clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> 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.

I tend to agree (even though I almost never use it in my POV scenes--due
primarily to the length of time it takes to render!  I get impatient...) Thomas
mentioned some of the great photographers/filmmakers who didn't seem to want or
need it--Cartier Bresson, Frank Capra--and their work is of course quite
beautiful.  Yet my own 'favorites' are the cinematographers (mostly of the
pre-1960's) who selectively used DOF for 'zero-ing in' on the important
elements of a scene, particularly close-ups of actors. Used well, DOF can take
a very 'cluttered' scene and bring out the most important element, focusing
attention on it (the surrounding details being even detrimental to the
emotional response that was intended.) Though I admit that part of that
*artistic decision* was purely a technical one--a rather shallow depth of field
due to 'slow' camera lenses of the time; and, for example, the 3-strip
Technicolor camera, which required enormous amounts of light--oftentimes
impractical. But given those limitations, some great art was achieved
nonetheless, with a true 'style.'

Regarding the first image here, I do have to agree with some of what Thomas has
said, though: I think the image would have been more effective if the cat had
been more or less totally in-focus, with perhaps a detailed background of some
sort that could then have been thrown *out* of focus.  As-is, the cat looks
like a *very* tiny figure that the photographer had trouble focusing
on--there's no obvious 'point of interest.'

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message