Focus on focus

Cobra said:
Guys! Brash NEVER made the comment.
He quoted it.
I removed the quote, as I had deleted the post.
I left the ignore button part in, as its very good advice.
Several of you would do well to take heed of it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough I am out of this one.
 

Error
 

"I know you said it wasn't you, but I can't help but feel your leading this new guy on, just to see how far you can push it."


[PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. I don't think he needs me to push him along. Folk reacting like you and several others seems to be doing the job just fine.
 
Gortch said:
Real talent, in terms of photography, is easy to define. It explains someone who consistently achieves desired photographic goals. Through their expertise and creativity, they visualise a picture, set out to make it and succeed.

Doing that sounds simple enough but to do it consistently you need to have a good understanding of all the technicalities involved and have creative qualities which allow to visualise the shot in the first place; creative qualities might include being able to achieve good/pleasing compositions, creating mood and feel, including allegory, etc.
Click to expand...

I'd go along with that apart from having to be able to visualise a shot in advance. I think you can use a working practice to take you somewhere unexpected - which can involve NOT having expertise and/or technical understanding. You set a system in motion and see where it takes you. Oops,that sounds like an adults playepen. :D
 
Oh I needed this laugh today...Thank you.
I can't believe you've all expended so much energy on a thread so clearly designed to elicit your ire.
Free entertainment. I feel there should be fresh popcorn. :lol:
 
BRASH said:
"I know you said it wasn't you, but I can't help but feel your leading this new guy on, just to see how far you can push it."


[PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. I don't think he needs me to push him along. Folk reacting like you and several others seems to be doing the job just fine.
Click to expand...

Well I have used the ignore for him, as I said I am out of this thread good luck to those who want to carry on :)
 
Every so often I like to make a point or two about Photography, that I know will be seen as Outdated,untrue, unnecessary and unpopular, so I start a thread.
I do not expect everyone to agree with me, I do expect some to read what I say and compare it to their own experience and knowledge.
I do not mind in the least if they come to different conclusions. But I might think it worth while to expand my reasoning.

One of my "beliefs" is that cameras, technology and results can be good enough with out achieving perfection.
Perfection is never achievable, and changes with time and the introduction of new abilities.
However it is important for all of us to set targets for ourselves if we want to progress in anything, they will not all be the same and there is no need for them to be so.
Personal targets are just that, and concern no one else.

It is arrogant to turn ones beliefs, into a religious like concept that every one must follow. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding, to express opinion as fact.

I perfectly understand that my "good enough philosophy" will be set differently by different people and for different reasons.

For instance, I did not buy a DSLR until the canon 40D came out, by my reckoning it was the first that was good enough in every way to fill my needs.
Interestingly, my needs have not changed, so although there are far better cameras available now, I have not felt the need to change.

So it is with sharpness... I like things to be sharp... where I want them to be sharp, if they look sharp in use , they are sharp enough. But I know sharpness and recorded detail are not synonymous. Nor do they override every other consideration, like tonality and texture and shape. And sharpness can never outdo content for importance.

Photography is not a one horse town.
 
Gortch said:
Real talent, in terms of photography, is easy to define. It explains someone who consistently achieves desired photographic goals. Through their expertise and creativity, they visualise a picture, set out to make it and succeed.

Doing that sounds simple enough but to do it consistently you need to have a good understanding of all the technicalities involved and have creative qualities which allow to visualise the shot in the first place; creative qualities might include being able to achieve good/pleasing compositions, creating mood and feel, including allegory, etc.
Click to expand...

But who defines these desired photographic goals. Surely you can see that sometimes it's the paying client, but sometimes it's the artist. Photography crosses all boundaries and has different uses.

What you've said above is generally right, but it takes time and growth to get there. That's where this forum is great, helping and supporting photographers across all levels and at times even the great photographers learn something new as they look at others work. Simply crushing the ambitions of others because they don't meet you high standards doesn't allow for that growth.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Every so often I like to make a point or two about Photography, that I know will be seen as Outdated,untrue, unnecessary and unpopular, so I start a thread.
I do not expect everyone to agree with me, I do expect some to read what I say and compare it to their own experience and knowledge.
I do not mind in the least if they come to different conclusions. But I might think it worth while to expand my reasoning.

