Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,568   Posts: 1,573,492   Online: 654
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: What is focus?

  1. #21
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Couldn't translate, what language.
    Found it, look in the left column. Here's English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    414
    Images
    100
    What is in focus is that which the focus is on. I prefer on focus.

  3. #23
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    What if a photograph is about everything in the photograph? Why must a photographer lead a viewer's eye? That old "what are we looking at" bit always bothered me.
    Purely for clarity I'm going to oversimplify a bunch and it reflects my personal preferences.

    When I look at Ansel Adams' Clearing Winter storm I think "Wow, nice background!"

    When I look at Ansel Adams portrait of Georgia O'Keeffe and Orville Cox I just think "Wow!"

    Yeah, the subject matter is different. But, as truly good and really honestly special as the former is, it is still very much like looking out a window. The latter really gives me something to look at.

    Lest you think it is purely a bias toward portraits, http://www.flickr.com/photos/vishal_mathur/2802653820/ That shot gives me something to look at and keeps my attention better than Clearing Winter Storm. As does this http://www.flickr.com/photos/8703006...in/photostream

    For a photo to keep me interested, it has to give me something specific to look at or I lose interest.

    Similarly, when someone says "Wow, you really nailed the focus/exposure/made a great print." It is a compliment about my skill with my tools and I do appreciate those comments. When someone says "wow great shot" and they ignore the print quality I feel I have done much better.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  4. #24
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Ok so here's a shot that I think would be ruined if it were fully sharp http://www.flickr.com/photos/27386920@N06/3907107381 and this idea is what I think ms. Cameron was talking about.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,010
    This was helpful as it explains how you look at photographs, which I appreciate. I guess I just look at things differently. I think where we are most different on this is when you say a photo must have something specific to look at to maintain your interest.

    Regarding what you said about viewer impressions, I agree. I would much rather someone just liked one of my shots (or not) rather than simply complimenting me on technical quality, sharpness etc. I include compositional tools, selective focus etc. under the heading "technical" though. Perhaps some would disagree with me on that extension.

    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Purely for clarity I'm going to oversimplify a bunch and it reflects my personal preferences.

    When I look at Ansel Adams' Clearing Winter storm I think "Wow, nice background!"

    When I look at Ansel Adams portrait of Georgia O'Keeffe and Orville Cox I just think "Wow!"

    Yeah, the subject matter is different. But, as truly good and really honestly special as the former is, it is still very much like looking out a window. The latter really gives me something to look at.

    Lest you think it is purely a bias toward portraits, http://www.flickr.com/photos/vishal_mathur/2802653820/ That shot gives me something to look at and keeps my attention better than Clearing Winter Storm. As does this http://www.flickr.com/photos/8703006...in/photostream

    For a photo to keep me interested, it has to give me something specific to look at or I lose interest.

    Similarly, when someone says "Wow, you really nailed the focus/exposure/made a great print." It is a compliment about my skill with my tools and I do appreciate those comments. When someone says "wow great shot" and they ignore the print quality I feel I have done much better.

  6. #26
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Glad that helps Michael.

    I agree that the tools of the trade are technical, part of our craft. The application/ideas they express are not though, that for me is where the art resides.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  7. #27
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,848
    Isaac Asimov's triple pun: "Three brothers went out West to establish a cattle ranch, but couldn't think of an appropriate name for it. So they wrote to their father back East, and he replied, 'Call it Focus, for that's where the sun's rays meet.'"

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    872
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post

    For a photo to keep me interested, it has to give me something specific to look at or I lose interest.
    I find your comment interesting. To me, using selective sharp focus or having everything in sharp focus are techniques--tools to be use by the artist. I very much like and appreciate much the work of JMC. I also like and appreciate much of the work of by members of the f64 group. Their aesthetics are quite different. But, I find each pleasing in there own way.

    I have a John Sexton print on my wall. It is all in sharp focus. I find my eye directed initially to the light colored stones in the middle of the river. But as I look closely at the image, my eye wanders and I discover additional, interesting elements. The way three trees in the background stand out, the reflection of the trees on the water and how the reflections plays with the rocks, the texture of the flowing water... This photograph works for me because once I am initially drawn into the image, I can walk around in it and make new discoveries. This image would be diminished if only the rocks emphasized by sharp focus. Likewise, I think most of JMC's images would be diminished if the were shot with a f64 aesthetic.

    To me, focus is only one way to give the viewer "something specific to look at." Leading lines, light tones juxtaposed against dark, placement of the subject with in the frame, etc. are ways to direct the viewer's interest. I often find selective focus images to be one trick ponies--here's the subject, look at it, now move on. But, when used effectively, I can look at such an image for hours.

    I guess tis is why art is so interesting, both viewing art and creating art.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by Allen Friday View Post
    But as I look closely at the image, my eye wanders and I discover additional, interesting elements. The way three trees in the background stand out, the reflection of the trees on the water and how the reflections plays with the rocks, the texture of the flowing water... This photograph works for me because once I am initially drawn into the image, I can walk around in it and make new discoveries. This image would be diminished if only the rocks emphasized by sharp focus.
    It's a strange thing to be drawn to the details when looking at photographs. It's ultimately analysis of the incidental. I've found that when looking at Recollections by Sexton, the compositions being somewhat conventional in what they reveal, details do indeed provide the real interest - being heightened above all else by the craft. For me, there has to be something uncanny amidst all that visual information, a specter that isn't fully explained despite the clarity of its photographic description. That's when photographs have their subconscious impact - you see it in everything from Bresson, to Arbus, to Gursky even. It's not just a matter of leading lines and thirds, in the photographs that affect me most, I find the real interest lies in that which is slightly out of context, described but not explained.

  10. #30
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,793
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Allen it is absolutely true that focus isn't our only tool and I'm not against all in focus subject matter

    I find Karsh's portrait of O'Keefe a print that I wander into then around and eventually to even the texture of the wall. Karsh gives us detail to find but it's the bright antlers catch my eye and Georgia that keeps them interested. As I wander I get to know her and the big icons of her world but there is nothing else, nothing extraneous, in that portrait and each in focus element is intended to be there and clear as a bell. It s only where we look "outside" that we are given less detail. This is a truly formal posed/contrived/controlled portrait.

    O'Keefe isn't a typical portrait sitter, IMO her wrinkles, as much as her antlers, were part of her "brand". A more typical sitter is not normally so proud of her wrinkles.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin