably be better.
Message edited by author 2003-07-28 20:10:03. |
|
|
|
07/28/2003 08:09:56 PM · #10 |
I'm finding a similar frustration with lighting. I'm getting a lot of too bright.. or blinding...
But unless you've been there, you might not know that this is what made the subject... I suppose my problem was I needed more outside what filled the frame.
This is why I would like some sort of challenge which is comments only, to ensure I get a lot of them. That way if I get a lot of good comments which I don't feel help too much, then there will still be others. |
|
|
|
07/28/2003 08:35:10 PM · #11 |
Ursula,
I don't mind u using my photos as examples at all. The first one u chose is not a 'soft focus' issue tho. It's simply motion blur to convey the mood I wanted for that shot.
First of all, I do agree with what you are saying about soft focus and how it can improve a photo.
First of all, I believe that there is a definite difference between 'out of focus' and 'soft focus'. In most cases, I think it's a better workflow to achieve softness via two alternative methods rather than using the focus on the camera to do it.
1 - a gaussian blur layer in photoshop with opacity adjustments
2 - by using a soft focus filter on the camera
I feel that soft focus has to serve a purpose. I believe that when a photographer decides to use soft focus, he/she should be able to articulate the reasons for it.
"Glow" created by soft focus and various blur methods often changes the mood of a photo. It can amplify a sense of surrealism... It can enhance the ambient lighting on the subject... there are a lot of reasons for doing it.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2003 09:02:22 PM · #12 |
John, I agree with what you say. And I agree that using your one picture was a bad choice for the issue (but a neat picture, good to look at :). Jodies picture comes much closer to what I was aiming for, as do a couple in Franziska Lang's portfolio. It's the "glow" I'm after. And I think that Scott's comment that the soft focus needs to be part of the whole story, the whole picture, is very correct. That's what I've been trying to learn.
But, I still think that "soft focus" and "out of focus" are confused by a lot of viewers. My original rant came out of frustration from "out of focus" comments to my current entry to "Fill the Frame" (so I can't use it for an example). The original picture for the entry is very much in focus, very clear, the "fuzziness" is very much intentional, done legally within the rules of DPC. Yet I became frustrated with hearing right away that the picture was "out of focus".
Please pardon my frustration. Sometimes a person works very hard at something just to see it (seemingly) quickly dismissed (I'm sure everyone here can sympathize with that). Tom's frustration with lighting seems to be of the same kind.
Thanks for your patience.
And, BTW, the assumption that my picture is scoring low is wrong - it's doing quite well. I just want it to get only 8s, 9s, and 10s :))))
Message edited by author 2003-07-28 21:22:38. |
|
|
|
07/28/2003 10:51:01 PM · #13 |
Just got around to reading this thread and look at that... I'm being made an example of! :) That calla lily print, as well as this baby picture and this flower shot were, if I remember correctly, all taken with a very fine piece of white or tan nylon (pantyhose) stretched over the lens. I find this works extremely well for keeping a shot completely in focus, yet "softening" the whole thing. You can stretch it more or less to vary the softness.
I have found, with my Coolpix 995 that I have to set the focus manually, or else if I'm in macro mode, sometimes the camera will want to focus on the piece of nylon and it winds up having a fit because it can't focus quite that close.
I also have a star filter for one of my manual cameras that I've rigged up to fit on my digicam. It works fabulously for softening an image - quite a bit softer than the above examples.
When going to 'soft focus' it's so, so important not to be 'out of focus'. So to employ this technique (which I often do, it's very effective with the right subject matter) I always use a filter as opposed to trying to do it in-camera or photoshop.
I haven't voted on any of the current challenges yet (I've been out of town) but Ursula, I love your work and you have yet to earn a low vote from me. I have no doubt you've employed the technique beautifully!
Jodie Coston
|
|
|
|
07/28/2003 11:23:31 PM · #14 |
Please forgive me if I've missed something on this thread (or on the example pages you've given) but it appears that all the examples you've given have received wonderful comments and scores. Can't see in any of those examples where the majority of votes are complaining about them being out of focus.
