whoever said a good photo must be in focus?

[visiondr]

...to elaborate; here's a recent pair of photos that are not really in focus and yet, I think convey "the moment" better than I ever have.

Please share your thoughts and your own out of focus, fuzzy, smeared gems.

Ron

[ClaremontPhoto]

Lots of mine are well of focus. It's a non-issue for me.

[pvdhaar]

...to elaborate; here's a recent photo that's not really in focus and yet, I think conveys "the moment" better than I ever have.

Please share your thoughts and your own out of focus, fuzzy, smeared gems.

Ron
Your shot may not be sharp, but I think it IS in focus. There's just a lot of subject motion.. And that's why the shot works so well!

The reverse (no subject motion, but focus off) would be an absolute no-no.

[ClaremontPhoto]

My mother loves this one.

[visiondr]

Peter, I think you're probably right there. It is subject motion. My point is I think we sometimes get caught up in the notion of "perfection" in an image or absolute clarity. There are endless threads here and at other photography forums comparing this lens with that lens. I'll admit, all things being equal, I'd rather have the best tools available. But sometimes, none of that really matters at all.

Jon, That is just perfect!

Ron

[physiognomy]

I've always liked this photo of my girlfriend taken with a QL17 GIII... The problem is that I focused on the food (typical!) & at f1.7 her face is slightly oof when the pic is shown at full size. More annoying is that at smaller sizes it looks fine...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/329855157_eb00d5b117_m.jpg

Recently I've come back to play with it again & I felt a bit of overall softening helped some, but I don't really like the cheesy glow.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/329860800_1525be99ab_o.jpg

Peter

[nksyoon]

Your shot may not be sharp, but I think it IS in focus. There's just a lot of subject motion.. And that's why the shot works so well!

The reverse (no subject motion, but focus off) would be an absolute no-no.

How about something like this?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/324282597_30489bc22f.jpg

[Doctor Zero]

I agree. I've attached a picture of my, er, well, I don't know. Her grandfather is my second cousin twice removed. I think. Whatever that makes her to me. But it's a great picture, I think even the father really liked it.

http://www.bss.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mrhk2/pictures/boston/Tony07.JPG


Doctor Zero

[ClaremontPhoto]

Yes, we need deide on focus and on subject movement and on camera movement. We could talk about this lens being sharper than another lens but that is just technology and we need to undertsand how technoloogy affects art.

[Puisin]

I agree with Jon. It's not something I consciencely think about.

I've attached a photo I took in Cambodia. I like the way the blur of the two guys in the street is in direct contrast to the stillness of the girl reading.

[Hiyawaan]

No one ever said a "good" photo had to be in focus. Each picture has it own aesthetic requirements. What works for one picture doesn't necessarily work for another. Motion blur and out of focus are two different beasts. I guess what is important it that as the photographer it was your decision to choose that shutter speed/plain of focus point/movement of the camera etc.. Having said that, we must leave room for the "happy accidents" that some times give us shots we did not expect. Is the picture supposed to be an objective representation of what was there or a subjective interpretation. It all depends. My 2 cents, fueled by too much coffee.

[Gid]

A couple of mine that I like. First has both motion blur and camera shake. The second was taken at F2, ISO 1600 and I was walking at the time I tripped the shutter, so it breaks all the rules;)

[Trius]

Ron: What cracks me up about this is that the original post comes from an optometrist! Sorta makes all your work superfluous I guess! :D

Peter: I think you have a bigger problem than focus. If you are focusing on the food and not your girlfriend, then son, you have an "interesting" life ahead of you. :D

Here's one of mine. Any unsharpness is totally due to low light, and has nothing to do with Guinness.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/305126783_906d81c16b_o.jpg

[pvdhaar]

How about something like this?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/324282597_30489bc22f.jpg
Nah, you're trying to trick me into admitting I'm wrong..

Yours is perfectly focused where you wanted the focus to be.. And by Jove, what a fantastic bokeh does it have! :p

[Pherdinand]

Alstublieft.
No,it was not accidental that is so much OOF. I especially cared that noghing will be in-focus in the shot. I was curious if anybody would understand its point, or would find an interpretation of the scene and why it is oof.
Do you?

[wintoid]

This shot was taken of me and my daughter by my partner Angie who had never focused a rangefinder before. For some reason I love it.

