I SAID PARTY GODDAMN HATS
Location: Where the wild cocks grow
|
 06-13-2008, 05:12 AM
 |
Sheri wrote:

Pilcrow wrote:

Dark_Side wrote:

|
I think that's on purpose, and I actually like it.
|
Dja. Thanks. I had shots totally in focus and shots out of focus, and I much preferred it this way. I don't want to get too conceptual but it's interesting to me that we're comfortable with shots where the background is either out of focus or completely blurred, but not when the foreground subject is out of focus. I also think the blur carries the theme of the photo a little, but like I said, I don't want to dig too deep on this one. I just thought it was pretty.
|
I don't really think this is true. We've all seen photos in the photo thread where there's an element in front of the subject that's out of focus, and we like it. It's just that your subject is this singular (ish) thing, and the front part of it is strangely out of focus. It's not a matter of being uncomfortable with having the foreground subject out of focus so much as it is a dissatisfaction with having the subject, or perhaps even just a part of the subject, out of focus.
|
Actually I think it works a lot better for that subject than having the whole thing in ultra-sharp focus. |
|
__________________
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
|
| #137
|
|
|