I may be wrong. Keep in mind I'm looking at this from work and it's hard to stay too long on one page without the boss seeing:) |
|
|
|
07/29/2003 12:13:54 AM · #15 |
Technique should bring the subject to the focus of attention. If the technique is the first thing people notice, it's usually not effective.
Message edited by author 2003-07-29 00:14:14. |
|
|
|
07/29/2003 01:44:45 AM · #16 |
this was my attempt at the night out challenge that never saw the light of day. This shot is deliberately blurry.
Your thoughts: Just crap technique or actually a half decent photo.
//www.pbase.com/blee/inbox
EDIT: By the way the lovely girl in the photo has just signed up here and is about to enter her first submission and thinks she can take better pics than me.....WITH MY CAMERA.
Think again Babe.
Message edited by author 2003-07-29 01:52:23. |
|
|
|
07/29/2003 08:54:53 AM · #17 |
| Don't forget Gordon's nice tutorial on achieving soft focus. When done well, soft focus is nice! When not done well, it just looks out of focus. I did a simple gaussian blur of varying degrees to an image recently and it just looked blurry. Then I tried Gordon's method and a lovely soft focus was achieved, so it's not just a matter of having your subject slightly out of focus IMO, at least most of the time. |
|
|
|
07/29/2003 09:02:15 AM · #18 |
You're all right. I was complaining out of place. Sorry about that. No excuses. I'm off for two weeks vacation today, and I'm REALLY looking forward to it! Take care all of you.
Ursula |
|
|
|
07/29/2003 09:05:48 AM · #19 |
| Like many elements of photography, focus is assumed to have a *default*--or a rule that can be broken when there is reason. Some do not see past the default, but that is one reason we are here--to learn when rules can be broken! |
|
|
|
07/29/2003 09:16:58 AM · #20 |
| BTW, I agree, Gordon's tutorial is good, very useful. |
|
|
|
07/29/2003 01:50:42 PM · #21 |
There's a fine line between the perception of focus and out of focus. This shot of mine was deliberately focused so that the condensation was visible on the back of the wok but I got lots of 'out of focus' comments. Understandable really.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=28466
|
|
|
|
07/29/2003 02:11:23 PM · #22 |
| My feeling is that you should have a definite reason for intentionally doing something with soft focus. The key here is that if people look at the shot and it looks like the focus is a goof, you're going to get voted down for it. Granted, even if you do it with a clear purpose, there will likely still be people who think it was done accidentally. My best advice... use soft focus sparingly and decisively. |
|
|
|
07/29/2003 03:32:49 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by uabresch:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=26899
The other is just a touch soft, but IMHO it's one of your best flower shots. It shows warmth and feeling, not just technical prowess.
Maybe I'm not saying this right, but I think that soft focus, movement, slight blur, are excellent ways to comunicate in photography. |
I agree, and I will use this particular picture as an example of why I vote down many attempts at 'soft focus' ... but wouldn't vote THIS one down. It has a focal center, and I don't mean 'something that isn't blurry'. The focus draws your eye to the stamens, and invites them to linger.
In Calla Lily, which someone else used as an example, I also don't feel it to be completely overdone - it was very CAREFULLY done, which is a different matter. The arabesque front is just enough in focus that it looks like something you should be looking at (if you get my meaning).
However, I have seen far to many attempts (and gotten flamed for commenting that the focus was bad!) where the effect is not like Calla Lily, but instead is 'You are looking at this through a greasy window, and no amount of peering will give you something specific to look at or be drawn to.' When it makes me want to clean my monitor or adjust my glasses, I vote it down.
Your mileage may vary. :->
|
|
|
|
07/29/2003 04:20:41 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by alansfreed:
My feeling is that you should have a definite reason for intentionally doing something with soft focus. The key here is that if people look at the shot and it looks like the focus is a goof, you're going to get voted down for it. Granted, even if you do it with a clear purpose, there will likely still be people who think it was done accidentally. My best advice... use soft focus sparingly and decisively. |
Therein lies the problem :) If anyone looks at it and thinks it's a 'goof', then you probalby didn't do it very well.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2003 04:21:44 PM · #25 |
|
