On fuzzy images – Korwel Photography

This is one of the things you read about on somebody else’s blog, but never consider true until it happens to you. This time, I am talking about general public (meaning non-photographers) perception of shallow depth of field images… This is what happened to me recently.

A friend of mine wanted to share with her friends couple of pictures on my cats. Apparently, that’s what cat lovers do. I have send her image of Ace, one of the series with orange ball (not the one linked), and my favorite image of Torie – with her reflection in the window (same image was published on blog when I shot it).

Shortly, I heard back from her that Ace image is OK, but image of Torie is “fuzzy”. I have to admit I was stunned at first. After all, her face in the reflection is not fuzzy at all. Also, it is not at all that easy to shoot both reflection and original with both in focus, although I saw it possible. Which of course if of no interest to the viewer.

And then I remembered hearing about the issue from other photographers. For example, there was an article by Mike Moats on his Tiny Landscapes blog (UPDATED June 18, 2013 – luckily, Mike Moats reposts occasionally, and here you can see curent version of the article) about his impression from art shows, where people do not like shallow-depth-of-field macro images, and many of them considers them simply incorrect. After all, most of them can take an image which is in focus al the way though with their point-and-shoots, which are designed to be that way. They expect a professional photographer to do “at least as good”. Which is ironic

Apparently, only the photographers can appreciate blurry background, with often abstract quality to the final image. Only we, photographers, are proud of our expensive lenses with f/1.4 apertures, photographing just about anything as wide open as we can, leaving just this one detail, only the most important thing, sharp.

I wonder what my friend would say to this evening on the streets image by Jessica Sweeney, which I like a lot. After all, only a bit of cobble stone is in focus. You cannot distinguis action happening further into the scene. yet, us, human, we know what is there, can tell the story, so why is it so important to have everything spelled out, in focus and almost distracting?

How about you? Are you a photographer or viewer? Do you prefer images all the way sharp (like most landcapes) or so you like a blurry, non-distracting backgrounds (like in portraits or flower images)? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Karen says:

March 21, 2013 at 9:36 pm

When I look a photograph, one of the first things I notice is whether or not the image draws me into it and speaks to me at some level as the viewer. The depth of field that the photographer uses to express their feelings towards the subject is part of the creative aspect of producing a compelling image. The depth of field may be shallow or deep, but when I look at the image, I am making a judgement about how that depth of field is appropriate to the image. I like both shallow and deep depths of field depending on the totality of the image.

My own personal preference is not to use flash at all, so obviously I must use a wide open aperture under certain lighting situations, the result being a shallow depth of field. I love my little f/1.4 lenses too. I taught high school photography classes, and my students probably thought it was my life’s greatest mission that they learn about the relationship between the aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, ISO, elements of photographic composition, and the resulting qualities of their photographs.

Unfortunately, not everyone has the opportunity to take photography classes, nor the time or inclination to pursue the group or self-learning and discovery to be able to analyze and appreciate the elements of a good photograph. Personally, I do not think the deciding factor of a good photo is clinical sharpness from stem to stern.

I adore the photographs of your kitties – fuzzy bits and all.

Karen

PS – I have attached ( I think) a picture of one of my “girls”.

Iza says:

March 22, 2013 at 6:49 am

Thanks, Karen, I think you touched something in your comment I did not talk about in my post at all, two things, in fact. One is what photographer wanted to say, where he wanted to draw attention. Second, if image speaks, who cares how fuzzy it is. Which begs the question-did my friend plainly did not like the image or looked at it the wrong way, judging technique?

Orchids – panorama style says:

March 27, 2013 at 12:33 am

[…] a macro lens, it is surprising how I still tend to rich for Lensbaby. After last week post about general public preferring all-sharp images and comments on Google+, I did some more thinking. I do not feel that macro images always need more […]