My local photographic community is running a challenge themed "Landscape out of focus". The entries must be landscape based photographs where the entire plane of the image is out of focus.
It is supposed to promote creativity and artistic approach to the photography.
The challenge proved to be extremely hard. I tried tree trunks with vertical motion, but it turned out to be a cliche - everybody is doing this today and there is zero creativity in doing this.
I tried water, I tried many things. Finally I selected three images that I consider more or less acceptable. Since my mind went completely stupid after so many tries, I would like to ask you for a favor. Could you take a look at those three images and give me some honest and blunt feedback? Which is most acceptable? Which more or less appeals to you this way or another? Which is a complete miss?
What can be improved to increase the impact?
Please be blunt and brutal.
I would be extremely grateful if you could help.
Thank you in advance,
To be blunt and brutal, none of these really appeal to me. The closest thing to a keeper would be the boots image. It at least has some story to it - something to ponder. The other two just look like OOF shots that were taken by accident.
Something you might try is using extremely OOF bokeh or maybe something backlit and blurred as the subject. use the interesting qualities of optics and long exposure that absolutely show that you have control over them - not in such a way as they appear to be simply defocused or accidentally panned. Another thing you might try is to shoot through liquid. I went to the SE Portland Art Walk a few weeks ago, and ran into a photographer who shot photos through liquids relevant to the subject. For example, he had an image from Canada that was shot through maple syrup. Sounds goofy, but the results were very unique, and quite well done. I think he had another one from Italy shot through the regions local wine.
Hopefully this helps you out, or at least sparks some new ideas.
Oh, and something else I'll add as an afterthought. What it all boils down to is that photography is simply about recording light. And good photos usually possess good light - whether they are in focus or not. That is probably why the boots image works better than the other two. They simply don't have very interesting light.
Again, I hope this helps you out. I'd be curious to see what you might come up with if you try any of these ideas.
Thank you Aaron and Ned. Yes, it is extremely difficult to come up with a good photoghraph under such requirements. With the boots photo I was trying to immitate the incredibly beautiful and creative photography by Ludmila Tabolina: http://www.photocentury.ru/main.php/v/semya+Agapovi/AVTORSKIE+GALLEREI/LUDMILA+TABOLINA/
Her art is an inspiration to me. Check her out in the quoted link - you will be inspired too. She is an essence of photography.
I know that the lake reflection photo is bad, however, I was hoping that the city skyline photo would be acceptable for its lights in the river. Well, I was wrong... :)
I was trying to take photos through glass, but you see, they are good only if you have an interesting subject. Somehow I couldn't come up with one.
Always a safe subject is vertical motion blur in the forest. But I am afraid that 50% of other photos in the challenge will be like that. It is not creative any more.
Unless I come up with something else I will go with the boots. I will see....
I rather like the bench and boots shot, its something i'd expect to see used for the album artwork for some sort of indie alt-rock band or something. I'd toss some extra grain, some uneven burning around the edges and maybe some split toning to make it look more like an old abused photograph that got pulled out of a moldy shoebox or something like that.
Like the others have said, look into the boot shot some more. I think either reprocess or reshoot it to get the look you're after. As it is now, I'm not really into it.
Kevin
Posted by John Higby on March 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Yes ! It's the boots !
Posted by Marc Dilley on March 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Not sharp enough? :))
Actually I dumped the other two and I am working on the boots image. Removing the color, adding cracks and vignettes. And I start liking it...
I made a commitment to myself and I wonder how long I am going to keep it - no postcard is going to leave my camera.
If I could keep this commitment for at least year 2009....
Posted by Marc Dilley on March 16, 2009 at 7:03 PM
I don't see a relationship between lack of sharpness and the subject matter. All three would appear more effective sharper. The boots might work if it was slightly OOF. As it is, it's overdone as I see it.
These don't stir my emotions much. If I had to choose I would go with the boots. The lighting in this scene draws my attention toward the bench and boots.
I just took another look at your lake shot and there could be an interesting pattern there at the bottom of the frame if just the trees where used.
Posted by Cezar Mart on March 17, 2009 at 12:35 PM
> I just took another look at your lake shot and there could be an interesting pattern there at the
> bottom of the frame if just the trees where used.
Potentially yes. However, the photo as is belongs to the recycle bin.
Recently I rented an album with art by Turner. He was a really screwed up painter! He did one incredible painting, but I believe that copying that in photography would end with a public ridicule fo the photographer.
I was thinking about imitating Monet. I tried it but didn't work. Making a good looking unsharp photograph is probably the most difficult photographic challenge. In theory everybody has ideas, but to realize those ideas well is the biggest problem.
