blurriness in portion of art photo

[celksy]

Hi All,

This is my first post and I hope I can explain my question.

A brief background and explanation: I am very new to art photography and have been experimenting with photographing everyday, usually natural objects and cropping/editing them to reveal the interesting compositions I see in them. Sometimes the results end up being quite abstract- not looking like the original objects but like something else- or like nothing really definable.

I have taken some of the best of these and had them printed, matted and framed. I have recently gotten back a very large print of one of my favorites and I've noticed something in the print I hadn't seen on the computer: a large portion of the print is rather blurred. Now, I don't mean to say that this necessarily doesn't "work"- although it's not the background that's blurred (there is no background, really.)

The photo reads sort of like an impressionist painting, which is what I wanted but I'd like to know if you think that having a portion somewhat blurred is necessarily a not-great quality, when the rest of the photo is in sharper focus and shows more detail.

I mean, in some ways it would make more sense if all of it was blurred (or none of it was blurred, of course) but what if only part of it is? I think it suggests motion--, in a good way-- but my husband, whose opinion I respect, is left feeling a little uneasy because of this.

Thanks for any thoughts or ideas you can pass along.

If there's another sub-forum this would better be posted under, let me know.

[Mad Aussie]

Without seeing the photo in question it's really quite impossible to give direct advice here.

However, generally speaking ... it's still hard

Having part of your subject blurred is common and quite acceptable depending on the subject and composition. Aperture, zoom, and how your subject is positioned in relation to the plane of your sensor all have an effect on this.

There are some things that rarely should be blurred though, a persons eyes for instance, especially if that person is the main subject.

In the end though, photography is very, very subjective and what works for me won't always work for you etc.

[Marko]

I'm with MA here - there is no rule...we'd need to see the picture to offer proper advice.

[Andrew]

In art there are many different opinions about what is good and what is actually art. There are also just as many opinions about what is photography and what is computer programming. It's all what keeps things interesting I guess. Motion implied in photography is quite common. Panning with a fast subject, holding still on the background while the subject moves through the frame, making unreal looking waterfalls using ND filters, etc, are all means to show speed. There was a recent thread here about movement in the shots. Is it art? Is it play? We all have our own opinions. Some photography that goes for lots of money isn't worth a second look to me.

In the example you refer to I'd have to say no, it's not art. In fact per your own admission it's just a mistake. Painters just don't throw coloured oil at a canvass and hope the Mona Lisa appears. Had you planned and executed a concept or idea you had preconceived and managed to capture the moment then it may have been art,,,to you. And that's good. Nobody can tell you what you do or do not like to look at. That's not what you did in this case though and didn't even recognize the visual until after the fact. It's just blurry.

[Iguanasan]

In art there are many different opinions about what is good and what is actually art. There are also just as many opinions about what is photography and what is computer programming. It's all what keeps things interesting I guess. Motion implied in photography is quite common. Panning with a fast subject, holding still on the background while the subject moves through the frame, making unreal looking waterfalls using ND filters, etc, are all means to show speed. There was a recent thread here about movement in the shots. Is it art? Is it play? We all have our own opinions. Some photography that goes for lots of money isn't worth a second look to me.

In the example you refer to I'd have to say no, it's not art. In fact per your own admission it's just a mistake. Painters just don't throw coloured oil at a canvass and hope the Mona Lisa appears. Had you planned and executed a concept or idea you had preconceived and managed to capture the moment then it may have been art,,,to you. And that's good. Nobody can tell you what you do or do not like to look at. That's not what you did in this case though and didn't even recognize the visual until after the fact. It's just blurry.

Careful about trying to describe art. Just saw a blurb on the news tonight about a monkey that's currently making hundreds of dollars per painting. He likes to use his hands, feet and tail to paint on canvases and they sell like hot cakes.

[Andrew]

On another thread about a week ago I eluded to the artsy-fartsy crowd that ran galleries and count monkeys, elephants and Andreas Gursky as top artists. The problem with most of the overnight genre artists and their promoters is that tides shift fast in that world and what hangs on a wall today could be lining the bird cage next month.

[JustinRyan215]

Careful about trying to describe art. Just saw a blurb on the news tonight about a monkey that's currently making hundreds of dollars per painting. He likes to use his hands, feet and tail to paint on canvases and they sell like hot cakes.

But people are also stupid....