Sorry I can't offer any useful critique, but just one observation:
Reading the comments you've received on your photograph, I would say that it wasn't the blur but the exposure that put them off. You got one positive comment on the blur, only one real complaint but the majority of comments are along the lines of "blown out", "don't like the high key" and "overexposed".
Sometimes as a photographer we break the rules to creat what we have in mind... This is exactly what I had in mind, but because it breaks the "rules" it didn't do as well
like I said... note to self " follow all 'rules' of exposure, the 'rule' of thirds, and all the other 'rules. Do not ever use blur, all photos must be tack sharp. and never EVER try to interpret a challenge creativly, this is the worst of DPC sins and will insure that you do not score well"
Stay true to your art, I frequently get lower scores than I hoped for because I buck the norm. My pattern image came out just like I wanted it to, it did OK but the comments were not favorable to the high key look. Every once in a while one of my slightly abstract images score a 6 one of yours will too.
It's a perfectly fine shot because it does exactly what it's supposed to do and because it's soft in focus doesn't diminish it one single bit.
Were you trying to show a mothers love for her child?
Well, you did exactly that. F#@* the Sharp Police. It's not the slightest bit relevant how ahrp an image is if it communicates what it's supposed to and this image does just that.
It seems like a little photographic knowledge is a dangerous thing in the hands of voters....doesn't it? If anything was out of focus it was those who voted you down because they missed the point. They were the ones not sharp enough to understand a cool image. ;)
I think composition may have played as much of a part as the blur in this image. The left side of the image is a jumble of body parts with some of them severed mid-way. I don't really think the pose is flattering to the mother. I do love the interaction between Mom and child, and this almost overcomes the few faults I see. I didn't vote on this challenge, but I would have voted your image 6. I'm also wondering how you lit this image. Studio flash, or ambient light?
It's a perfectly fine shot because it does exactly what it's supposed to do and because it's soft in focus doesn't diminish it one single bit.
Were you trying to show a mothers love for her child?
Well, you did exactly that. F#@* the Sharp Police. It's not the slightest bit relevant how ahrp an image is if it communicates what it's supposed to and this image does just that.
It seems like a little photographic knowledge is a dangerous thing in the hands of voters....doesn't it? If anything was out of focus it was those who voted you down because they missed the point. They were the ones not sharp enough to understand a cool image. ;)
In the comments on the photos, I think only one person commented on the softness. Most who were bothered were bothered by the high key/overexposed aspect of the shot. Nobody can say that this shot did not do better because of the "Sharp Police". Everything is speculation and conjecture at this point.
Usually the key to soft focus is clear edge definition. One of the big oopsies I see when trying for soft is throwing of the focus which will give you no edge definition. Now how that is acheived is something I'ms till trying to learn. Hope that helps.
[quote=pawdrix] It's a perfectly fine shot because it does exactly what it's supposed to do and because it's soft in focus doesn't diminish it one single bit.
In the comments on the photos, I think only one person commented on the softness. Most who were bothered were bothered by the high key/overexposed aspect of the shot. Nobody can say that this shot did not do better because of the "Sharp Police". Everything is speculation and conjecture at this point.
Well, in that case Screw the High Key/Overexposed Aspect Police!!!
i think this shot of mine might showcase the difference between soft and out of?
I don';t have the original her (I'm at work) but it was tack on focus... I blured it in post... just for the record.
I would contribute that differences may be subtle, & some would not agree, but blur/softness created in post processing of an edit, has a different genetic and also distinguishable visible characteristics than blur/softness created by the natural optical qualities of a lense.
Usually the key to soft focus is clear edge definition. One of the big oopsies I see when trying for soft is throwing of the focus which will give you no edge definition. Now how that is acheived is something I'ms till trying to learn. Hope that helps.
I agree, and almost made a comment on the OP's shot, because I think it is a strikingly beautiful composition, but it did suffer from the applied blur. Best practice on "soft focus" is:
- Start with a very sharp original, perhaps a little *too* sharp on its own
- Apply a blur with appropriate radius (dependent on image pixel dimensions). For a DPC-submission sized image, perhaps 3-4px is a good starting point
- Fade the blur to between 30% and 45% or to taste. For Advanced Editing, the blur can be applied on a separate layer, and the blending controlled by the layer blend modes and opacity, and also masked as desired.
The end result should be an image that retains some visibility of fine detail, but that has a soft "glow" to it. For Advanced editing, keeping eyes sharper is recommended; also consider some masking on the lips and perhaps areas of the hair.
