I don't find that the OOF foreground of C.H.'s photo distracts because
of OOF but because it is blown out in relation to the main part of the
image. Like you, I also like the visual tension of it, but I think I
would like it a lot more if it weren't getting the main light while
the model is in the shadows. In the Bokeh TOPE from ages ago I tried
a very shallow focus (f2.8) in order to isolate a bee between OOF
patches:
http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=3&pic=13
I think it worked out OK because it doesn't compete with the rest of
the image with respect to the lighting of the whole.
As far as your examples go, they don't compare well with each other.
One loves the joy, beauty, and straightforwardness of the second, and
I presume it captures something of the essence of the girl (who is
very adorable, I'm sure I don't need to tell you!). First one is
utsy-futsy. You need to let bystanders tell you about that one.
Family might beat you up if you futsify a grandchild unless there's a
prize involved. But as a bystander, I find it interesting, and I'm
glad to see it and enjoy looking at it.
Joel W.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:43 PM, WayneS <om3ti@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My 1st take on C.H's image is that it is a distraction for most people.
> The issue is that the OOF foreground creates visual tension.
> In this case C.H. has framed the OOF in the lower left corner. As such
> it becomes an anchoring point for the frame, and balances with
> the more open right hand side. So overall, IMOP, this is a good
> image. The visual tension makes the image more dynamic
> and is probably not fully appreciated on first viewing. It asks
> for more participation from the viewer.
>
> I find that images take some time to determine if they are good
> or not. I call it the wall test. Put the images on the wall and
> remove them when you tire of viewing them. With this test
> images that at first react to is to bypass, yet over time keep pulling
> back the visual interest, determines if the photo is good or not.
> (This I learned from a fellow photographer. Not my original idea.
> Lifetime on the wall is the rating of the image.)
>
> If you like coming back and looking at an image you took over
> time, that gives it a better rating. Too often we are quick to judge
> an image negatively that incorporates elements of tension.
>
> Again, in C.H.'s case, there are other factors that make it work
> due to the framing, the anchoring in the corners, and open
> space to the right. So I agree, on second viewing, it works.
> On first reaction, it was not as much, so it takes some time
> to appreciate fully.
>
> Too often I find images that I am drawn back to others don't like.
> Judgement is quick. People react to motion blur, OOF elements,
> minimal DOF, etc. To compensate the image needs to be balanced
> in other ways - corner anchoring, framing, visual tension,
> juxtaposition of contrasts, subject, etc.
>
> As in interesting experiment, I took photos of my grand daughter
> during the holidays and showed them to family.
> 1 http://www.zuik.net/OM-4t/bk_gd1_MG_6133.jpg
> 2 http://www.zuik.net/OM-4t/bk_gd2_MG_6137.jpg
>
> Everyone preferred the second one over the first. They skipped over
> the first as if it was not worth viewing. Of course, family wants a
> clear view of the great grand daughter over the artistic interpretation.
>
> This shot, previously shown: http://www.zuik.net/OM-4t/bk_MG_7711.jpg
> has both foreground and background OOF elements, and I personally
> like the effect, but is one of the very few of my images where foreground
> OOF works. The same will go for the lensbaby. For me the lensbaby effect
> is tiresome, and success depends on more than just the blurry effect.
>
> Again, I think that foreground OOF elements require extra compositional
> care, which I think C.H. has done well. He has probably shot thousands of
> such images, whereas most of us have not. I trust his instincts on this one.
> And it also depends on the viewers tolerance for visual tension in the
> image. Which takes time to determine. It is often the case that when we
> see an image outside our domain of experience, it is more impressive
> than if it is a shot we have thousands of ourselves.
>
> WayneS
>
> At 10:58 PM 1/7/2009, you wrote:
>>How does this one look?
>>
>>http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/180-04_F.jpg
>>
>>I don't use foreground OOF much as it is difficult to control but it is
>>certainly good when done properly.
>>
>>C.H.Ling
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
