DA Photo Contest Forum / Photography / Ask Questions / Blur / Latest Posts

RE: Blur

diamondskier — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:31:37 GMT

I guess I should clarify... the post above was describing a soft focus effect, not something where someone says the focus is a bit soft. If the focus is a bit soft, it really means that it's not and never was tack sharp. The kit lens for the EOS 350D was known for being soft.

RE: Blur

diamondskier — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:22:08 GMT

Not that I'm an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but a photo with a soft focus effect must actually be taken tack sharp. If it is not, it will make you think you need glasses. A soft focus effect is done through the use of a filter (or in software if you like to spend time post processing). You can't do a soft focus by simply not focusing. Portraits are really the main use of soft focus. Probably one of the best examples of soft focus photos (even live tv) is of Barbara Walters (no offense intended, its just a fact of life). Soft focus, softens the skin. Oftentimes you will also see romantic photos with a soft focus.

Just what I know, not what I can do.

RE: Blur

Stormhaven — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:38:49 GMT

I've noticed in the photog mags that there is a software intended to give a soft focus to portraits. I can see where that might be attractive in this category, on occasion, but I can't see a possible good application in other types of photography.

RE: Blur

Tonka — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:32:37 GMT

Snicker...

I hate it when I am looking at an image which makes me think I need glasses more than I do.. lol...;)

seriously, the example posted of the portrait is better than most that I have come across so far as far as intentional soft focus...because the lighting really supports it well...and it looks as though it was intentional..

But there are a few images in the portrait category that I can't really tell if this was intentional...if it looks good , it looks good but if it is not intentional then I just hope to better train my eye..not necessarily to use it to vote an image down but just to be aware of the techniques and difficulty with the presentation..

Sometimes I will actually comment saying that I was not sure if it was intentional but that the specific effect made it a wonderful image...
It was just that I want to make sure as I grow, to use knowledge gained appropriately and be aware of all the applicable situations..

Thanks big guys..:D...

RE: Blur

hahn23 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:12:32 GMT

[quote][b]wemor (6/23/2008)[/b][hr]...To me, intentional or not is not really the issue. It is the imagewe are asked to judge and notreally the "intent" of the photographer.....[/quote]
[color="navy"]Yes, I can agree with this image assessment concept. However, I will put the onus of responsibility on the photographer's presentation. It should not have to be a guessing game on the voter's part as to whether the blur, oof or soft focus was an accident or a plan. If done well, an image with a "focus effect" can be very compelling.

This is a great example of the need to be an agnostic when voting. While I certainly prefer clarity and sharpness and discernible detail, I can be fair and objective with my votes on images which are focus impaired. But, the bottom line is the presentation has to make sense. By that I mean.... the image has to look better with the focus effect than it would without[/color].

RE: Blur

wemor — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:57:01 GMT

[quote][b]Tonka (6/23/2008)[/b][hr]Okay so I like very sharp images, just always have..I do not see the soft look as extremely impressive

very often at all...[/quote]

ME TOO!! ME EITHER! WE

[quote][b]Tonka (6/23/2008)[/b][hr]When I comment , I also like to know the correct terminology...ya know...if I say "this is out of focus".and get back a ..."THIS IS INTENTIONAL SOFT FOCUS"....
[/quote]

i.e. I did not get the shot sharp enough - guess I better take another tack (not always the case - but not that rare either...).

Remember, you are the rater - If you think the image appears soft or out of focus - it is. WE:D

RE: Blur

Tonka — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:55:25 GMT

LOL..( yup picture Steve Martin again)..Excuuuuuuuse meeeeee.....:D

I did mean with how the effect overall impressed me...;)...

Okay so I like very sharp images, just always have..I do not see the soft look as extremely impressive very often at all...

though once in awhile if it is on the outer edges then, it might have greater effect..

When I comment , I also like to know the correct terminology...ya know...if I say "this is out of focus".and get back a ..."THIS IS INTENTIONAL SOFT FOCUS"....

I like to know what I am talkin about ....not because anyone thinks I should but that is just what I personally strive for...(I think perfectionism and/or compulsion would be the proper term no?)
Anyway I wanted to know if these were different issues... and how to describe them when commenting..
thanks sweets...;):D

RE: Blur

wemor — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:11:27 GMT

[quote][b]Tonka (6/23/2008)[/b][hr]Okay so I kinda have a hard time sometimes with deciding whether or not the soft focus was intentional..
[/quote]

To me, intentional or not is not really the issue. It is the image we are asked to judge and not really the "intent" of the photographer.

Naturally, an intended "soft focus" should enhance the image or help add to the feeling and mood of the photograph. Done well, this can often be successful. Still, if in the opinion of the RATER, this intended technique does not contribute, it should not be overlooked or disregarded in the overall appraisial if the image.

We are not judging the intent of the photographer, but rather how well the photographer expressed their intent in the form of a pleasing image. WE

RE: Blur

Tonka — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:55:30 GMT

Okay so I kinda have a hard time sometimes with deciding whether or not the soft focus was intentional..

Thanks for the examples Richard..:)

RE: Blur

hahn23 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:24:26 GMT

While these words carry negative connotations to me, I do see some glimpses of artistic expression in these examples..... when these photography techniques are applied intentionally. Accidents and mistakes are another issue.

blurry
[img]http://unadorned.org/images/dandruff/blurry_20030715.jpg[/img]

oof
[img]http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/out-of-focus-1.jpg[/img]

soft focus
[img]http://www.onlyphotoshop.com/img1-tutorial/soft-focus-effects-09.jpg[/img]

Blur

Tonka — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:11:13 GMT

Umm,

Is there a difference between blurry, out of focus and focus is too soft?

if so can you show me what the difference between the three is?

Or are they basically all the same thing..or maybe two are the same and one is different?

thanks for your help, thoughts, and opinions.