One of my "beliefs" is that cameras, technology and results can be good enough with out achieving perfection.
Perfection is never achievable, and changes with time and the introduction of new abilities.
However it is important for all of us to set targets for ourselves if we want to progress in anything, they will not all be the same and there is no need for them to be so.
Personal targets are just that, and concern no one else.

It is arrogant to turn ones beliefs, into a religious like concept that every one must follow. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding, to express opinion as fact.

I perfectly understand that my "good enough philosophy" will be set differently by different people and for different reasons.

For instance, I did not buy a DSLR until the canon 40D came out, by my reckoning it was the first that was good enough in every way to fill my needs.
Interestingly, my needs have not changed, so although there are far better cameras available now, I have not felt the need to change.

So it is with sharpness... I like things to be sharp... where I want them to be sharp, if they look sharp in use , they are sharp enough. But I know sharpness and recorded detail are not synonymous. Nor do they override every other consideration, like tonality and texture and shape. And sharpness can never outdo content for importance.

Photography is not a one horse town.
Click to expand...

As long as you accept that some photos are good and some are bad, I have no issue with you.
 
Byker28i said:
But who defines these desired photographic goals. Surely you can see that sometimes it's the paying client, but sometimes it's the artist. Photography crosses all boundaries and has different uses.

What you've said above is generally right, but it takes time and growth to get there. That's where this forum is great, helping and supporting photographers across all levels and at times even the great photographers learn something new as they look at others work. Simply crushing the ambitions of others because they don't meet you high standards doesn't allow for that growth.
Click to expand...


I am not crushing them. Since when is the truth crushing? Telling people a picture is great and impressively sharp when it's blurry junk is crushing their chances of improvement.
 
Gortch said:
You might be right about the small minds and let me suggest you leave those to me. You're wrong about those pictures though.

Take the spider one. The web near the spider's head and presumably some of the head itself is arguably in focus. But if the focus was on the head as it seems to be, why isn't the head in the shot? You can't see it. So he focused on something we can't see -- brilliant. The part we can see, it's back etc, is out of focus and takes up most of the frame. Just ridiculous.

As for the lizard, if the eye was not supposed to be in focus, as you are suggesting, and in doing so you join an elite group who are willing to admit it isn't in focus, then why has he tried to make it look sharp in post? I can tell when someone has tried to fake focus. Even if you were right though in your assumption that the eye was not meant to be in focus, well that would be even more of an error. Forgive me but I am of the view that in that shot the eye should be in focus, was intended to be in focus, but wasn't in focus.
Click to expand...
Gortch.Thanks for addressing the points I raised.You addressed them all bar one.Please could you post some of your in focus macro shots so I can see where I should be focusing.Thanks.:)
 
Gortch said:
...50 to 60 % of the pictures I look at on here are out.
...if they were mine I'd delete them.
Out of focus photographs are valueless.
Click to expand...

Some fairly blunt crushing views.

But it's clear that you only have your opinion, you think you're right and won't be swayed.

I'm out.
 
Gortch said:
As long as you accept that some photos are good and some are bad, I have no issue with you.
Click to expand...

I accept that a photo can be good by some standards and bad by others. I also accept that others will not necessarily put that photograph in the same category as I might.
What might be sharp enough for a major pictorial exhibition, might fail miserably by a scientific standard.

Judgement can not be divorced from a comparable standard.
 
I read page 1 of 4 and new if I skipped straight to 4 it would be a bun fight, very predictable :ty:
 
kestral said:
Gortch.Thanks for addressing the points I raised.You addressed them all bar one.Please could you post some of your in focus macro shots so I can see where I should be focusing.Thanks.:)
Click to expand...

I don't do macro. Not sure why you assume I do or why you feel anything I do would be relevant to this discussion though. I had some pictures on Flickr but removed them because they didn't pay me for providing them with content for their website.
 
Neil B said:
I read page 1 of 4 and new if I skipped straight to 4 it would be a bun fight, very predictable :ty:
Click to expand...

There is no fight. A few people tried to attack me but I brushed them off. The discussion is essentially over and we have arrived at a settled view. Basically the vast majority of people who aren't very talented or serious about photography think all photographs and photographers are equal. They are armed with phrases like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and aren't afraid to use them. It's a a bit like a religious cult with god replaced by some vague notion of subjectivity.

