Focus on focus

Alastair said:
I've always considered that if the first reaction to an image is "Wow, that's sharp!" (or any other comment based on sharpness or focus) is that I've failed and I'm being dammed with feint praise. The technical aspects of photography should be secondary to the intent behind taking the image - you don't photograph a view because it's "sharp", you do it because it's beautiful.

But asking for responses to photographs on a photography forum always tends in its outcome to resemble asking strangers to perform a colonoscopy. You end up wishing they'd just stand a bit further back and admire the view rather than focus too closely and in such minute detail.
Click to expand...

But surely that all depends on the "genre" ?
I agree that when taking landscapes, for example, "pin sharpness" or "infinite detail" is not always required.
But when shooting animals birds etc.
Then we aim to get as much detail as possible in the fur/feather/scales, and eye(s)

Which brings me to the Chameleon question.
The details are all there, colour scales etc. Also the eye is sharp, but the iris / pupil so minuscule, that it hardly figures in the equation at all.
 
Tintin124 said:
Everyone Gordon is just looking to pick a fight, look he ignores post that he knows he has no chance of winning against.

@Phil V unanswered post
@LCPete he wont even acknowledge that you have stated the obvious you can't tell focus on a low res image.
@Pookeyhead he wont acknowledge evidence you have provided nor the fact media constantly use out of focus shots from facebook and a like.

Also there is no evidence I've seen that he even owns a camera or ever taken a photograph so who is he to tell anyone anything.

His opinion is his alone.

As such I ask the mods again to close this thread. Gordon is very close/borders of being a troll. It could have been a great post but the manner it has been presented is undermining and idealistic in its agenda.
Click to expand...
This really.
The OP sits on a pedestal where he feels he's safe to knock those who don't share his opinion of some photographs (where he may be right), but is unwilling to debate whether his very narrow experience of photography is as relevant as he believes it to be (which is clearly subjective and where he is wrong).
 
I shall be quietly chuckling the next time I see a comment like ...

Could be a bit sharper

It's a bit oof

I wonder who will be quick enough to say it's not important as a retort :D
 
:clap: Brilliant thread. Thanks for the entertainment.
 
I must admit I have been wondering whether there will be a post on Tuesday announcing that the OP is actually someone else and this has all been a protracted April Fool.
 
Bythesea said:
I must admit I have been wondering whether there will be a post on Tuesday announcing that the OP is actually someone else and this has all been a protracted April Fool.
Click to expand...

If that were to happen in all seriousness I'd expect to see both accounts banned and it would make a complete and utter mockery of the community
 
Gortch said:
I'm relatively new to posting on the site but I have visited for some years. I've noticed that a large percentage of pictures are out of focus and nobody seems to say so. Now that I have signed up and can comment, I get to ask the question; are people too nice to say anything or do they really not notice?

My own view is that people ought to say when a shot is out of focus.
Click to expand...

Oh my. What a destructive and unhelpful post.

Not exactly brilliant diplomacy or a display of intelligence when he effectively says, "Hi all, I decided to join even though I think the standard of photography is pretty low and I thought I'd make a lot of new friends by telling you how crap your work is!".

Genius.
 
Last edited:
This had the makings of an interesting debate - there must be encouragement for beginners and harder critique for more experienced folk.
I think it's a question of balance, and let's not forget that it takes a lot of guts to post your finest at whatever level you are.
People with more experience have helped me along and I hope to do the same - it's what makes the world go round.
But the OP did make me think of this


cheers, cw
 
Last edited:
Gortch said:
It is widely understood and accepted that mass participation in photography as a result of what some call the digital revolution, has generally resulted in a dramatic decline in standards. Where before a relatively small number of people took bad photographs, huge numbers of people now take bad photographs.

Digital in this sense is to photography what macdonalds is to cuisine. That said, it is what it is and so you have to adapt and take from it what good you can find, ignoring or opposing the rest; I think macdonald make a latte as well as anyone else.

