I think the result will be similar to the grain challenge. Since my shot did so poorly, I will likely pass on this too. I find it very hard to make something "off" on purpose (such as noise & focus) and have it look like it was supposed to be that way. Usually if that happens to one of my shots it's a complete accident.
aww man, dont hurt me :( ... but the reaction in this thread gives credit to the point of my suggestion, CONFUSION! It's nice to see the experienced photographers uncomfortable with this. No this isn't a time honored technique, but it will be interesting to judge what people come up with. Just because it isn't something you've done a thousand times doesn't mean its bad, does it?
Oh and I think it's up to you how you take the description, cause you know everyone will anyways. But I see it as something may be in focus, but the main subject isn't, but then maybe the whole photo is the main subject.
the reaction in this thread gives credit to the point of my suggestion, CONFUSION! It's nice to see the experienced photographers uncomfortable with this.
It certainly puts the "Challenge" in DPChallenge! Even if I don't enter, It should be an interesting one to vote and comment on.
Not quite, but a shot could have both. I think a combination of OOF and motion blur could be an interesting combo.
SC better clear that up asap of the entire voting will be f*&#ed-up. People will shoot believe one thing and vote in that direction and shred any other interpretation.
This one could possibly be fine as well, but would most likely get ripped to shizzle by the voters...
If motion blur isn't what they had in mind, they better make it very, very clear or I "pity the fools" who enter an image in that style and get beaten up for it.
Keep in mind I added one of my motion blur shots as a possible example BUT "focus" means focus or it can and probably will be voted on semantically. I usually view motion blur as a "blur" thing and not a sharpness or focus element. In short, I can see a semantic argument being made and I think people will almost certainly go there. I'm NOT rendering an opinion but pointing out that I believe an issue will fall into the mix of things and that the "motion blurers" might be in for a long ride...
Many voters never read these threads but the points or concerns being made are indicative of what's happening out there. If you find a few people view things a certain way and others in a completely different direction, there will be plenty of people falling into one line or the other. Be sure of that.
Well, I'll certainly aim to be in this one and I'll try not to worry about contrary voters. For reference, the images I'm seeing in my head when I think what might be effective here are:
As you can see - they all contain a blurred person but there IS a focus elsewhere in the image.
What do others think? Anybody want to act as a devil's advocate to the appropriateness of these images for this challenge??
So...
1) Rain is good (although it's not really out of focus so much as blurry because of the rain in front of the subject).
2) Pretty much nothing in the shot should be in focus because, if so, whatever is in focus is clearly the subject, even though it might not be what most people would have made the main subject. (does that make sense?) In other words, in #3, the singer is out of focus but in this shot, the microphone is the "subject" and not the singer.
"Use an out of focused subject in a compelling way". I guess it depends on the subject.
#3 & 4 can't really be seen as "Missed" IMO as they have something in focus that could be the intended subject quite easily. The raindrops was borderline but I kinda laughed because that could easily happen if you don't switch over to manual focus (if the person beyond the glass was the intended subject).
If I share your interpretations then the challenge would read something like 'Semi-abstract blur' - 'Take a photograph where nothing is in focus but the form and colors or tone of the image remains pleasing to the eye'!!! ;-)
i think paulbtlw got it perfect. It's use an out of focused subject, not necessarily the main subject, in a compelling way. So if you but a background of trees out of focus (bokeh basically) which aren't really subjects then it wouldn't be compelling.
The problem is probably the word missed, but people should come into this with a innocent until proven guilty look. Obviously these aren't going to be real, oops i missed the subject my autofocus went to something else pictures, so you have to start out in the right frame of mind.
so i keep going back and forth in my head to what i think, and your right, i take it back. But i don't think there will be many examples to show cause i think what is needed isn't a photo someone would normally take or keep.
i like these. In the end it will just be personal opinion. That's the idea i was going for with this suggestion and it will be interesting to see who's opinions out weighs others.
