Two wrong photos

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Here's two wrong photos of mine, both on T-Max 3200 film.

The first one (Sonnar 1.5/50 ZM) has wrong focus, I thought I set it at 6 meters but it was at closest distance really. So only the very foreground is focused.
Yet, I think that for a lucky circumstance, the photo still works somehow, although not as I expected it to work.
The blurred highlights in the background, look like emanations from the blurred jewelry in the middle ground. Like flying pearls or something.
There is no real human subject, except the arms of a client who is handling and watching some jewel. It is blurred, but clear enough to be understandeable. And nothing more than that
is really needed, because the real subject is the jewels, or, better said, the somehow unwanted dreamy situation generated by the large display of the blurred jewels.
And the gesture of the arm, looks like an evocation, a magical gesture:

#1

The second photo (Snapshot-Skopar 4/25) is a street snapshot of some people on the sidewalk in the centre of the city of Piacenza.
The light was mostly gone (after sunset) and I (stupidly) used the camera in aperture priority mode, so the shutter time happened to be too long to capture the action correctly.
The result, however, has some charme for me. The people moved at different speeds, so they generated different kinds of blur: from ghostly to slightly blurred to partially frozen.
That, and the different gestures, created an image with a lot of variety and different dynamics, with characters that seem to have each their own mind and reason to be in the picture.
The city night lights and shiny wet sidewalk complete the suggestion.

#2

In both cases, I would say that the border line between a keeper and a trash bin conscript is very thin and subtly walked.
What is your opinion? Very Happy

Does a photographer really depend so much on good luck? Laughing

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

to me first is trash, second is rather keeper (like a paint from most respected painters today) Laughing

seriously , second is fine to me.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

skida · Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:42 am Post subject:

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

In #1 the specular highlights are a bit too distracting, but one can see the attraction. #2 +another

patrickh

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Sorry Orio not for me as I'm not into modern art where mistakes can be confused with the artist's real intentions. Wink

Himself · Expire: 2013-05-30

It's all about photographer's intention.
Most of them will say that the way we see them it's exactly what they wanted to do, but since you came up with full confession ( you are forgiven Twisted Evil

) I'd say that #2 is the keeper.
It's a likable blur. I wear glasses and because of that I get dizzy the first second I see a blurred picture. It must be a medical reason, probably the eyes are trying to focus each on its own.
In this case nothing happened even if the picture has some dynamicity in it.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

This one came out a little bit better, black coat man looks mysterious, I might even try to market it as intentional Laughing

my_photography · Expire: 2016-12-25

I still prefer #2.