Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

[Stephen]

John Washington has recently been showing a series of his pictures on his PhotoBlog, under the general heading 'Precence'. They are all blurred, showing signs of camera movement due to slow shutter speed. They are very impressionistic, but essentially not one has what you might call a point of focus.

Now I can think of some Togs that would consider these rejects to say the least. So is it fair to say that in the world of photography this is fine art, or are they simply not up to being considered a 'good photo' Is JW avin a larff, or is this acceptable in a world where most of us strive for pin sharp images?

[Pol]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

John Washington has recently been showing a series of his pictures on his PhotoBlog, under the general heading 'Precence'. They are all blurred, showing signs of camera movement due to slow shutter speed. They are very impressionistic, but essentially not one has what you might call a point of focus.

Now I can think of some Togs that would consider these rejects to say the least. So is it fair to say that in the world of photography this is fine art, or are they simply not up to being considered a 'good photo' Is JW avin a larff, or is this acceptable in a world where most of us strive for pin sharp images?

Interesting you should mention JW's most recent images. I've been following that series and have to say I like them. I don't know enough about 'abstract' art or photography to make any sort of informed comments but I've been fascinated by the series and enjoy trying to 'relate' to them.

All I can say for now is they interest me - I like the colours and the movement.

I see no reason why all photography needs to be pin-sharp recording of people, events, landscape or whatever.

Rufus has shown some interesting abstract photos in the past. If we're lucky he might comment on JW's recent series ... or even show us one of his own abstracts.

If I'm unlucky .. he'll bite my heels and chase me down a rabbit hole for suggesting it.

Pol

[Ian]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

Interesting you should mention JW's most recent images. I've been following that series and have to say I like them. I don't know enough about 'abstract' art or photography to make any sort of informed comments but I've been fascinated by the series and enjoy trying to 'relate' to them.

All I can say for now is they interest me - I like the colours and the movement.

I see no reason why all photography needs to be pin-sharp recording of people, events, landscape or whatever.

Rufus has shown some interesting abstract photos in the past. If we're lucky he might comment on JW's recent series ... or even show us one of his own abstracts.

If I'm unlucky .. he'll bite my heels and chase me down a rabbit hole for suggesting it.

Pol

I think you could go along the lines of - if he genuinely and sincerely saw some beauty and interest in one of his blurred efforts, then it's likely some others will too. To me, that has to be the essence of an artist. I don't want to get into the age old debate of whether photography is art (of course it can be!) but these shots are clearly aimed at people interested in abstract art.

Jamie Harrison did a feature in What Digital Camera recently about long exposure photography practised by tossing the camera (!) into the air, for example.

These kinds of photos will never have universal appeal, but that's not to say he's having a larf!

Ian

[DTD]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

I really liked them. I don't think they're startlingly original, but neither are most other photographs we see or indeed take.

I'm sure everyone is aware of the reaction the Impressionists had.

Is it art? Well that depends on the intention behind them or the context they're shown in.

[lumix]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

I except that there is a place for all types of images in this world. Just can't understand why I haven't become famous as I've taken loads that turned out like that.

[Patrick]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

John Washington has recently been showing a series of his pictures on his PhotoBlog, under the general heading 'Precence'. They are all blurred, showing signs of camera movement due to slow shutter speed. They are very impressionistic, but essentially not one has what you might call a point of focus.

Now I can think of some Togs that would consider these rejects to say the least. So is it fair to say that in the world of photography this is fine art, or are they simply not up to being considered a 'good photo' Is JW avin a larff, or is this acceptable in a world where most of us strive for pin sharp images?

[Pops]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

Well I have just browsed through them and quite honestly I found that they did nothing for me at all.
In fact the only photograph I liked was the one of the boat's keel set in what looks like marshland. I was very taken with the sky in this and could have sworn the clouds were moving.
Maybe some of the blurred ones would be more suitable if they were reproduced as paintings. As photographs .. not for me.