[trittium]

I have an out of focus Bokeh group on my flickr. If you want to see them go here

http://flickr.com/photos/trittium/sets/72157594424764803/

[35mmdelux]

...to elaborate; here's a recent pair of photos that are not really in focus and yet, I think conveys "the moment" better than I ever have.

Please share your thoughts and your own out of focus, fuzzy, smeared gems.

Ron


No problem with it. Look up the OOF master, Victor SKREBNESKI. Rock your world!

[dazedgonebye]

It was always my impression that if an image were sharp and in focus with no motion blur, then it was very unlikely to be considered "art."
If there happens to be a recognizable subject then it's doubly damned.

[dadsm3]

Pherd, is it because you didn't want anyone to see your girlfriend's bum cleavage?

[GeneW]

This one happened to me a short while back. I had previously been using a Stylus Epic and forgot to focus the XA:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/324205650_46a28fcae2_o.jpg

I think I actually like it better this way. I posted it on flickr and within a day it was selected for Explore. So why do I bother dreaming about Summicrons? :)

Gene

[FrankS]

I agree that perfect focus (and sharpness) is over-rated. A strong subject/photo content can transcend the need for technical perfection. This farther renders the quest for the "best" lens just plain silly. The eye of the photographer is THE most important factor in the creation of a successful image. A killer image can be made with very modest equipment if the photographer is skillful.

[lZr]

And there are more possibilities - be in focus and no motion, but with selective blur, or, selective focused - Lensbaby lens

[aad]

Now, I had decided this was to be discarded-I sometimes try things by GZ method, aka "guess zone". Still, I kind of liked it, but thought I was being weird.

[Gabriel M.A.]

It was always my impression that if an image were sharp and in focus with no motion blur, then it was very unlikely to be considered "art."
If there happens to be a recognizable subject then it's doubly damned.
I wholeheartedly disagree with people who wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. People like little boxes.

I think you can have both sharp and in focus, and blur and oof, any combination, it doesn't matter what, and you can have a good image. Many call this "distracting" ;) :

This is sharp and in focus with no motion blur. I was hoping this were considered "art":
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/85/224938623_0306065b01.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/224938623/)

Selective focus, no motion blur, "but" main subject out of focus:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/251989388_4ed09e94da.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/251989388/)
Funny thing is, it is doubly damned when people don't recognize the ("distracting") subject :o

[Gabriel M.A.]

GeneW, Doctor Zero and visiondr: looking good :)

[aad]

While I'm at it, non RF..

[varjag]

Cool stuff Gabriel!

[Gabriel M.A.]

Thank you, Eugene. :)

[ray_g]

I agree with Frank. Sharpness is important, but is way down the list of what makes a good photo. Fortunately, the things higher up on the list cannot be bought.

Here's my OOF shot:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/304291130_4abd13d1ae_o.jpg

[Trius]

Gene: Maybe you should just get some Lomos and Dianas.

[varjag]

You don't need a crap camera to make an unsharp image :)

[nico]

A lot of good stuff!
here some of mine outoffocus or blurry I like:

"Gaia"
"dancing slow"
"Elide"
"Running"


Ciao
Nico



P.S. I can only agree with Frank.

[DavidH]

Here's my OOF shot:

Excellent - I'd be proud of a shot such as this...art to be sure...

and Wintoid - that's a lovely, happy shot...can see why you like it so much...

content is king

:)

[rover]

My favorite shot ever in the RFF gallery.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=1645&ppuser=510

[nksyoon]

Motion blur and a little camera movement:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/317350815_a04bb075fd.jpg

Motion blur and more camera movement:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/317350949_ae0d6864f2.jpg

Motion blur and camera all over the place:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/317347674_22c4b3bb43.jpg

[ClaremontPhoto]

nksyoon:

I like all three, but most of all the first.

[shiro_kuro]

Great thread ! ..... here is one of mine

[gareth]

Saw Cartier Bresson's exhibition at the Dean Gallery in Edinburgh the other year.
Quite a few of the snaps were out of focus.

[Pherdinand]

Pherd, is it because you didn't want anyone to see your girlfriend's bum cleavage?
i wish it was my gf's bum cleavage:P
nope
it's because that's how one will see the world at one o'clock in strange rotterdam after a lot of strange drinks shared with strange unknown but very friendly people at the Witte de With art festival.
I guess i just was in the artsy-fartsy mood.

[Pherdinand]

Gabriel,
I have no clue what the "distracting subjkect" is.