I have to stick with the boots because this week is the deadline. I will try to pull Tabolina look (see quoted link) and that's it! Back to sharp photos!
Question to everybody: Tabolina is one of the most recognized Russian artist photographers. However, what would happen if she posted her art on this forum? Wouldn't she be burned alive?
Posted by Marc Dilley on March 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Cezar:
I looked at Ludmilla's photos. I'll admit that some of her images have a certain luminous quality, but again, I don't feel the soft focus adds anything.
Discussion
15 repliesIt is supposed to promote creativity and artistic approach to the photography.
The challenge proved to be extremely hard. I tried tree trunks with vertical motion, but it turned out to be a cliche - everybody is doing this today and there is zero creativity in doing this.
I tried water, I tried many things. Finally I selected three images that I consider more or less acceptable. Since my mind went completely stupid after so many tries, I would like to ask you for a favor. Could you take a look at those three images and give me some honest and blunt feedback? Which is most acceptable? Which more or less appeals to you this way or another? Which is a complete miss?
What can be improved to increase the impact?
Please be blunt and brutal.
I would be extremely grateful if you could help.
Thank you in advance,
These are the pictures:
#1. Lake Reflection
http://www.cezarmart.com/gallery/unsharp/Lake_0119.jpg
#2. Old Boots
http://www.cezarmart.com/gallery/unsharp/Shues_0176.jpg
#3. City Lights
http://www.cezarmart.com/gallery/unsharp/CityLights_0064.jpg
Thank you again,
Cezar
Something you might try is using extremely OOF bokeh or maybe something backlit and blurred as the subject. use the interesting qualities of optics and long exposure that absolutely show that you have control over them - not in such a way as they appear to be simply defocused or accidentally panned. Another thing you might try is to shoot through liquid. I went to the SE Portland Art Walk a few weeks ago, and ran into a photographer who shot photos through liquids relevant to the subject. For example, he had an image from Canada that was shot through maple syrup. Sounds goofy, but the results were very unique, and quite well done. I think he had another one from Italy shot through the regions local wine.
Hopefully this helps you out, or at least sparks some new ideas.
Oh, and something else I'll add as an afterthought. What it all boils down to is that photography is simply about recording light. And good photos usually possess good light - whether they are in focus or not. That is probably why the boots image works better than the other two. They simply don't have very interesting light.
Again, I hope this helps you out. I'd be curious to see what you might come up with if you try any of these ideas.
http://www.photocentury.ru/main.php/v/semya+Agapovi/AVTORSKIE+GALLEREI/LUDMILA+TABOLINA/
Her art is an inspiration to me. Check her out in the quoted link - you will be inspired too. She is an essence of photography.
I know that the lake reflection photo is bad, however, I was hoping that the city skyline photo would be acceptable for its lights in the river. Well, I was wrong... :)
I was trying to take photos through glass, but you see, they are good only if you have an interesting subject. Somehow I couldn't come up with one.
Always a safe subject is vertical motion blur in the forest. But I am afraid that 50% of other photos in the challenge will be like that. It is not creative any more.
Unless I come up with something else I will go with the boots. I will see....
P.S. And tell me what you think of Ludmila...
The others, eh, not so much.
Kevin
Not sharp enough? :))
Actually I dumped the other two and I am working on the boots image. Removing the color, adding cracks and vignettes. And I start liking it...
I made a commitment to myself and I wonder how long I am going to keep it - no postcard is going to leave my camera.
If I could keep this commitment for at least year 2009....
Look at this art gallery which is my inspiration:
http://www.photocentury.ru/main.php/v/semya+Agapovi/AVTORSKIE+GALLEREI/LUDMILA+TABOLINA/
I just took another look at your lake shot and there could be an interesting pattern there at the bottom of the frame if just the trees where used.
> bottom of the frame if just the trees where used.
Potentially yes. However, the photo as is belongs to the recycle bin.
Recently I rented an album with art by Turner. He was a really screwed up painter! He did one incredible painting, but I believe that copying that in photography would end with a public ridicule fo the photographer.
I was thinking about imitating Monet. I tried it but didn't work. Making a good looking unsharp photograph is probably the most difficult photographic challenge. In theory everybody has ideas, but to realize those ideas well is the biggest problem.
I have to stick with the boots because this week is the deadline. I will try to pull Tabolina look (see quoted link) and that's it! Back to sharp photos!
Question to everybody: Tabolina is one of the most recognized Russian artist photographers. However, what would happen if she posted her art on this forum? Wouldn't she be burned alive?
I looked at Ludmilla's photos. I'll admit that some of her images have a certain luminous quality, but again, I don't feel the soft focus adds anything.