the blur

[hongsien]

His name is Hiroshi Sugimoto:

http://www.hirshhorn.si.edu/sugimoto/

 

[night86mare]

His name is Hiroshi Sugimoto:

http://www.hirshhorn.si.edu/sugimoto/

thanks for the help hongsien

his architecture series on the web

beautiful

 

[theveed]

teehee you are asking someone who does not have much affinity for extreme abstract photos.

to me, the patterns are messy, so no, i won't count those, i'm sorry

No worries, just asking

 

[waileong]

There is a difference between blur and soft.

Blur can be intentional or unintentional, but is usually caused by motion-- camera, subject or both. If done properly, it's artistic. If not, it's sloppy.

Softness not the same as blur. In fact, if the subject and camera are still, you'll see that the picture is sharp, yet soft. Softness can be due to the lens (older lenses not as sharp as modern lenses), it can be introduced by a real diffusion filter (eg Softar), or it can be done in PP.

In other words, softness is something one can control. Blur-- very difficult, as it depends on motion and shutter speed.

 

[night86mare]

you mean, there is a distinction between blur and softness?

i was talking about OOF photos, meaning the focal point is not quite where it should be, instinctively on the main subject, (usually) that is.

 

[schon]

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

-- Ansel Adams

 

[Deceased]

His name is Hiroshi Sugimoto:
http://www.hirshhorn.si.edu/sugimoto/

Nice impressive works.

:thumbsup:

 

[waileong]

Do you know that Zeiss softars cost $200 or $300? Just a filter!! And it's plastic!!!

If you could just simulate softness by adjusting your lens to be out of focus, why do you think pros paid so much for Softars?

There is a distinction between softness, motion blur and oof. You may be OOF on your main subject, but something else may still be sharp and in focus-- just not your main subject.

you mean, there is a distinction between blur and softness?

i was talking about OOF photos, meaning the focal point is not quite where it should be, instinctively on the main subject, (usually) that is.

 

[sathea]

Take a look at this series by http://www.kenrosenthal.com/pictures.htm.
http://www.filemagazine.com/galleries/archives/2006/11/seen_and_not_se.html

 

[shojibake]

Actually you can just take a little vaseline and smear it onto your filters. Then just focus on the area you want.

works best on film.

 

[jOhO]

i dun think there's anything wrong with a person who finds beauty in sharpness or blurness and shoots and criticises based on what he thinks is beautiful.

unless of course he is paid to shoot so someone else's opinion is also important....

otherwise, all these "blur shooters" can continue making great images (to them, and to the "blur shooters" camp) and the sharp shootes will continue their type of images.

one thing i find tho, sharp shooters usually cannot accept blur shooters, but blur shooters can accept sharp shooters.. :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

one thing i find tho, sharp shooters usually cannot accept blur shooters, but blur shooters can accept sharp shooters.. :bsmilie::bsmilie:

what i personally prefer is either sharp or blur. there is no "in-between".. same reasoning as tilt.. looks like mistake more than anything else :bsmilie:

 

[night86mare]

Take a look at this series by http://www.kenrosenthal.com/pictures.htm.
http://www.filemagazine.com/galleries/archives/2006/11/seen_and_not_se.html

bloody beautiful

thanks for sharing

if any of you could post up works of blurred pictures which seem to work for you.. it would be greatly appreciated.