[DTD]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

Maybe some of the blurred ones would be more suitable if they were reproduced as paintings. As photographs .. not for me.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure a lot of people would agree with you. As you say they weren't for you, and one of the good things about photography is it's accessible enough for people to have different opinions and still enjoy the hobby. But I don't share your view that one thing is OK for one medium and not for another.

Mind you, someone famous (whose name escapes me) said they painted what they couldn't photograph and photographed what they couldn't paint. So perhaps you're right!

I think we'd generally agree that people who describe themselves as 'photographers' have gone beyond thinking purely of the subject.
I remember someone commenting about one of my pictures along the lines of "why would you want to take a photograph of two chairs". He could only think of photographs as a record of the subject. If I took a rubbish photo of my nephew my mum would think it brilliant whilst be totally unmoved by an abstract.

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who never takes holiday snaps or pictures to remember a place or event. I think photography can be more than that. That's why some find what they want in Practical Photography and some in the British Journal of Photography.

I'd also add that it's refreshing to be in a photography forum where photographs get discussed as well as cameras.

[Ian]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

I'd also add that it's refreshing to be in a photography forum where photographs get discussed as well as cameras.

Thanks for pointing that out, David - it's certainly our objective to get people talking about pictures as well as the equipment.

The busiest board on the forum is Photo Critique.

In fact, this thread really ought to be in the Image Insight section of the forum

Ian

[Stephen]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

Much depends on the intention of the photographer; these shots have the feel of a positive intent, as apposed to an accidental use of a slow shutter speed, most of them work and are wonderful images to me, but not all. There are also some great pin sharp shots there as well.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.



Patrick

I would agree with you Patrick, I too like them, which is one reason I asked the opinions of others. I feel too they must be viewed in the context of their title. I mean how would you photograph a theme like Precence, a term I associate with ghostly goings on etc. seems he has got the feel spot on to me

[Pops]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

I firmly believe that some photographs can be bought to life and given character by applying a painted effect.
I have had a few landscapes that almost went straight into the bin transformed by using art media effects on it.
I'm just coming around to fully appreciating many abstract photographs through being educated in another forum.

[Stephen]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

Heck, David Nightingale at Chromasia is at it now I think they may be on to something

[DTD]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

I really like that. Always worth visiting his site.

[Pol]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

It would be very nice printed onto a floaty fabric.

So whad'ya think it might be? Will anyone guess so he'll print it?

My current favourite is headlights sweeping up the drive ... but then again it could be ......... Excellent abstract though.

I especially liked the Gym mats and Gym floor from JW too. Very evocative - took me right back to the Gym at school, complete with all the sounds and people. That's what got me thinking how his mind may have been working when he did the 'presence' series... ie capturing the 'spirit' of the room.

Fascinating and very thought provoking and both of them at it now. My brain's gonna be in overdrive!


Pol

[Autumn]

Re: Camera blur, out of focus, fineart??

John Washington has recently been showing a series of his pictures on his PhotoBlog, under the general heading 'Precence'. They are all blurred, showing signs of camera movement due to slow shutter speed. They are very impressionistic, but essentially not one has what you might call a point of focus.

Now I can think of some Togs that would consider these rejects to say the least. So is it fair to say that in the world of photography this is fine art, or are they simply not up to being considered a 'good photo' Is JW avin a larff, or is this acceptable in a world where most of us strive for pin sharp images?

No Stephen, I don't think he is "Having a larf." I think he is just trying to make his pictures look a little bit more artistic, as you did a few weeks ago with your beech and man scenes.

I went through a similar scenario a couple of years ago with "My Venice."

I entered this for a competition and got a 1st. The judge loved it and said I should put it in for NEMPH which I had done and it had not been accepted. He said, I was to enter it the following year (still not accepted). Not to be deterred I entered it for a three way competition. The Judge looked at it and said "My Venice" "Hmph. It's certainly not mine." So that was my artistic attempt knocked for six.

From time to time I do feel I need to do something a little different to a photograph to make it truly mine, but I find it very hard, because after all even though we like something, we also like to think it is attractive to other viewers.