Typically, I have similar categorical limits on foreground blur. But
for me the problem with 5279 is less about foreground focus or blur
but the composition in which the buds below the bloom (whether sharp
or not) compete with the bloom.
Some foreground elements in 5226 are not sharp, but the composition is
very strong and exciting to me. In 5231 the same thing.
So I can't go along with a categorical renunciation of foreground
blur. Whether it works or not seems to come back to its impact on the
effect of the composition.
Joel W.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Chuck
Norcutt<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I generally agree with your observations except (and it's a large
> exception) that, regardless of its other merits, I do not find
> attractive any image that has out of focus elements in the foreground.
> A good case in point is 5279. Lovely color and well composed except
> that the slightly out of focus, not yet open blooms in the bottom area
> of the photo are hard for me to look at. My eyes keep trying to focus
> on what's not possible to focus. But background out of focus elements
> have no such effect on me. I have the same problem with 5264, 5273 and
> 5295. You expressed a desire for a sharper petal in 5284. I think that
> would be nice but I still like that shot since the forward edges of the
> petals are sharp.
>
> My personal favorites are 5226, 5231, 5284, 5303 and 5324 with 5284 and
> 5324 the favorites of the favorites.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
> Joel Wilcox wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Brian Swale<bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> "C.H.Ling" <c*****.hk> wrote
>>>
>>>> For me, I prefer to shoot at larger aperture most of the time, I like the
>>>> feel more than everything in focus.
>>>>
>>>> Some shots from two days ago with 80/4, all life size F4.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/OMC/80F4/80F4.html
>>>>
>>>> C.H.Ling
>>> Wonderful shots, very sharp where in focus, great bokeh, and marvellous
>>> light.
>>
>> I second that! As for selective focus, some seem more successful than
>> others, and I will share my opinions if only to see if they are purely
>> subjective or if anyone else thinks finds points of agreement.
>>
>> The most successful use of selective focus for me are 5226 and 5279.
>> In the case of 5226, the isolation of the selective focus creates a
>> pattern that is attractive to my eyes, whereas in 5279 the isolation
>> sets the logical subject-matter of the composition in the right place
>> in relation to everything else around it.
>>
>> 5231, 5264, and 5324 further illustrate the use of selective focus and
>> shallow DOF to isolate important detail against a palette of blur.
>>
>> 5295 and 5303 would be sharp against a blurred background simply
>> because of the distance of the subject from the background, so they
>> don't illustrate much about selective focus as a result (which is not
>> to say they aren't lovely, of course -- but that's just not what I'm
>> commenting on right now).
>>
>> 5231, 5245, 5273 seem less successful in the use of selective focus
>> and isolation of the sharp against the blurred, though I expect there
>> will be a lot of disagreement with me about 5273. Personally, I'd
>> like to see a bit more of the front flowers in sharper focus. 5245 is
>> really very nice but I seem to crave just a bit more sharpness to the
>> fronds at the top.
>>
>> 5284 would be a bit stronger image to me if the lower petal were
>> sharper and I think maybe it could be without undoing the effective
>> blur of the background.
>>
>> 5264 and 5288 are interesting to compare. The former seems more
>> successful to me because the isolation captures very interesting
>> patterns, whereas the isolation of the stamens in 5288 against the
>> blurred flower is less interesting for some reason. In fact, I want
>> more of the flower to be sharper for some reason. Again, there would
>> still be plenty of isolaton of the main subject against background
>> blur.
>>
>> 5223 is a non-starter for me, but I don't think it is because of DOF
>> or relative isolation of the sharp against the blurry. The color is
>> beautiful, but it doesn't seem to be a composition that will satisfy
>> me at that magnification, regardless of DOF.
>>
>> Anyway -- a beautiful study, and I think my favorite is the last, 5324.
>>
>> Joel W.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
|