selective Focus?????

[mbanstendig]

I assume the meaning of selective focus in the latest contest to mean precisely placing the exact plane of focus exactly on the obvious spot in the image, on which the photographer is trying to focus.

With available focusing devices, that is all but impossible to do.

No matter what depth-of-field as depth-of-focus drivel tries to say, there is only one distance in front of a lens that can be exactly in focus. Anything in front of that focused distance is unsharp to some degree. I.e., depth of field describes qualities of unsharpness, not sharpness.

So this contest is, as I understand it, is a contest to get the plane of focus exactly on the image point, on which one inteneded it to be.

Already, the bulk of the submitted photos are not so accurately focused. Both photos of jewelry are front-focused (the focal plane, i.e., sharpest plane, is clearly in front of the jewel that was to be focused on). With the photo of the ring on the ladie's hand, for example, one can see that the focus lies in front of the jewel itself, on the hand, and that the hand is clearly (if subtly) sharper, firmer in image-tone, and more "plastic" than the jewel itself (plasticity is the impression of three-dimensionality on a two-dimensional surface, which only occurs on and closely around the focal-plane). Because of this, the eye is not drawn to the jewel, but more forward and must force itself to look further back at the jewel. The photo would benefit from the plane of focus being exactly on the main jewel of the ring. The eye would then go directly to that jewel and have a hard time looking anywhere else. Now it does not.

The photo of the dog is also front-focused and the nose has more plasticity and somewhat sharper appearance that the dog's eye, which would normally be the desired point, on which to focus. Again, even with depth of field, this photo would benefit from the focus being on the eye, instead of forward of it. Most of the photos of animals at www.anstendig.com demonstrate that.

The photo of Death is spot on, with the focal-plane exactly where the intention was to focus....exactly on the nearest point of the rim of the pipe. That is unequivocally clear, even though the fast lens almost wide open has somewhat less resolution than stopped down. And with that control of the plane of focus, the rest of the photo could be purposely kep soft and unsharp, stating a clear message about smoking and health/death.

I thought a clarification of focus and depth of field is worthwhile when a contest is taking place ostensibly demonstrating control of those things and their artistic or other type of use in a photo.

Further examples of use of the exact plane of focus, only possible with the no longer available Messraster focusing device, can be found at www.anstendig.com in the section "Messraster" on the main page, and in photos throughout the site.

[Latinbob]

I think that things like this, artistic devices, are open to the artist's interpretation. Vote as you see fit, and for what you see as the best example.

As the Romans would have said: "de gustibus non disputandum est."

There is no accounting for taste.

Bob

[mbanstendig]

I hear you. That is how I understood it, of course.

But there is something being used to describe the contest's aim, which is far from clearly understood in the photo world, which is not a matter of taste, which has many flaws to the prevalent thinking and accepted/perpetrated theories, and which definitely affects the effect and accuracy of content of photos.

I took the opportunity to point that out, even using submitted photos. And clearly, as you demonstrate, few care or even find me an annoyance.

Ultimately, yes, I know. If people like something or one of the photos, that will override all other considerations, even the topic of the contest. That is a huge defect of democracy....public taste: The most successful, most sold car ever, the original Volkswagon, was a death car, with a faulty suspension that made it unsafe on anything but flat, straight terrain. And yet everyone loved it....except those who had enormous accidents with it.....which did nothing to stop its huge success.

Mark

[jfrancho]

Tilt-shift, Lensbabies, and faux-tilt-shift through processing filters could also be valid techniques. Rather than complain about the entries, maybe we could try to interpret the contest title a little differently. Using lighting to shift the focus of the viewer could be one idea. I'm sure there will be more creative entries as the month wears on. For now here is a picture that uses a narrow DOF out of necessity (low light) and abandons the usual focal point for the type of picture it is:

[aam1234]

Don't know where that contest is so didn't read the rules (any link please).

As John mentioned, there are other ways to isolate the subject than selective focusing/DOF. Breaking a pattern is another way too.

I'll post an example if I don't enter that contest

[Latinbob]

That's a cool shot, John. It could be an advert for Gibson. Good example of selective focus.

