Focus 01
Here is something I'm posting for discussion. It is a digital photograph made without flash from about three feet away from the subject under available lighting in a small dark lounge. Hand held. ISO 200. The specific points for discussion that interest me: soft vs. sharp focus, i.e., when, if at all, can or does such a photograph 'work' ? Why or why not ? Do you have any examples of your own ?
Tags: 2009, Little Freddie King, New Orleans, Photography © Charles Silver - All Rights Reserved, Voodoo Blues in Color
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jacob Zimmer on -
I find that to be much less about soft focus and much more about a slow shutter.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Silver on -
Thanks, Jacob, we can think of it that way as well and the same things still interest me.
-
Permalink Reply by bill ivester on -
i think "burry" works, sometimes. i think "out of focus" or "soft focus" or "extreme" movement never does. if the image reflects the movement or energy of the artist, it can be cool and work beautifully.
personally (and no offense meant), i would never use a shot like the one above. i know there are many schools of thought on this, especially regarding concert photography, but i'll never use anything that is "completely" blurry w/no point of sharpness.
here are a few examples where i think it "works," the top image is one of my favorite pictures that i have ever taken. it (imho) captures the essence of her performing perfectly...
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Silver on
-
Bill, thanks and thanks for your examples.
-
Permalink Reply by Christina Gnadinger on -
Bill .. i kinda follow your train of thought. i think if the blur adds to the feeling / intensity of the shot .. i.e. the fingers moving because they are playing the piano, the hair moving, and so on .. then i like it.
if the photo was taken with his face still but the guitar moving it would mean so much more to me... or even the microphone still and him moving (since they're not making contact in the shot).
but .. that's just me .. and the good thing about photography is that we all see it differently
-
Permalink Reply by bill ivester on
-
along the lines of christina's post... another, where i feel it works, because of the sharpness on the keys, the slight blur of the hand to imply movement. i intensified the grain effect a little for the courseness, because i liked it...
-
Permalink Reply by Christina Gnadinger on
-
one of the (few) downsides to a photograph is that there are sometimes when you can't properly convey feelings, intensities, smells, etc in an image to the full power that it has in 'real life'. if a motion blur can add more emotion to a photograph .. more power to the person taking the photo. if you can do it without a blur effect, then great too.
we went to huber's today and it's the end of the strawberry picking season. the entire strawberry field just smelled like strawberries and it was completely and utterly amazing. figure out a way to bottle that up into a photograph and i'll love you for it .. ;o)
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Armbrust on -
For me, this shot does not work.
There is no point of reference in the shot. I agree with what has been said before. If any one part of the image was tack sharp, maybe I could get behind it.
Also, I have shot a number of bands, most in crappy lighting, all without flash and hand held.
Here are some of mine.
OK, this last one had pretty good lighting, but I'm posting it anyway.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Silver on
-
Thanks to all of you for your thoughts and contributions. I especially appreciate the comments related to the questions I posed. FWIW, over the course of 40 years I've shot mostly crisp shots myself, with and without good lighting or flash, big whoop. I tend to pass over photos like this myself and that I even posted this image is pretty exceptional. That said, I was not asking for a critique of the photo, however, feel free. Some of the comments are kind of funny in light of the positive feedback elsewhere.
FYI: except for resizing this image has not been manipulated or altered in any post processing environment but it has certainly been changed for the worse here. The compression algorithm this site uses sucks as can be seen clearly in the 'noise' artefacts in the hand in the foreground. The original image actually has a "point of sharpness" that is not visible here. Maybe that is a factor in the critiques, maybe not. In any case "the image reflects the movement or energy of the artist" to the satisfaction of the artist, other professionals, average viewers and myself. As was pointed out "the good thing about photography is that we all see it differently".
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Armbrust on
-
Charles, post a link to the image so I can see your sharp point of focus.
Charles Silver said:Thanks to all of you for your thoughts and contributions. I especially appreciate the comments related to the questions I posed. FWIW, over the course of 40 years I've shot mostly crisp shots myself, with and without good lighting or flash, big whoop. I tend to pass over photos like this myself and that I even posted this image is pretty exceptional. That said, I was not asking for a critique of the photo, however, feel free. Some of the comments are kind of funny in light of the positive feedback elsewhere. FYI: except for resizing this image has not been manipulated or altered in any post processing environment but it has certainly been changed for the worse here. The compression algorithm this site uses sucks as can be seen clearly in the 'noise' artefacts in the hand in the foreground. The original image actually has a "point of sharpness" that is not visible here. Maybe that is a factor in the critiques, maybe not. In any case "the image reflects the movement or energy of the artist" to the satisfaction of the artist, other professionals, average viewers and myself. As was pointed out "the good thing about photography is that we all see it differently".
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Stepp on -
These types really dont work for me. Its like when I look at them my eyes dont "settle" in anywhere. Thats really the only way I can describe it.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Silver on
-
Ryan, thanks, but I don't have a link to direct you to. The original file is RAW and the direct jpg conversion is 5.1 MB. I'd have to have time and a place to upload it to, and, from a faster connection than I have atm. Besides, this image really isn't the point I had hoped to discuss. I'm really interested in "when, if at all, can or does such a photograph 'work' ? Why or why not ?" and there have been a number of good, insightful and related comments. For that I am thankful and am looking forward to any more that may be forthcoming. Thanks again.
© 2012 Created by Ryan Armbrust.