I think we all agree though that it would be better if macdonalds offered better quality food and did its level best to prevent food poisoning by abiding by recognised hygiene standards.
Click to expand...


Slight snip since there's no point in feeding Godwin...

I would say the there's probably a similar percentage of bad photographs taken as there ever were but the mass participation in this digital age has resulted in that percentage now being many millions of carp shots rather than a few hundred thousand. The other "problem" is the ease with which the dross is now shared among everyone. Where a set of someone's holiday snaps might have been shown to a hundred or so people 20 years ago, they're now on Facebook/Twitter etc. and seen by millions (potentially).
 
Yv said:
David, should you choose to really get into debate with Gordon, could you drop me a PM first, the ticket sales could keep the forum hamster fed for months ;)
Click to expand...

I'll try to give adequate notice. :)
 
Cobra said:
But surely that all depends on the "genre" ?
I agree that when taking landscapes, for example, "pin sharpness" or "infinite detail" is not always required.
But when shooting animals birds etc.
Then we aim to get as much detail as possible in the fur/feather/scales, and eye(s)

Which brings me to the Chameleon question.
The details are all there, colour scales etc. Also the eye is sharp, but the iris / pupil so minuscule, that it hardly figures in the equation at all.
Click to expand...

But if the first comment is about the sharpness, then the image has already failed.

If the image had succeeded, even under the circumstances you describe, if the first thought is about the sharpness/focus then the image has failed to convey the chameleon-ness of the subject. If the image had truly worked, the first thought would be "Wow! that's a fantastic image, that chameleon almost leaps off the page". Yes, the sharpness and focus would contribute to that, but as part of the whole and should not dominate perception of the image. The problem is, technical perfection is easy to judge and forums default to OCD/ASD levels of pixel peeping because discussion of emotion and feelings is something that prompts embarrassed sniggers and off-track diversions because it's something that can't be measured and therefore isn't a very bloke-ish thing to be even thinking about. It's why the critique is in the main so p***-poor useless on this forum (YMMV).
 
I think the best thing is to agree to disagree on this @Alastair We are obviously at opposite ends of the
spectrum. And I have no wish to pursue that line of argument at this time.
 
The debate is over. Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong.

And I shall forever hold on to the idea that you can screw up a photograph. If some fool comes along and looks at one of my screwed up photos and says its great, I reserve the right to use the c word. Surely even the deluded souls on here accept that I, as the owner and creator of a photograph, have the absolute and inalienable right to define it as trash...

In response to a number of trolls who persistently mention the following;

1) can you judge jpegs uploaded to Flickr in terms of sharpness. Yes, i did it. Go back to page one of this thread where you will find 3 photos that to varying degrees are out of focus. One dramatically so (the plant picture). In this particular picture, the composition is so bad that being OOF may be rightly regarded as a blessing.

2) do I have any photographs or do I even own a camera. Yes and yes. I had some pictures on Flickr but I thought about it and decided against giving them my work for free. Further to that, it's my intention to go elsewhere and host photographs. The fact that Flickr is so popular proves it's junk. Incidentally, uploading on here seems to be virtually impossible which is really scandalous -- no matter what size I made the pictures, I was told they were too big.

Update: today I took several pictures and deleted around 95%. I even deleted several woodpecker pictures and woodpeckers are rare around here. I would rather hold on to the idea that I might some day get a perfect picture of a woodpecker than hold on to a sub-standard, valueless photograph of one.
 
Gortch said:
The debate is over. Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong.
Click to expand...
Couldn't you have just put that in your opening post?
It would have saved 176 posts, countless dummy spits, RTM's and 5 pages of "pointless" argument(s).
 
Remember folks, we have a handy ignore feature, so you won't be troubled by the opinions of someone who is so entrenched and arrogant in their views that they unilaterally declare a thread is over... Wish I had the same option...
 
Alastair said:
But if the first comment is about the sharpness, then the image has already failed.

