The OOF foreground may not work for everyone but I do like it, this is not a
perfect example, it would be better if the big bright flower at the lower
part of the image is removed.
Similar to the bokeh issue, some people think a highly OOF smooth backgroud
is good but to me it is just another shoot in the studio. I like a smooth
background with something identifiable. To me the background is as important
as the object, a blank (not necessary black) background only got 50 marks
out of 100. To me the foreground is definately a plus and it should not be
in focus, that means an OOF foreground, just not something easy to control.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Better than most but I would still wish it wasn't there. You're saved
> by the pretty face which leads one to look away from those OOF elements.
> :-)
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> C.H.Ling 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
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "WayneS" <om3ti@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> One thing I have noticed in the photos posted, mine and others,
>>> is that foreground OOF elements are often a distraction, in even
>>> the best of shots. I have few of my shots where I find it OK.
>>> I'm curious what others think?
>>>
>>> WayneS
>>>
>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
