DSLRUsers.com

I'm probably going to get royally panned for this, however...

I shot these images last week and just got around to post-processing them.
They are intentionally blurry, as the title suggests, and to me they have a very painterly quality to them.

I feel that they kind of force the viewer to stop and re-examine what they might be looking at because of how blurry they are.

Then again, it's very likely that I'm talking right out of my arse.

Also, they're actually not as easy to shoot as you might imagine as you have to find just the level of out-of-focus-edness that you actually want when shooting the image.

My eyes hurt.

I don't mind the 3rd and 5th ones where you can still tell what the subject is.

I like where you are going but maybe a touch too blury for my liking....

I just took my glasses off to look at these, and they all looked quite fine.

Leigh - there is no excuse for posting pics taken the morning after a huge binge and forgetting to turn on auto focus

On a more serious note I can see where you are coming from and can identify most of the content in these pics. My favourite is #1 and I would title it ”Eyes in the mist of time”. IMO these would not work in B&W.

#3 looks like watercolor painting - this one works for me

Your ability to take a highly sophisticated piece of technological and
optical equipment with the capability of performing at levels
unimaginable only a few years ago, and getting said equipment to
perform at the level of a plastic "Snappy" (my camera circa 1961) is a
statement in both the political and artistic context.

What that statement might be is more difficult to determine.

Perhaps it is more of a question (which might be addressed by reference
to the "Focus" section of the manual)

In any event, and to quote a great appreciator of the more avant garde
aspects of twentieth century photography.....

"Nice pitchers"

I don't mind these and my fave would be the first one. Not sure what it is but has a sort of classical look to it...I can definitely see something similar to it being used in an ad where the product would appear on the right...bleh can't explain it. I just like it

Leigh

I'm with Mikhail on this. #3 is great and has the painterly effect you mention. The others just don't work for me, partly because of the humdrum subject matter. Time to clean the vaseline off the lens too.

Looks like a great reason to buy a Canon, and upgrade . . .

Seriously, I like the 2nd one, it has that dreamy non realistic feel to it, that I can relate to quite a bit. The technique works quite well in some of the shots, but so-so in others.

Tristan

I need a drink

gstark wrote:I just took my glasses off to look at these, and they all looked quite fine.

I did the same thing and they look Tack Sharp

Puts my pinhole camera to shame

ozonejunkie wrote:Looks like a great reason to buy a Canon, and upgrade . . .

You're suggesting that he buys two cameras?

I'm still recovering from my tick bite, and these actually brought my headache back with a vengence!!!!
Thanks Nnnnsic

gstark wrote:

ozonejunkie wrote:Looks like a great reason to buy a Canon, and upgrade . . .

You're suggesting that he buys two cameras?

No, just one. The canon is the upgrade.

Equip it with a Sigma lense as well.

With all due respect.... They don't do anything for me.

But then, hey, what do I know?


Regards

Tony

ps remember to turn the autofocus back on......

Leigh i think you are going to have to be the honarary Bjorn Rorslett for the group. Interesting abstracts, almost!
cheers
marco

Tony, no autofocus on that lens. You can tell by the out of focus elements he is using his 45P manual lens.

ozonejunkie wrote:

gstark wrote:

ozonejunkie wrote:Looks like a great reason to buy a Canon, and upgrade . . .

You're suggesting that he buys two cameras?

No, just one. The canon is the upgrade.

Equip it with a Sigma lense as well.

Someone's looking to be banished to the Sony forums.

Tack sharp, exposure spot on and thoughtful composition... well at least in comparison to most of my work

Clearly your having problems with the autofocus on the 45P in much the same way that Stubsy was having trouble with one of his zooms earlier.

gstark wrote:Someone's looking to be banished to the Sony forums.

Isn't that a bit harsh?

Actually you could sell these to OPSM to use in their ads, before and after pics! Sorry Leigh, these don't work for me.

Bob.

.

I actually like #1, 2 & 3. The colour and composition work for me. The more I look at them, the more I like them.

The others are not my cup of tea, but they are ok.

Since the look of these photos was intentional, one would have to say there is nothing wrong with these photos at all.

I like them all!

this anti establishment freeform expression is what the world needs right now.

your work challenges common perceptions of abstracted representational photography, which inspires us to explore new ways to percieve the world around us through ther medium of photography

To me the subject is not what is out of focus but the manner in which it has been captured out of focus, this is very deep and brilliant concept if one was to take time and ponder over it, say a year or so with no external distractions.

I like the lastone the most, but with al of them if you stand 5 metres away from the monitor you can make them out

Hmmm, looks like the shots taken with the Canon 18-55 kit lens

I agree with others - I can sort of see where you are going with this, but to me its just not quite there.

And my eyes really hurt ...

ozonejunkie wrote:

gstark wrote:Someone's looking to be banished to the Sony forums.

Isn't that a bit harsh?

Chris, Pirostitch, Potatis: I liked #1 most of all too... which is why I put it first.

blacknstormy wrote:I'm still recovering from my tick bite, and these actually brought my headache back with a vengence!!!!
Thanks Nnnnsic

You're welcome.

