View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 Posts: 2190 Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:06 am Post subject: Does a misfocused image ever "work"? |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
I found myself continually coming back to this photo. Usually I would just delete misfocused pictures without much thought but this one has "something" for me. Am I crazy?
I liked the texture of the tree, so I thought it make a interesting background. Light was fading and I couldn't really stop down to get significant dof. I had to shoot at 1/25th, 3.5(wide-open). This was on my Ikoflex II with a triotar. I did intend to focus on Stasia, obviously didn't quite work out...
Thoughts? For the trash?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Absolutely not! It's a keeper.
This reminds me of a thread I opened some time ago, it was a picture I took of "my" model Anna, it was slightly misfocused but it turned out perfect for the shot
I made the same reflections that you are making now
My conclusion is that there is no "right" and "wrong" in photography, only "good" or "bad".
And this one is good, definitely. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
erkie
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 308 Location: Missouri
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
erkie wrote:
1 I think this is beautiful !
2 I believe we have been softening the features of female subjects for years through many different photographic means.
3 as opposed to zooming in to 100 % digitally I truly believe a print of this when viewed from "proper" distance would be more than acceptable !
Just understand that I don't give a damn how something looks on a computer screen ! I only care about prints . I'm afraid I don't hang computer screens on my wall . I also realize I am a dying breed but as long as I draw breath that's how it will be for me _________________
I shoot film and meter with digital
Asahi H3v, Praktica FX3, Retina IIa, Spotmatic sp1000, Fujica V2, Yashica lynx5000, Pentax Sf1, Minolta SRT102, Minolta7000i, Pentax MX, Pentax ME, Pentax Kx
lensesM42- Isco Gottingen Westanar 50/2.8, Isco Gottingen Westron 35/2.8, Rikenon 35/2.8, Spiratone Tc 105/2.5, Spiratone Tc 200/4.5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 300/5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 135/3.5, Auto Tak 35/3.5, Super Tak 150/4, S-M-C Tak 50/1.4, S-M-C Tak 28/3.5, SMC Tak 55/2, Mamya Sekor 55/1.8
K- mount- Helios 44-K-4, Jc penny 28/2.8, Da 18-55, Da 55-300, Pentax F 35-70, SMCP M 50/1.4, SMCP M 50/1.7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
The focus point seems to make the tree the main subject in the picture, rather than the girl. I love it. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fuzzywuzzy
Joined: 18 Dec 2010 Posts: 1258 Location: Down East, Canada, eh?
Expire: 2013-11-30
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
fuzzywuzzy wrote:
Absolute keeper.
There's such a thing as happy accidents _________________ I welcome C&C, editing my pics and reposting them on the forum is fine.
NEX-F3
~~~~~~~~~
CZJ Sonnar 135/4, Biotar 58/2, Pancolar 50/2, Tessar 50/2.8, Flek 35/2.8, Flek 25/4
Super Takumar 135/2.5, 135/3.5, 100/4 bellows, 50/1.4, 28/3.5
Helios 58/2, 3M-5A 500/8, Mir 20M
Vivitar Series 1 70-210 - - - - - - - - Nikkor 200/4
Rikenon 28/2.8 - - - - - - - - Zeiss 50/1.7 Planar
PB 50/2.4, 135/2.8
Yashica 50/1.9, 28/2.8, 135/2.8
Hexanon 28/3.5, 50/1.4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eddieitman
Joined: 12 Apr 2011 Posts: 1246 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
eddieitman wrote:
I think they can work and certainly this is one of the best images i have seen from you, i really like it. _________________ My web site www.digital-darkroom.weebly.com
Life is like a camera. Focus on what's important, capture the good times, develop from the negatives and if things don't work out, just take another shot. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
skida
Joined: 02 Mar 2012 Posts: 1826 Location: North East England
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
skida wrote:
It may have been accidental but I think this is a cracking shot! The reflected highlight in the eye gives it an appearance of being sharp. The rough tree bark contrasts with the model's complexion, making it all look deliberate. A definite keeper. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
OK, so everyone loves this- except me.
Sometimes missing focus works but not so often. This simply looks like a mistake to me. No offense.
I think perhaps the reason why people do not get better at photography is that everyone tells them how great they are on the internet.
A good honest critique by someone with experience is rare as it's seen as being negative or rude. I don't mean to be either.
