> "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
> 
> 
Often, the so called "artistic blur" was done as a post process/black 
room step. The projector used to do the print was set off focus.
Another aproach was to use a frosted filter. This simulated a fog like 
effect with grosly exagerated luminous bloom.

A agree with you about the cat's photo. Not artistic at all but an 
obviously bad focus.


Alain

Post a reply to this message