TonyH wrote:ps remember to turn the autofocus back on......

As Glen says, no auto-focus for that lens, but in case you're interested, "auto-focus" was on, but since the lens is manual focus only, it doesn't do much!

moggy wrote:Actually you could sell these to OPSM to use in their ads, before and after pics!

Huh... didn't think of that... maybe I can make some money!

wendellt wrote:To me the subject is not what is out of focus but the manner in which it has been captured out of focus, this is very deep and brilliant concept if one was to take time and ponder over it, say a year or so with no external distractions.

I don't think you need that long to think about it.
Images... out of focus... that make the viewer step out of their regular perception that a sharp image is also an in-focus one.. and also forces them to not sit so close to the monitor without it hurting their eyes.

Yeah, it does hurt your eyes. It was pissing me off when I was pushing a bit more colour into them through Photoshop... but it's very interesting (I think anyway) to look at.

Mind you, my eyesight is probably no longer 20/20 after this exercise.

Leigh, I bagged the shit out of yourself but now i can see the artform coming out. Everyone makes a statement of some kind and gets away with it.. I dont mind art and i sure appreciate the form. Keep it up
Jethro

hmhhh ...

I believe you have focus issues.
Have the camera fixed

These shots are horrible

Best regards,
CD

thaddeus wrote:

......I agree......

Thaddeus. This is weird. I just read through your post and it all read fine once I concentrated, then when I finished all the other text on the page (the "normal" text) looked (briefly) like it was suffering from the halation artefacts caused by over zealous sharpening.

The human brain is an amazing thing.

I didn't have any problems reading it and then going back to regular un-blurry text.

Actually, I started reading it without realising it was "intentionally blurry".

And yet I can't read handwriting from a doctor or a lawyer.

Leigh it works better if you read BP's post with the quote (I think the grey background accentuates things)

Nnnnsic wrote:I didn't have any problems reading it and then going back to regular un-blurry text.

Actually, I started reading it without realising it was "intentionally blurry".

And yet I can't read handwriting from a doctor or a lawyer.

*Potatis wonders how often Nnnnsic needs a lawyer..

*Potatis wonders how often Nnnnsic needs a lawyer..

Well apparently he gets blind drunk fairly frequently...

Alpha_7 wrote:Well apparently he gets blind drunk fairly frequently...

Really? Someone should tell me when. I seem to be having more fun than I realise!

Your probably just don't remember.... in the mornig you just have a camera full of pictures you don't remember taking...
Just joking around

Brilliant!

The cynical would say that this is akin to converting colour into B&W and making it more "arty" (less accessible without thinking about what is in the image).

However - I think well done.

Perhaps the attraction is that there is LACK of detail, and one is forced to make up the rest of the ticture and subject in one's mind. That is why the one with the almost obvious ANZ bank is so much more mundane than the others.

Others will disagree - but that's art.

big pix wrote:

thaddeus wrote:

......I agree......

Absolutely.

Alpha_7 wrote:Your probably just don't remember.... in the mornig you just have a camera full of out-of-focus pictures you don't remember taking...

Fixed.

Love these Leigh! Something I'd never have thought of doing myself, but they work! As you say, quite like (semi-)abstract painting.

Third one for me is a cracker, next time though please issue 3D glasses in preparation for viewing

Max

.....ooooooh, I feeeeeel siiiiiiiiiiiick
I freely admit that I am not someone who "gets" these types of images (just ask my friend KT who has to explain everything to me when we go through art galleries)
Having said that, I have taken a shine to pic #3 (sandy coloured building).... I'm still trying to decide why.........

Iadmit to not often sharing your creative vision Leigh but I actually don't mind these. Number one is my favourite. I like the fact that these images sort of stand up and say, "Go on! Figure me out! I dare ya!"

The disturbing part is that the next time someone takes a blurry photo, they're just going to call it art...

That said, if you're always working on your skills, take in-focus photos!

You probably need a Bachelor of Fine Arts to get away with these shots... lucky for me...

Nnnnsic wrote:The disturbing part is that the next time someone takes a blurry photo, they're just going to call it art...

That said, if you're always working on your skills, take in-focus photos!

You probably need a Bachelor of Fine Arts to get away with these shots... lucky for me...

Who says you got away with it

Leigh, I always enjoy looking at your images. You always come up with something completely different than anyone else on this forum, and your images never fail to disappoint. Admittedly, I feel slightly queezy, but I really like what you have done. keep it up.

Nnnnsic wrote:Then again, it's very likely that I'm talking right out of my arse.

I don't know how you could be talking out of it - there's obviously a camera of some sort stuck up there!

Full marks for posting these images Leigh. (My thumbs would have been too sore from pressing the delete button )

These are just a tad too blurry for my taste. I don't mind some differential focus, but if there is nothing at all in focus, then to me, the image needs lots of other redeeming features. I don't see too many in these images.

I did see something in the "Woman on the Bus" pic. I liked it from the get-go. But I'm sorry, these don't have the same impact to my eyes.

What is my criticism worth? Absolutely nothing, it's just a point of view. If you like 'em, knock yourself out - that is what art is all about.