If the image had succeeded, even under the circumstances you describe, if the first thought is about the sharpness/focus then the image has failed to convey the chameleon-ness of the subject. If the image had truly worked, the first thought would be "Wow! that's a fantastic image, that chameleon almost leaps off the page". Yes, the sharpness and focus would contribute to that, but as part of the whole and should not dominate perception of the image. The problem is, technical perfection is easy to judge and forums default to OCD/ASD levels of pixel peeping because discussion of emotion and feelings is something that prompts embarrassed sniggers and off-track diversions because it's something that can't be measured and therefore isn't a very bloke-ish thing to be even thinking about. It's why the critique is in the main so tinkle-poor useless on this forum (YMMV).
Click to expand...

If that chameleon leaped off anything it looks like it died in the process. Not since Boy George has the thought of a chameleon depressed me more. But I get your point. In theory it would be possible to capture the essence of something completely without the image being razor sharp. But you are jumping from one genre to another in doing that, from photo-realism or something to some sort of stylistic art form. I don't think that was the intention with the chameleon in question, do you?
 
Gortch said:
... are people too nice to say anything or do they really not notice?

My own view is that people ought to say when a shot is out of focus.
Click to expand...

My personal view, given that this is a site used by a very varied group bound by a shared interest, is that there is nothing wrong in saying that a photo is out of focus when in the wider context of a post that, at the very least, makes a nod to the concept of constructive criticism or a desire to (genuinely) help.

As one who has no desire to 'go pro' or may well not have any motivation to produce the kind of shot you look at every day, I am happy to view photos others post and take into account the subject matter, composition and general 'feel' in order to gain an overall impression.

Does the fact that they are 'soft' or OOF detract somewhat from what they 'could' be in a perfect world? Yes, sometimes it does and (especially talking about my own poor attempts) it can be an issue.

However, firstly, I think that it is a shame that your professional role has brought you to the conclusion that no-one should bother to do anything or be proud of what they achieve if they are not able to be a 'master' of it.

Secondly, I think that maybe you have focused (;)) too much on one aspect of what is, to many here, an enjoyable hobby - a way to share what we do and to learn from each other (even when that includes being told our photos are out of focus).

Finally, I am not, as I said, in the business of photography. I enjoy what I do. I try to evolve and learn. I even try to focus occasionally. I do not, however, intend to spend the rest of the time I practice my hobby worrying about whether some guy on a forum considers my 'work' of so little worth that I should delete everything I have posted here or on Flickr or wherever else I chose to place it :)

P.S. Having seen some of your other posts, you seem to be a little grumpy in general. Maybe you should see this forum for what it is and go to one of the professional sites of you 'really' want to offer the kind of critique you seem to think we should all be crying out for.
 
treeman said:
LOL, I'm beginning to warm to you, go on, post something about wedding photographers...........:)
Click to expand...

You know the funny thing, I have nothing but admiration for wedding photographers. The ones I know have the highest standards and they work under huge pressure. I already mentioned the importance of getting certain wedding shots that you only get one bite at. Wedding photographers would more or less agree with everything I said, except perhaps the bit about Boy George.
 
Frankly I'm surprised Gordy hasn't been nullified by staff, he's breaking constantly several of the terms of the site.
  • If you can't be civil, polite, courteous or respectful then don't post at all.
  • Above all, just be nice to each other.
Click to expand...

Deliberately pr

Meh why bother, someone just show me how the ignore thing works please.


No worries, I figured it out.
 
Last edited:
Gortch said:
If that chameleon leaped off anything it looks like it died in the process. Not since Boy George has the thought of a chameleon depressed me more. But I get your point. In theory it would be possible to capture the essence of something completely without the image being razor sharp. But you are jumping from one genre to another in doing that, from photo-realism or something to some sort of stylistic art form. I don't think that was the intention with the chameleon in question, do you?
Click to expand...

You miss my point completely

Even if an image is sharp.. if all it is is sharp, it would be a poor photograph. If the only positive thing that could be said about an image refers to its sharpness/focus, then it's a poor image. Any image should say more to the viewer than,"That's sharp". It's like praising an author for their spelling/punctuation, or a painter for the coverage qualities of the paint.