Bob

[jfrancho]

Thanks, Bob. It could use a tighter crop, and some dodge on the logo, then it would be a perfect ad.

[aam1234]

Found the contest and my example of isolating the subject w/o selective focusing doesn't apply. Will post an example of breaking the pattern shortly.

Here it is. It was posted here before so hope you guys don't mind posting it again.

[mbanstendig]

I actually like the photos. I was just getting at a particular thing that is lacking in what camera manufacturers are giving us.

BTW, that lasat photo on this thread, above this post, does place th focus rather successfully. I would have liked the plane of focus solely on the crumpled thing and not on the foreground. Then the whole background would have been out of focus in greater contrast to the elevated, crumbled thing in the center. But that is truly a matter of artistic decision.

Mark

[Rense]

aam1234,
actually there is already some selective focus in your image: the top row of choclates has less focus than the front row.

[aam1234]

Thanks Mark, glad you liked the photo. Good point you raised, however I wasn't going after selective focusing/shallow DOF, was trying to break a pattern there.

Rense, you are right, but the selective focus is not as pronounced/strong as some of the entries in the contest.

[aam1234]

Mark, how about this one.

[mbanstendig]

AAM123,

That is, for me, a provocative photo.

Your solution is one good possibility, probabloy dictated by the camera. To keep the same vantage point, which I feel you liked, and change the focus to be on the top of the cumpled piece in the center, leaving the whole backfround equally unsharp, you would need a large format camera with full movements and very wide lens that could be radically tilted. messy to do. Not necessarily better. But it would be interesting.

IMO, it is a great subject. I react to it very strongly. And what I like about it is that it is not an emotional reaction, but simply a reaction to pure form and beauty.

That is rare. Getting my students, as a step in their development, to get the emotional content out of it and create something solely of detached, artistic beauty is very hard to accomplish.

Your photo could be used in teaching that. I love it. And what an eye you have to have seen the potential of those two things, which most people don't even notice.

Thanks,

Mark

[aam1234]

Thank you Mark, that's a big compliment.

[mbanstendig]

You are welcome.

I mean it!

The wonderful thing about your photo is that the crumpled center piece clearly has the "plasticity" (effect of three-dimensionality on a two-dimensional surface) and, because of that effect, which only occurs at and very close to the focal-plane, it stands out substantially from everything else.

Not only the greatest sharpness occurs at the focal-plane, but the darkest, firmest, most accurate depictiuon of the color/gray tones, too. Those are powerful, natural toiols, when one has control of them.

I really enjoy that photo. Whether you did it first try, purposely, or chose the best of many (which is how things like that usually happen, with current focusing devices) that photo is exactly what it should be in relation to what you are trying to do.

As I said, I love it.

Mark

[JDArt]

Contest "themes" are open to interpretation. In the end, folks will vote on the image that to their mind works the best as a photo and within the theme as they understand it.

Selective Focus Contest.

[hypordk]

I noticed that some of the photo thumbnails don't appear to have selective focus but if you click on them and view them at their normal size there are some great shots. I just thought that I would point out my observation.
That and I noticed that my photo is an example of the thumbnail not showing the image at its best.

[kelley_french]

Here is my take on what selective focus means

[Mr. Pickles]

It really doesn't matter what it's official definition is. If there is one. It matters what you think it is.

This is used in context of a photography contest. No photography contest is a simple deal. The actual meaning and interpretation is a varying percentage of the theme. What you present for the voters may be 100% accurate in your mind, but the variation comes in and the rules change.

Kind of like looking at Ansel Adams work. It may be hanging in the best museums in the world, but doesn't mean I like it, or understand it.

So, take what you know, and feel, and think, and apply it towards the contest. If you only put your image or idea in here, you won't win. The best scenario finds you accepting the Lens Baby.

Selective Focus Contest

[Paul Shields]

I guess we'll let the voters judge on what selective focus really is. Don't know about anyone else, but I can't make my mind up already looking at the current entries, and there is still a couple of weeks to go before the entry period closes .