A small minority of people, like myself, are pitted against them. We believe in objectivity and that it is at least possible to screw up a shot. It is obvious to us that learning and mistakes go hand in hand and we are puzzled as to why this should upset anyone. It's also obvious to us that the recognition of good photography depends on a willingness to recognise photography that is bad, that standards are important, and that it is insulting to talented photographers to suggest that their work is as valueless as blurry snaps taken with a phone.

I've moved on.
 
An interesting, although perhaps eccentric, synopsis of the discussion so far. I wonder who is this "us" of which you speak.
 
Gortch said:
I don't do macro. Not sure why you assume I do or why you feel anything I do would be relevant to this discussion though. I had some pictures on Flickr but removed them because they didn't pay me for providing them with content for their website.
Click to expand...


You beast!
Glad to see you're making friends.
 
Dammit I'm out of popcorn.
Doritos anyone?
 
Gortch said:
Real talent, in terms of photography, is easy to define.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

Gortch said:
It explains someone who consistently achieves desired photographic goals. Through their expertise and creativity, they visualise a picture, set out to make it and succeed.
Click to expand...

And if their goals are crap?
 
Gortch said:
There is no fight. A few people tried to attack me but I brushed them off. The discussion is essentially over and we have arrived at a settled view. Basically the vast majority of people who aren't very talented or serious about photography think all photographs and photographers are equal. They are armed with phrases like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and aren't afraid to use them. It's a a bit like a religious cult with god replaced by some vague notion of subjectivity.

A small minority of people, like myself, are pitted against them. We believe in objectivity and that it is at least possible to screw up a shot. It is obvious to us that learning and mistakes go hand in hand and we are puzzled as to why this should upset anyone. It's also obvious to us that the recognition of good photography depends on a willingness to recognise photography that is bad, that standards are important, and that it is insulting to talented photographers to suggest that their work is as valueless as blurry snaps taken with a phone.

I've moved on.
Click to expand...

True there's been a few posts I've not approved of in this thread, but the point of a forum is to encourage discussion, around a topic of interest. the discussion is essentially over, not because a settled view has been reached, but that many member who are prepared to discuss the topic, despite how bluntly and arrogantly you put it over with your superiority complex, have finally given it up, feeling they have hit the immovable object.

You are not a professional photographer, yet you are the only person on this forum capable of judging what is a good image?

Sorry but your end of first term report would read 'could do better'.
 
Gortch said:
There is no fight. A few people tried to attack me but I brushed them off. The discussion is essentially over and we have arrived at a settled view. Basically the vast majority of people who aren't very talented or serious about photography think all photographs and photographers are equal. They are armed with phrases like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and aren't afraid to use them. It's a a bit like a religious cult with god replaced by some vague notion of subjectivity.

A small minority of people, like myself, are pitted against them. We believe in objectivity and that it is at least possible to screw up a shot. It is obvious to us that learning and mistakes go hand in hand and we are puzzled as to why this should upset anyone. It's also obvious to us that the recognition of good photography depends on a willingness to recognise photography that is bad, that standards are important, and that it is insulting to talented photographers to suggest that their work is as valueless as blurry snaps taken with a phone.

I've moved on.
Click to expand...

Are you Brian Sewell?
 
Amazingly I have at my side a coffee table book of photographs, published last year, which sold out of it's initial run at launch.

Shot by people who are acclaimed to be the leaders in their field, so we have pedigree, commercial success and critical acclaim.

By my reckoning the OP's standards on quality photography would have reduced a book retailing at £34 to a pamphlet presumably costing less than a tenner.
The book; McRae, just Colin
The Photographers, McKlein
 
It's a shame in a way a discussion about how important is sharp focus in photos would have been interesting :)
If Gordon had phrased his post that way it would have been more helpful instead of just attacking the crit given on the forum
It's very difficult to judge sharpness on web sized photos anyway
And people just give their opinions theirs no right or wrong just conventions such as for wildlife shots the eyes always have to be in focus
I had a look at the chameleon it it looks excellent to me I tried zooming in and maybe the back is slightly more sharp than the eye but it's hard to tell on that size image
 
Pookeyhead said:
No it's not.



