Joshua Tree detail

I have shown this to a bunch of people and for the most part, it has NOT gone over well. I rather like it, so I figured I would post it anyway and see if anyone has an opinion, good, bad or indifferent. I won't be offended if it doesn't work for you and you say so. I am just curious to hear opinions.

Chamonix 4x5
Verito soft focus lens
Delta 100 B&W film

It's all right, Harley, but you set the bar so high that this doesn't quite
measure up, in my opinion, to some of your other outstanding posts.

Harley, this is a very fine image. However, I think what might throw people off here using the soft focus lens and short DOF, they are looking for a reversal of the scene. Meaning more upfront focus and tapered to the rear drop off of focus. Obviously, in this case the front and bottom portion is not intended to be the main subject of interest. Anyway, just my thought of why it might be initially seen as not being a normal perspective. If this makes any sense at all.

The soft focus/depth of field is not a turn off for me, I rather like the idea of OOF pointy things. The composition doesn't strike me enough to make me think (or look) twice, however. I'd definitely keep playing with the OOF bits on these trees though.

I admire the fact that you're experimenting Harley but you're asking a bunch of photogs that ususally don't like soft focus items unless they are flowers. I don't know how many times I've seen art with selctive focus like this so you know there is a percentage of people out there that would like this. Me, doesn't grab me instantly but it does have some lasting appeal. This is something I would really play with the DOF on f2.8 5.6 8 11 16

ditto Floris...but I like what you envisioned here. most of the landscape photographers would just go and try to get a tack sharp end-to-end shot.

Harley,

You already know that this one grew on me and I like it more now than the initial impression. And I think Paul is really on to something that I couldn't put in to words before - I like his analysis. I do like the gradual progression to the sharpness of the needles/leaves up top - and to that end, I think having the oof things at the bottom are important in bringing focus to the sharp details up top. Said another way, if you were to crop much of the bottom to a horizontal, I think what oof things still remaining would be more of a distraction. Here, I think it's pretty clear the intentions of this capture in terms of the shallow depth of field - and the use of a soft focus lens.

Again, I like Paul's thinking on this - it's kinda like a reversed situation - and it plays with your mind a little.

Lon

Lon and Paul, you have pretty much hit on what I like about it. It fades into focus, rather than out. And the sharp points go with the sharp focus. It is almost like a hand opening, with a blur with the opening, and then the attention on the finger-tips at the end. You are not looking at the palm.

It is an image that will not appeal to most and I figured as much when I posted it. It is all fun and maybe a little food for thought.

I appreciate all the replies and sharing your thoughts on it.

Harley & Lon, this is the kind of thing that keeps this photo stuff buzzing along for an old guy like me. As I stated originally, it is a very fine image. I'm glad Lon picked up on what I was trying to put into words that others would normally see as a different perspective, front to rear. Now, as the image has excellent merit, maybe just a title change would help convey the idea better. Something like, "Coming into Focus", "Joshua Coming into View", "Making the Point Clear". Anyway, just some thoughts on the presentation approach overall, which again, had nothing to do with the quality of the image and the unique idea on the original capture just a bit of an intuitive push towards understanding the reason for the DOF reversal.

Harley,

Please correct me if I'm wrong. and by the way the discussion and comments your getting are making the posting of this image more than worth it, but isn't this camera older, and isn't a soft focus lens a veritable antique? This style of image would be pictorialist redoux. This style was the rage in the teens and twenties and then fell out of favor and it's death knell was sounded by the creation of such groups as f/64. It was considered as copying "art" and not "true" photography. If these are antiques then your breathing life into something that has been lying dormant for years. I like the image and in order to recreate it with a regular lens I'd probably have to poke an eye out. I know I wasn't thrilled with the soft focus back ground on your abandoned truck image, but the composition and the subject in this one lend itself well to selective focus and it is the reverse of what would be considered normal. If that makes any sense at all. It's artistic and creative, well done Harley.

Paul

Doesn't do much for me. Sorry.

- Dan.

Paul, the camera is a current new model (I got it new two years ago), but the lens is a 90 year-old antique. It is a Verito made by Wollensak It is a very unusual lens by modern lens standards. Stopped down it is pretty dang sharp, but wide open, it is not only soft but virtually glows. The glow effect is so strong that I cannot even focus it wide open. I can;t tell what is in focus. As it is stopped down, the glow effect diminishes. The sweet spot for the OOF look is around f/8 or f/11. I really like the OOF look to this lens. The lens has a bit of a cult following in the large format world. They are hard to find and for an old lens, very expensive.

I ran some test shots when I first got the lens. Here is one at f/4.0. It looks like I smeared Vaseline all over the front of the lens.

Dan, no need to apologize for not liking the image. I value honest opinions and I don't get offended in the slightest. Much appreciated!

Harley, it make you wonder in a lens like the Verito was that it worked for the soft focus fuzzy pictorialists and the sharp focus small apeture photographers. I wonder if the old lens fits your new format because it is a large ( by 35mm standards ) negative camera. makes me wonder. The second example is a little wild but look at the intensity of the green in the grass.

Thanks again for sharing. I do know of a few photographers that are dragging around large 18"x24" wet plate cameras and their darkrooms recreating the techniques of George Fiske, Timothy O'Sullivan and Carleton Watkins, now that's way beyond what I have the fortitude or patience to do.

Paul

The selective focus and subject matter doesn't bother me, but I can't say the image as a whole grabs me much. But then again I tend to to gravitate towards more complex scenes than this. It's always interesting to here how others respond to particular images... nice study!