One of the the oft-repeated recommendations for newcomers to photography is "learn all of the rules, and then forget them." I don't know who said this first, but it gets repeated in just about every photography workshop; it has become a cliche' statement. That said, I think it's true, especially as it relates to composition.
In the image below, which I took at Great Falls, Virginia on an extremely cold day (I think it was about 12 degrees F), the rocks at the very bottom, in the foreground, are a little out of focus. When I posted this shot, which I personally love, that came back as a criticism. It got me thinking.
Great Falls, Virginia, by Reed A. George
Rolleiflex Twin Lens Reflex Camera
We all take pictures where the background is out of focus, which helps to emphasize our subject, typically a person, as in a portrait. So why do some people think it's not okay to have a blurred foreground? I haven't found an answer. Personally, I think it helps to focus attention elsewhere in the image, just as a blurred background does.
Image Source: http://mute.rigent.com/index.php?ladat=2012-12-14
The image above uses the same effect. I find it very attractive.
(Click Here) to read the original post on MUTE, and the comments. Most people seem to agree that it's a great shot.
Anyone out there have an opinion to share about this?
DMC-365.blogspot.com
I haven't read this book, but maybe I should...
I agree with you. There's a tradition in landscape dating back to the era of St. Ansel that everything in an image needs to be sharp. Oddly enough, we're now in an era where small format cameras like cell phones can deliver that, and the larger the format the more they are used for shallow DOF. It's a refreshing change.
ReplyDelete~Joe