"Wow, every word is spelt perfectly!"
"Wow, you can't see the canvas at all!!"

It sounds stupid when applied to other arts, so why do we persist with it in photography? Even with macro photography, sharpness is secondary to having the right thing in the frame in the first place. "F**k me that's sharp, shame it's not what we needed to see" - not something the histologist wants to hear when he passes the image to the consultant.


PS
I only turned off Ignore because Cobra's post suggested something clever might have been said. My expectations were met.
 
Alastair said:
You miss my point completely

Even if an image is sharp.. if all it is is sharp, it would be a poor photograph. If the only positive thing that could be said about an image refers to its sharpness/focus, then it's a poor image. Any image should say more to the viewer than,"That's sharp". It's like praising an author for their spelling/punctuation, or a painter for the coverage qualities of the paint.

"Wow, every word is spelt perfectly!"
"Wow, you can't see the canvas at all!!"

It sounds stupid when applied to other arts, so why do we persist with it in photography? Even with macro photography, sharpness is secondary to having the right thing in the frame in the first place. "F**k me that's sharp, shame it's not what we needed to see" - not something the histologist wants to hear when he passes the image to the consultant.


PS
I only turned off Ignore because Cobra's post suggested something clever might have been said. My expectations were met.
Click to expand...

There are various factors involved, but sharpness in certain cases is paramount.

You could have the best composition imaginable with a study shot of say a chameleon, but if it's OOF then in my opinion it ceases to be a proper study and you have failed. Thus, in this example, we can say that focus is more important than composition.

Note that we have already distinguished between pictures that are deliberately OOF and those that are OOF by accident.

P.S. Since I have no way of knowing whether you are ignoring or not, I have no reason for caring.
 
Gortch said:
if it's OOF then in my opinion it ceases to be a proper study and you have failed.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, you are not the only person on here 'helping'.

It's a strange mission you have, but I wish you all the best in it - after all, we all need a hobby ;)
 
As there was nothing on the telly last night, I had a wander through the labyrinth which is this thread, and for some reason have picked it up again over my morning cuppa .....

Clearly we have established that sharpness is desirable is some circumstances and lack of it is ok too where that was the artistic intention. Some fine examples of deliberately oof shots have been posted, and there's a clear distinction between deliberate use of blurring / oof effects and poorly focused images.

However, it's clear that OP is in the business of buying images which are to be litho printed, presumably in high quality / glossy publications and similar products (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong there ...). In which case, the images he seeks are being used to illustrate supporting articles etc. (another assumption). If that's the case,then his obsession with sharpness is probably born from needing to be precise for editorial purposes. Whereas, the rest of us do our photographic thing - sharp or not - for our own reasons and enjoyment. This sharpness obsession has clearly carried over into his own photography as well. Fair enough. I'm another who deletes obvious rubbish rather letting live forever on my hard drive, but that's a whole different thread ...!

In other words, it's likely that we're all doing what we want with our hobby (or profession) for our own reasons and there is no absolute right or wrong here. Personally, if I'd taken that shot of the chameleon I'd have been delighted with it. It looks great to me, but that's probably just a reflection of where I'm at on my journey towards photographic perfection. I still have a long way to go .... But I'm enjoying the ride.

Each to their own.

Bother .... My tea's gone cold now ....
 
Gortch said:
The debate is over. Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong.
Click to expand...
NO. You have crossed a line here and you are totally out of order.

You are not a mathematician, so far as I can tell, and we are not discussing mathematics. Therefore a statement such as yours cannot possibly be true. Outside of mathematics, all you can say is that everybody who disagrees with you disagrees with you.

http://xkcd.com/435/
 
StewartR said:
NO. You have crossed a line here and you are totally out of order.
Click to expand...

Exactly what my brother said when I refused to give him photos of his daughter taking her first steps. To be fair it was in McDonald's of all places, with low light and unpredictable movement -- inevitably they had some blur.

