My 1st take on C.H's image is that it is a distraction for most people.
The issue is that the OOF foreground creates visual tension.
In this case C.H. has framed the OOF in the lower left corner. As such
it becomes an anchoring point for the frame, and balances with
the more open right hand side. So overall, IMOP, this is a good
image. The visual tension makes the image more dynamic
and is probably not fully appreciated on first viewing. It asks
for more participation from the viewer.
I find that images take some time to determine if they are good
or not. I call it the wall test. Put the images on the wall and
remove them when you tire of viewing them. With this test
images that at first react to is to bypass, yet over time keep pulling
back the visual interest, determines if the photo is good or not.
(This I learned from a fellow photographer. Not my original idea.
Lifetime on the wall is the rating of the image.)
If you like coming back and looking at an image you took over
time, that gives it a better rating. Too often we are quick to judge
an image negatively that incorporates elements of tension.
Again, in C.H.'s case, there are other factors that make it work
due to the framing, the anchoring in the corners, and open
space to the right. So I agree, on second viewing, it works.
On first reaction, it was not as much, so it takes some time
to appreciate fully.
Too often I find images that I am drawn back to others don't like.
Judgement is quick. People react to motion blur, OOF elements,
minimal DOF, etc. To compensate the image needs to be balanced
in other ways - corner anchoring, framing, visual tension,
juxtaposition of contrasts, subject, etc.
As in interesting experiment, I took photos of my grand daughter
during the holidays and showed them to family.
1 http://www.zuik.net/OM-4t/bk_gd1_MG_6133.jpg
2 http://www.zuik.net/OM-4t/bk_gd2_MG_6137.jpg
Everyone preferred the second one over the first. They skipped over
the first as if it was not worth viewing. Of course, family wants a
clear view of the great grand daughter over the artistic interpretation.
This shot, previously shown: http://www.zuik.net/OM-4t/bk_MG_7711.jpg
has both foreground and background OOF elements, and I personally
like the effect, but is one of the very few of my images where foreground
OOF works. The same will go for the lensbaby. For me the lensbaby effect
is tiresome, and success depends on more than just the blurry effect.
Again, I think that foreground OOF elements require extra compositional
care, which I think C.H. has done well. He has probably shot thousands of
such images, whereas most of us have not. I trust his instincts on this one.
And it also depends on the viewers tolerance for visual tension in the
image. Which takes time to determine. It is often the case that when we
see an image outside our domain of experience, it is more impressive
than if it is a shot we have thousands of ourselves.
WayneS
At 10:58 PM 1/7/2009, you wrote:
>How does this one look?
>
>http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/180-04_F.jpg
>
>I don't use foreground OOF much as it is difficult to control but it is
>certainly good when done properly.
>
>C.H.Ling
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
