"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a853787@news.povray.org...
>  IMO the image would lose most of its appeal and artistic feeling
> without the focal blur. In other words, the image would be rather
> *boring* without the ingenious blurring. I think the blurring is spot-on.
>
>  Rather curiously, the blurring makes it look like there *is* some kind
> of background in there (it's just completely blurred out). Without the
> blurring it would just look like an object on a completely empty white
> background.

...which shows how differently people can see the same scene. Which is 
allright of course.

I have said it earlier in these ng's: I am not really enthousiastic about 
focal blur in general, whether in ray tracing or (more especially) in 
photography. I still think one should use it very carefully and with a very 
light touch indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> I have said it earlier in these ng's: I am not really enthousiastic about 
> focal blur in general, whether in ray tracing or (more especially) in 
> photography. I still think one should use it very carefully and with a very 
> light touch indeed.

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
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> I have said it earlier in these ng's: I am not really enthousiastic about 
> focal blur in general, whether in ray tracing or (more especially) in 
> photography. I still think one should use it very carefully and with a very 
> light touch indeed.

I do agree with Mike that it is a very good (and important!) vehicle to 
give a sense of scale. Especially when trying to convey that something 
is particularly /small/, it does wonders.

Look at these shots for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-shift_miniature_faking


On the other hand this of course implies that with shots indended to 
convey large scale, focal blur should be used sparingly indeed.

Still, I really don't like shots /without/ any focal blur. Aside from 
giving a sense of scale, it also gives a sense of depth, and helps add 
emphasis to some elements of the image (by literally putting them in 
focus), so you lose a lot if you don't use at least some subtle focal blur.

Post a reply to this message

"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

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:06:13 +0200, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>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!!!

I agree, I'm not a great fan of focal blur myself, I seldom use it preferring
fog to cover up inadequacies in an image. :)
It can be used to artistic effect but not in that photo of the cat. (I hope that
it was not Mike that took it)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
news:t67d85tvg84ubkdiq9gi9c4jvtt74s6ngg@4ax.com...
>...... (I hope that
> it was not Mike that took it)


Oh hum... well, if so, my comment was meant as constructive. One should be 
prepared to learn through the hard way sometimes :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> "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

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

  How do you know the original intentions of the photographer? Maybe he
wanted the focus to be exactly as shown in the photo, for artistic
purposes. *You* might not find much artistic appeal in his decision, but
that's just a subjective question of opinion.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4a87edee$1@news.povray.org...
> Alain wrote:
>> A agree with you about the cat's photo. Not artistic at all but an
>> obviously bad focus.
>
>  How do you know the original intentions of the photographer? Maybe he
> wanted the focus to be exactly as shown in the photo, for artistic
> purposes. *You* might not find much artistic appeal in his decision, but
> that's just a subjective question of opinion.

Ah! This is a difficult and simple discussion at the same time. Of course, 
everyone is allowed to do as he/she likes best for any purpose he/she 
choses. However, art is not about doing whatever you want and call it "art". 
There should be - at least - a certain "something" which appeals to a random 
and miscellaneous group of (at least a bit) knowledgeable observers before a 
piece is considered part of the artistic domain. If not, really everything 
could be called art, killing art in the process and putting kitch in its 
place. Would you consider the ubiquitous "tearful child" or "busty gypsy" as 
art? Probably not. Still, many people love them enough to put them on their 
walls, and thus indeed a subjective question of opinion at large, but not if 
one has taken the trouble or the time to learn/understand what art is really 
about.

Consider the cat. When looking at a photograph, or a painting, one wants to 
understand the intentions of the artists (not always clear, I agree). Why 
did he do this? Or why did he not do that? Here, the whole image is out of 
focus except part of a paw. What is the intention? What is the message? What 
does it tell me? There is nothing interesting happening in that particular 
part of the image that needs focussing. However, if instead the eyes had 
been focussed sharply and the rest of the cat slightly out of focus, the 
image would have gained in intensity. It would not have been a wow image, 
but certainly a more interesting one. But why not simply photograph the cat 
sharply and leave it at that? The personality of the animal is more than 
enough to make the shot attractive without extra add-ons.

All this said without intentions to hurt whoever took the photograph. This 
is the kind of analysis one would get in any photography or art class in the 
world

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:30:31 +0200, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>All this said without intentions to hurt whoever took the photograph. This 
>is the kind of analysis one would get in any photography or art class in the 
>world

I couldn't put it better myself and I didn't :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message