"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a8596a1$1@news.povray.org...
> Sometimes, in photography, especially when taking macro shots, you don't 
> have much choice, either no picture or a razor thin DOF.
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2125/2089456023_0c64233baf_o.jpg
>
> and other times, focal blur is used for artistic effect
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2302/2090316034_fb62145001_o.jpg
> -- 

Let us not forget that focal blur comes from the physical restrictions of 
lenses in the real world. It is not something "artistic" in the first place. 
Macro photography cannot be done without focal blur obviously, and is the 
headache for every photographer to get exactly "right" around the subject. 
For artistic effects, I tend to disagree. There was a movement at one time 
promoting "artistic blur" as the summum of photographic art (fifties? 
sixties?) but which was more a way of hiding the lack of talent of second 
rate photographers. The photograph you refer to here is a stricking and 
typical example, imo, of the totally incorrect use of focal blur in 
photography: no purpose, no real interesting focus at all. In fact, the blur 
destroys the only thing worthwhile in the image: the eyes!!!

Yes, I am a follower of the old documentary school that brought forth people 
like Cartier Bresson or Frank Capra. I don't pretend to reach up to their 
heels, but they (and others) are my masters.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message