He was livid, just didn't get it. And neither do you. Shots of a toddler taking her first steps would ideally be in sharp focus; I doubt if anybody even here would disagree? I wasn't going for an arty stylistic snot in McDonald's, wasn't an option. So I deleted them. Why should I have poor quality blurry shots attributed to me? I took them, I have the right to define them as trash, and we all know where trash goes.

You get one chance with some things and if you fail you should face it like a man, even if you're a woman.
 
Last edited:
Wow... good thing you're not my brother... lol
 
Gortch said:
Exactly what my brother said when I refused to give him photos of his daughter taking her first steps. To be fair it was in McDonald's of all places, with low light and unpredictable movement -- inevitably they had some blur.

He was livid, just didn't get it. And neither do you. Shots of a toddler taking her first steps would ideally be in sharp focus; I doubt if anybody even here would disagree? I wasn't going for an arty stylistic snot in McDonald's, wasn't an option. So I deleted them. Why should I have poor quality blurry shots attributed to me? I took them, I have the right to define them as trash, and we all know where trash goes.

You get one chance with some things and if you fail you should face it like a man, even if you're a woman.
Click to expand...

You sound like a real Gem.
 
Gortch said:
Exactly what my brother said when I refused to give him photos of his daughter taking her first steps. To be fair it was in McDonald's of all places, with low light and unpredictable movement -- inevitably they had some blur.

He was livid, just didn't get it. And neither do you. Shots of a toddler taking her first steps would ideally be in sharp focus; I doubt if anybody even here would disagree? I wasn't going for an arty stylistic snot in McDonald's, wasn't an option. So I deleted them. Why should I have poor quality blurry shots attributed to me? I took them, I have the right to define them as trash, and we all know where trash goes.
Click to expand...

Gortch said:
When you say you'd like it to be sharper, I will assume you mean you would like it to be in focus. I'm honestly perplexed that you kept it and think its worth sharing. I fail to see how the hustle and bustle of the occasion provides any excuse either. You could have increased shutter speed, bumped up the ISO, or used flash. You should delete it and apologise to those who depended on you that day to get a decent photograph. You failed them. Hopefully you can learn from it and improve.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Gortch said:
Exactly what my brother said when I refused to give him photos of his daughter taking her first steps. To be fair it was in McDonald's of all places, with low light and unpredictable movement -- inevitably they had some blur.

He was livid, just didn't get it. And neither do you. Shots of a toddler taking her first steps would ideally be in sharp focus; I doubt if anybody even here would disagree? I wasn't going for an arty stylistic snot in McDonald's, wasn't an option. So I deleted them. Why should I have poor quality blurry shots attributed to me? I took them, I have the right to define them as trash, and we all know where trash goes.

You get one chance with some things and if you fail you should face it like a man, even if you're a woman.
Click to expand...

Whoever's having the laugh playing the troll, I think this is what will define the point everyone else stops even the pretence of going along with it..
 
Gortch said:
Exactly what my brother said when I refused to give him photos of his daughter taking her first steps. To be fair it was in McDonald's of all places, with low light and unpredictable movement -- inevitably they had some blur.

He was livid, just didn't get it. And neither do you. Shots of a toddler taking her first steps would ideally be in sharp focus; I doubt if anybody even here would disagree? I wasn't going for an arty stylistic snot in McDonald's, wasn't an option. So I deleted them. Why should I have poor quality blurry shots attributed to me? I took them, I have the right to define them as trash, and we all know where trash goes.

You get one chance with some things and if you fail you should face it like a man, even if you're a woman.
Click to expand...

Im not sure what right you think you have to tell people how bad their shots are when (according to your post above) you have absolutely no idea how to take a sharp shot yourself.
 
I've seen this arrogance on here before... I'm sure this 'person' has an alter ego...

And he's loving all this attention. He's sitting back behind his monitor sayin 'watch this, this'll get 'em goin'.... and we've all fallen for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top