Max 2.8 said:
ok, this guy is better... jus wondering...i have dis question for a long long time...no photographer can tell me a good satisfying answer...
Why some photographers like to blur their image a little blur?
Remember what a photograph is? A biography of the subject - landscape, still life, people.
What would you do if you see a photograph that says everything it "wants" to say? What would you do if your sole participation is merely just an audience? How interesting would that image be if your participation and engagement is not required?
The Japanese have something called Haiku. Example:
Blades of grass,
And a grasshopper,
Its legs broken.
In these poems, there is a certain vagueness about them. The skeleton made, but flesh needed to be added. Here is where the participation of the reader is required. There is active dialogue between the photographer and the viewer through the image. There is engagement
If we look at one of Cartier-Bresson images. The one of the smug-looking boy with two loaves of bread. Why was the boy smug? Obviously related to the bread. But why? Engagement is sought, and we are drawn into it.
So good images not only tell a story, but engages the viewer,.
One of the ways photographers chose to engage the viewer is to "de-focus" the image, adding an aura of mystery. See the images of What's his name (the guy who acted as the vulcan, Mr Spock in Star Wars) His book is called "Sheikila", or something like that. A lot shadows, blurred images and sense of mystery. Whether it works or not is another matter. Sometimes it does. At other times, it may be too pretentious.