If you are really interested in OOF pix, why not go for it and try to make some good OOF pix. I've been doing it a little and it's harder than you'd think. I'm not good at it but I'll try again tomorrow! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 Posts: 2190 Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
Thanks for the honesty. I've looked through some oof photography over the years. It's an interesting concept. It pushes the bounds of pleasurable aesthetics. Our eyes expect certain things to be in focus and when they're not, the picture is most often considered "bad." It is definitely a skill to strike that balance. I look forward to seeing some of your attempts.
Now, not to be rude to you, but a "good honest critique" is not just saying "this simply looks like a mistake to me." Would it have never been a good photo, even if the girl was in focus? Why does the subject change from girl to tree make it a bad photo? What could be changed? Those are critique questions. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
Kram wrote: |
OK, so everyone loves this- except me.
Sometimes missing focus works but not so often. This simply looks like a mistake to me. No offense.
I think perhaps the reason why people do not get better at photography is that everyone tells them how great they are on the internet.
A good honest critique by someone with experience is rare as it's seen as being negative or rude. I don't mean to be either.
If you are really interested in OOF pix, why not go for it and try to make some good OOF pix. I've been doing it a little and it's harder than you'd think. I'm not good at it but I'll try again tomorrow! |
+1 I prefer Stasia in focus _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David
Joined: 13 Apr 2011 Posts: 1869 Location: Denver, Colorado
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
David wrote:
Interjecting out of turn, I read this thread on my train ride home from my phone and then opened it on my laptop; I agree with Kram. The image is hard on my eyes. Compared to the others in the set in the B&W gallery, looking at this image for more than a few seconds gives me a headache (minor hyperbole, but I do feel it in my eyes.) The aesthetics are good, but the OOF subject makes my eyes try too hard to focus. The issue with the OOF nature, to my eyes, is that it's not the dreamy soft-focus that romantic comedy dream sequences have but instead that OOFness that comes from my eyes watering or my glasses lens popping out.
So, to answer your question about how to make it a better capture, were it me I'd have cropped the image slightly to make it more portrait-shaped. Specifically, I'd have taken out the bottom right and upper left corners where the world behind the tree is visible. Then I'd have liked to have the entire scene -- from a few inches in front of her shoulder to a few inches inside the tree behind the deepest bark cranny -- in focus.
The cropping would, as I imagine it, increase the scene's intimacy. Insofar as the image is concerned, all that exists should be the girl and the tree -- a sense emphasized by the relatively larger print real estate she would occupy with the suggested cropping.
Having both in focus would prevent the background from becoming a distracting softness were just she in focus. For me, the issue here is that she's too close to the background, so your DoF would need to be paper-thin in order for the tree to become soft enough not to be a visual problem. Therefore, perfect focus could be at the point where her right eye meets her nose then stopped down far enough to capture everything in relative sharpness. And since there's a natural shadow there, it's a nice point to hang your focus on and shouldn't be too hard to find.
Some things that are done well, as I see them:
1- The pose. Specifically, Stasia's (is it okay to call her by name? It feels weird to say 'the girl.') hand on the bark. Her fingers grasping a large piece present a tactile interaction between subject and foreground. Forget all the Freudian stuff one could read into it; for me, she's interacting directly with the background an that works well. It's a good used of background and a good instinct on the part of whichever of you selected the pose.
2- More on the pose. She's looking away from the tree and away from her hand. That results in a feeling of aloofness and disconnection. So at once there's a balance between direct connection -- touch and dis connection -- emotional -- between subject and background. That creates an emotional tension in the image because she's simultaneously there (physically) and not (mentally.) This emotional tension then creates an emotional response in the viewer and, I submit, that it creates a greater emotional response for the viewer than had she been looking down the lens.
3 - Exposure. It seems you metered the bark so Stasia's face seems comparatively light. That creates a distiction between subject and background that could really work. It may be worthy trying this and bracketing the image, but not by a full stop if possible. If you have a more modern setup that you can use and bracket in 1/3rd stops, maybe a couple on either side, you may find a very useful exposure setting slightly to one side of 'ideal.'
4 - Attire. Simple, non-distracting, and a nice carry-over of her overall lightness. If she had been wearing a dark shirt, she'd have looked light a floating head and that, I think, would have failed.
5 - Background. Simple white shirt, light skin tone, and light hair combine here to reduce the overall texture in your subject (see, now that just feels weird to type.) So placing her against a highly textured, very tactile background creates a stark difference between foreground (subject) and background. That's another reason why I think a deep DoF would work well in this image.
