Ken Norton wrote:
>> Sometimes, sharp focus isn't everything.
>
> It may not be everything, but without it, the other elements need to be
> overcompensating. I'm not quite sure that the other elements are up to the
> challenge.
>
Ken Norton wrote:
> ... but they resorted to "pointilism" and other techniques to provide
> something for the eye to focus on. Otherwise, there is no controlled movement
> of the eye, nor any sense of 3D'ness.
>
What if the "artist", and I use the term very loosely here, intends just
those effects. Perhaps he wants to see what happens when there are only
soft, poorly differentiated colors and no depth clues. That's a
different experience for the eye. What does it feel like?
One of my intents in this series is to include experiments where I may
not be sure myself whether they "work" or not, but which I find interesting.
It was not, by the way, blown AF. I was fairly early on in a trip where
the wildflowers were clearly going to just knock me out. I was equally
clearly going to respond by taking lots and lots of pictures of them.
Already, I was working on sharp, clear images of them with good DOF.
So like a palette cleansing, I took an intentionally OOF shot. I even
"focused" manually to get some idea in the viewfinder of what I would get.
Thanks for the comments.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|