Does a misfocused image ever "work"?

[themoleman342]

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?

[Orio]

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.

[erkie]

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

[peterqd]

The focus point seems to make the tree the main subject in the picture, rather than the girl. I love it.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Absolute keeper.

There's such a thing as happy accidents

[eddieitman]

I think they can work and certainly this is one of the best images i have seen from you, i really like it.

[skida]

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.

[Kram]

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!

[themoleman342]

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.

[poilu]

[David]

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.

[Excalibur]

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.

[pich900]

[Orio]

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.

[peterqd]

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.

[Excalibur]

[hoanpham]

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.

[Attila]

[ilguercio]

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.

[my_photography]

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.

[erkie]

[Pontus]

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.

[mo]

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.

[Orio]

[Nesster]

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...