I wouldn't trash the image, but I may not print it. I do think it would be worth re-shooting with a different setup. I forget if you have a DSLR or not, but they tend to have tighter bracketing vis-a-vis high/low key adjustments and on-camera aperture control. With my K-7, for instance, I can bracket in-camera at 1/3 stops. I think that's pretty standard. Combine that with a lens that can adjust to partial stops and that provides a huge array of possible combinations. For instance, with my K-7 and Sigma 35-80, I can set it at f22, 20, 19, 16, 14, 13, 11, etc. So if I bracket at f 22, 20, 19, 16, and 14 with a five-image set of high/low key adjustments set to 1/3 on each side of the aperture setting, that's, well, it's too late at night for me to do the maths. But that's a LOT of combinations. And most of those combinations wouldn't be suggested by a meter. Normally I bracket much less tightly than that, but I don't think your exposure is off here, so tight bracketing would provide images that could bring out various nuances in subject or background. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Nothing wrong with a soft shot of a girl, but surely the subject is the girl not the tree......maybe if the girl was feeding a squirrel or touching a butterfly (that was on the tree), that would work as then they would be the subject. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pich900
Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 1745 Location: The Netherlands/Zwolle
Expire: 2012-12-27
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
pich900 wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
Nothing wrong with a soft shot of a girl, but surely the subject is the girl not the tree......maybe if the girl was feeding a squirrel or touching a butterfly (that was on the tree), that would work as then they would be the subject. |
that's also exactly my point of view...
The problem for me is that the eye is simply catch by the tree (witch is clearly in focus) and it's a shame because the subject of the picture is definitively Stasia, isn't it? It still be a great moment and of course, you don't look at your girlfriend with the same eyes as us, so I can 100% understand that you like this picture no matter if Stasia is in focus or not ... _________________ All my lenses are for sale, nikkor, Angenieux, Zeiss etc.....
Regards,
Pascal
-------------------------------------------------------
Nikon D700 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
In my opinion, the "hidden truth" behind this shot is that the blur makes Anastasia's skin even smoother,
and the perfect focus makes the tree bark even rougher, and this enhances the contrast,
and black and white photography is, for most part, precisely about contrasts.
So this is the reason why it works for me. You could even "sell it" to other viewers as a deliberate choice,
I think you will be believed because this reasoning is exactly how a black and white photographer would reason. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
The point for me is that we see the girl's hand feeling the rough bark. This draws the attention away from her face and I would say this makes the texture of the bark the most important part of the picture. If the point of focus was on her eyes, looking away from the tree, then her hand and the tree would lose importance and impact. It would be a simple dreamy portrait with no particular message. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
peterqd wrote: |
The point for me is that we see the girl's hand feeling the rough bark. This draws the attention away from her face and I would say this makes the texture of the bark the most important part of the picture. If the point of focus was on her eyes, looking away from the tree, then her hand and the tree would lose importance and impact. It would be a simple dreamy portrait with no particular message. |
erm how can the ordinary looking bark of a tree be more important than the girl, maybe the Kohinoor diamond might work _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
Normally I trash all my mis-focus photos - if the mis-focus is not intended.
But I did as David said: Keep the photo as a half-finish-working concept, and re-shoot if possible.
nice photo btw. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Kram wrote: |
OK, so everyone loves this- except me.
Sometimes missing focus works but not so often. This simply looks like a mistake to me. No offense.
I think perhaps the reason why people do not get better at photography is that everyone tells them how great they are on the internet.
A good honest critique by someone with experience is rare as it's seen as being negative or rude. I don't mean to be either.
If you are really interested in OOF pix, why not go for it and try to make some good OOF pix. I've been doing it a little and it's harder than you'd think. I'm not good at it but I'll try again tomorrow! |
+1 _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ilguercio
Joined: 08 Mar 2012 Posts: 414 Location: Southern Italy-Calabria!
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ilguercio wrote:
You know, sometimes when you're on a shooting you might delete a few shots while you're resting or just reviewing the pictures on the lcd.
I'm glad i didn't delete this example i'm posting, otherwise i would have missed a very nice shot (in my opinion) even though the focus point barely catches her hair.
About the picture that started the thread.
It works for me, her eyes catch my attention nevertheless and while it is technically wrong or just an error, i think i'd keep it too.
I think one must look at the picture in its entireness, sometimes we do too much of pixelpeeping and discard everything that looks wrong. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
my_photography
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 Posts: 2772 Location: Pearl of the Orient
Expire: 2016-12-25
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
my_photography wrote:
My first reaction when seeing the lady and the tree in the other thread, I didn't like it because the lady was out of focus. Now in this thread, I see that quite a number of people like the photos so I look at it few more times.
I guess as long as one sees a story behind the "out of focus" photo, it will work. I took a photo yesterday and purposely had it out of focus all the way. I even put some text there. I did all that before reading this thread.