And if their goals are crap?
Click to expand...

It's here and only here that subjectivity might have a place in photography. The market filters out the crap to an extent, along with society; and rejection here comes at a cost.

But this conversation is getting diverted. It seems some people think it's impossible to screw up a shot and they are even willing to argue that missing the focus on a study shot (for example) is not an error but art, a virtue.

I find it easier to tell someone the truth, that their photo is soft, than to lie to them and pretend I think it's fine. Corollary to that, I will not devalue the whole art form by propagating ideas that suggest crap photos are the equal of good photos, beauty being in the eye of the beholder, and such. As I said, easier and better for everybody to be honest.
 
LCPete said:
It's a shame in a way a discussion about how important is sharp focus in photos would have been interesting :)
If Gordon had phrased his post that way it would have been more helpful instead of just attacking the crit given on the forum
It's very difficult to judge sharpness on web sized photos anyway
And people just give their opinions theirs no right or wrong just conventions such as for wildlife shots the eyes always have to be in focus
I had a look at the chameleon it it looks excellent to me I tried zooming in and maybe the back is slightly more sharp than the eye but it's hard to tell on that size image
Click to expand...

The chameleon shot is far from a wildlife shot. Look at the backdrop. Clearly the chameleon was in custody. There's nothing natural or wild about it.

Hard, then, to believe that in the one key area where a photo like that might redeem itself, the sharpness of the eye, it fails and still manages to win some sort of prize. As for the composition, what composition? It's just empty. Even with a sharp eye it would, in my opinion, be valueless. As it is, it's an affront.
 
Gortch said:
The chameleon shot is far from a wildlife shot. Look at the backdrop. Clearly the chameleon was in custody. There's nothing natural or wild about it.

Hard, then, to believe that in the one key area where a photo like that might redeem itself, the sharpness of the eye, it fails and still manages to win some sort of prize. As for the composition, what composition? It's just empty. Even with a sharp eye it would, in my opinion, be valueless. As it is, it's an affront.
Click to expand...

I realise that the chameleon is a studio shot I was just talking generally about shots of wildlife
The shot isn't the sort of thing that I like either I prefer the subject to be in a natural setting but that's just my opinion
I wouldn't say that it's valueless it's an excellent studio study of a reptile with great colours the lighting is spot on and the composition is excellent the simple background was chosen to show off the reptile
Can't comment on the sharpness without seeing a high res image
What I'm trying to say is that there's no right or wrong just opinion and convention of course most wildlife photographers aim to get their subjects sharp and in focus
 
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 underminning and idealistic in its adgenda.
 
Last edited:
Gortch said:
I find it easier to tell someone the truth, that their photo is soft, than to lie to them and pretend I think it's fine. Corollary to that, I will not devalue the whole art form by propagating ideas that suggest crap photos are the equal of good photos, beauty being in the eye of the beholder, and such. As I said, easier and better for everybody to be honest.
Click to expand...


You've not been here long.. so you can be forgiven for thinking that I lie, be nice, and blow smoke up people's asses. :)
 
I still maintain that my original (mod deleted) post was most succinct and accurate. I still hold that view, and I suspect that more agree with me than don't.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You've not been here long.. so you can be forgiven for thinking that I lie, be nice, and blow smoke up people's asses. :)
Click to expand...

:LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL: < is about all I can muster to that idea! However 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 ;)


Now more seriously, while everyone is back to maintaining some decorum whilst being involved in this discussion, then the thread can stay open - if no one wants to argue anymore, it will die a natural death anyway.
 
techguyone said:
I still maintain that my original (mod deleted) post was most succinct and accurate. I still hold that view, and I suspect that more agree with me than don't.
Click to expand...

I think he's an optician and he's blatantly touting for business :D
 
techguyone said:
I still maintain that my original (mod deleted) post was most succinct and accurate. I still hold that view, and I suspect that more agree with me than don't.
Click to expand...
Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but its the stuff that flame wars are made of.
but that's not how sensible discussions are conducted.
 
Last edited:
LCPete said:
It's a shame in a way a discussion about how important is sharp focus in photos would have been interesting :)
Click to expand...

There have been several such threads in the past, but none recently that I can think of.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top