_________________
Zeiss: CJZ Flektogon 20/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 20/4, , CJZ Pentacon 29/2.8, CJZ Flektogon 35/2.4, CJZ Pancolar 50/1.8, Tessar 50/2.8, Biotar 7.5cm/1.5, CJZ Pancolar 80/1.8, CJZ Sonnar 135/3.5, CJZ Pentacon 135/2.8 CJZ Sonnar 200/2.8
Other Germany: Meyer Primoplan 50/1.8, Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Takumar: SMC 50/1.4 Super Tak 55/2, Super Tak 85/1.9, S-M-C 135/3.5, Super Tak 150/4
Russian: Zenith 16/2.8, Mir-24M 2/35, Volna-9 50/2.8, Helios 44M (58/2), Helios 44M-3 MC (58/2), Helios 40 (85/1.5), Tair 11A (135/2.8 )
Others: Sears 28/2.8, Sankor 35/2.8, Enna M�nchen Tele-Ennalyt 135/3.5
Zoom Sigma Zoom 28-85/3.5-4.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
erkie
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 308 Location: Missouri
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
erkie wrote:
Orio wrote: |
In my opinion, the "hidden truth" behind this shot is that the blur makes Anastasia's skin even smoother,
and the perfect focus makes the tree bark even rougher, and this enhances the contrast,
and black and white photography is, for most part, precisely about contrasts.
So this is the reason why it works for me. You could even "sell it" to other viewers as a deliberate choice,
I think you will be believed because this reasoning is exactly how a black and white photographer would reason. |
Pretty much sums up how I feel as well !
But I wear a hard hat for work not a camera strap. So I would defer to others here far more experienced than I. For a photo to work for me , it has to elicit an emotional response. This one does for me But I rarely like things the general public likes. I don't watch American Idol and I don't think Britney Spears is beautiful I prefer a little mystery in a photo of a woman as opposed to full on nudity.
For me B&W work is about form, contrast, and texture. And this has that for me _________________
I shoot film and meter with digital
Asahi H3v, Praktica FX3, Retina IIa, Spotmatic sp1000, Fujica V2, Yashica lynx5000, Pentax Sf1, Minolta SRT102, Minolta7000i, Pentax MX, Pentax ME, Pentax Kx
lensesM42- Isco Gottingen Westanar 50/2.8, Isco Gottingen Westron 35/2.8, Rikenon 35/2.8, Spiratone Tc 105/2.5, Spiratone Tc 200/4.5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 300/5, Sankyo Kohki Komura 135/3.5, Auto Tak 35/3.5, Super Tak 150/4, S-M-C Tak 50/1.4, S-M-C Tak 28/3.5, SMC Tak 55/2, Mamya Sekor 55/1.8
K- mount- Helios 44-K-4, Jc penny 28/2.8, Da 18-55, Da 55-300, Pentax F 35-70, SMCP M 50/1.4, SMCP M 50/1.7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
For me it's simple. I took one look at the picture and went - ooh, that's nice. It can be that simple. You either like a picture or you don't. _________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mo
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 8979 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
For me the "woman in focus" factor does not enter my mind,but there is an emotion captured that comes out from the image.I like the rough tree bark in contrast to the softness of light falling on Stasia.I have to add I like that you can see the detail in the eye. I want to know what she is thinking...comfort or something else. _________________ Moira, Moderator
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
mo wrote: |
For me the "woman in focus" factor does not enter my mind,but there is an emotion captured that comes out from the image.I like the rough tree bark in contrast to the softness of light falling on Stasia.I have to add I like that you can see the detail in the eye. I want to know what she is thinking...comfort or something else. |
+1
It's clearly a visionary image - one that falls into the category of psychological more than into the real
Moira's reasoning is typically a female approach to an artwork and I like it, it's much early 20th century, all the art of first half of XX century is much feminine in character
and I would add that if I had to guess blind, I would have bet that this photo was taken by a female photographer. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 Posts: 5883 Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
I'm thinking this pic could be better - but not necessarily for exactly the reasons that have already been mentioned.
I've seen some early photography that breaks the 'rules' very effectively. E.g. there was a beautiful portrait by Julia Margaret Cameron, made with a very large view camera in the studio, where she had carefully placed the focus... on the woman's chin!
Also, your photo reminds me of some of Stieglitz's work with O'Keeffe's hands...
What I'm trying to say is that if you made a virtue of the 'mis-focus' and made the 'subject' be the hand on the bark, this pic would have worked better... I'd probably put less light on the skin... _________________ -Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|