Author Topic: "Embrace the blur" (Read 20110 times)

Late Developer · « **on:** September 05, 2010, 06:34:13 PM »

I've just read Leon's "tongue-in-cheek" comment made to me in another thread and it got me wondering.

Although I've had a film camera since my teens in the early 70's, only a couple have had an auto-focus lens. All the manuals and books I studied at an early age said that the image must be pin-sharp and correctly exposed. After all, I can't remember any Ansel Adams images even displaying "bokeh" let alone having the subject matter a fraction out of focus.

In recent years I've been "seduced by the dork side" and got myself a digital SLR. These come, invariably, with a selection of superbly contrasty and sharp auto-focus lenses. Unless you switch off the auto-focus and shoot straight into the sun, it's virtually impossible to get a soft / out of focus / desaturated / flared image.

My latest acquisitions (Hasselblad 500c/m and a few old-style CT* lenses) require a lot more thought to get a good result and require me to go back to basics and re-learn how to be a proper photographer - a sniper rather than a machine gunner - and I don't always get it right.

So, that begs a question. How much blur is acceptable? Are there situations where it is actually better if the photo isn't crisply in focus and exposed to perfection? Where are the boundaries?

What's the consensus? Is there one or is this a very personal issue?

Terry · « **Reply #1 on:** September 05, 2010, 06:49:38 PM »

Personally, control freak that I am, I firmly adhere to the principle that the only setting for auto-anything is "off." I was shooting some video footage not too long ago and because it was grab-and-go stuff I foolishly left the autofocus on. The result was dizzying--the damn camera couldn't decide what to pull focus on, with the result that there was a constant slight rack-focus thing going on all the time. It rendered all the footage, except that in which the camera and the subject were static, useless. I know people who would have used it, but by my measure it was unusable. (I shoot film whenever I'm shooting motion, too, if I can afford to.)

A big part of photography is thinking about what you want to have in focus. That entails choices about lenses, exposure times, apertures and film speed that make the resultant images yours. For that reason I never use autoexposure either and I always meter off-camera.

LT · « **Reply #2 on:** September 05, 2010, 06:49:47 PM »

Paul - you're addressing a forum of people who mostly originate from the toycamera genre. The sky is the limit as far as Blur is concerned.

Check out our guest galleries etc and you'll see there is no ceiling of acceptability for blur.

One of our founding members is the Blurstine herself - www.susanburnstine.com - the queen of blur. Skorj's flawed and blurred polaroid negatives are a good example too. Ed, Damion and I also embrace the blur on a regular basis.

Other great blurrers here - Vicky, Miller, Moominsean, Don Brice, Aline Smithson to name a few - apologies to all those superb blurrers that I have missed out.

Blur is there to be used.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #3 on:** September 05, 2010, 08:39:50 PM »

Quote from: leon taylor on September 05, 2010, 06:49:47 PM

Blur is there to be used.

Word!

I use blur quite a lot of the time and rarely get tired of it - although in recent years I've toned it down a bit and tried to make my photos work without the 'blur crutch'

If you'll forgive the indulgence, here are a few from the archives: blur variously achieved by use of very shallow DOF (mainly using a binocular lens as a diopter), a very sh*tty old Diana clone, some home-modified lenses (for 35mm and MF) and a very cheap (essentially faulty) 28mm K-mount lens which just happens to blur at the edges in just the right way.

Go on...get stuck in :-)

vicky slater · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2010, 09:00:43 PM »

Nice ones, Ed!
and thanks Leon.

Given a choice of only sharp or only blur, blur wins out for me easily...though I'd hate to have to choose

I have a whole set especially for it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/janeway/sets/72157601033454534/
as well as all the digital pinholes which have nothing in focus either.

Just do whatever makes you happy, sharp, blurry and everything in between.

Miller · « **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2010, 09:18:37 PM »

If it's blur you want then so blur it. Though I better re-scan these... $:-\$

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #6 on:** September 05, 2010, 09:42:57 PM »

Great stuff Vicky! Sometimes total out of focus just works out great.

Heidelberg out of focus by Urban Hafner, on Flickr

Francois · « **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2010, 10:45:23 PM »

People essentially forget that there is a difference between blur and out of focus.
Out of focus is usually an accident while blur is deliberate.
When I look at my work, even though it often looks tack sharp, there is always an element of blur present. It's most often a result of selective focus since I work with my lens mostly at full open.

Blur is a labor of love. It's so easy to close at f/32 a tripod mounted camera... but it takes away a bit of the fun.

Contrary to most, even though I have a Holga, a Diana Mini, a Blackbird and a host of other cheap cameras, my background is mainly coming from straight photography. When I was young, I would have done anything to shoot like Ansel... and then the blur came into my life and never left. Blur is an attainable goal... shooting Yosemite on a daily basis with an 8x10 camera is not

Blur also has an element of romanticism that is impossible any other way.

Mojave · « **Reply #8 on:** September 06, 2010, 05:05:14 AM »

Diggin' those shots Ed, especially the lighthouse. Amazing.

I think using blur can be a very effective way to tell the story better than without it. For me, it all depends on the story Im trying to tell in the image and lately it seems I need the blur almost always.

Minutefilm · « **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2010, 08:38:55 AM »

My belief is that there is a simple arbiter of wether the photograph will work or not and it is 'intention'

If you capture what you had intended to capture it will almost always work but to show that it is what you intended you should make it 'soft enough' or 'blurred enough'.

Personally I love the fact that with photography you are able to capture things that you cannot see, over/under exposure, sharp/soft, static/blurred, b&w/colour wide or long lens perspective. Humans can't see these things and it makes photography very expressive in a way that other media cannot compete with.

So, from where I sit, (and looking at the pictures that other FW'ers have posted I think I am sitting in the same place they are!) Sharp, perfectly exposed pictures is only one way of doing things but it ignores so much that photography is able to achieve.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #10 on:** September 06, 2010, 12:28:05 PM »

mmm~ some juicy blur in this thread :9

I too like to embrace the blur. that's a main reason why I got into film, more blur per penny

vignetting blur and shallof dof are big favs in my book. total blur is nice too but I haven't forayed much into that yet.
I should say that I think blur looks great againt clear shapes and with some contrast (be it shapes, sharpness, color or other).

here's a recent experiment with holga & close-up lens set

SuziLivingstone · « **Reply #11 on:** September 06, 2010, 12:47:58 PM »

Quote from: jojonas on September 06, 2010, 12:28:05 PM

mmm~ some juicy blur in this thread :9

I too like to embrace the blur. that's a main reason why I got into film, more blur per penny
vignetting blur and shallof dof are big favs in my book. total blur is nice too but I haven't forayed much into that yet.
I should say that I think blur looks great againt clear shapes and with some contrast (be it shapes, sharpness, color or other).

here's a recent experiment with holga & close-up lens set

I just got that close up set, haven't got round to using it yet..

jojonas~ · « **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2010, 01:52:15 PM »

Quote from: Suzi Livingstone on September 06, 2010, 12:47:58 PM

I just got that close up set, haven't got round to using it yet..

it's a nice set. I mostly use the middle lens. I cut up some string that I lengthened up and taped to the lenses to be able to more easily determine where focus will be.

this one was shot with the one for the shortest distance of the three, I think I'd prefer to call it macro instead of close-up though. I guess it's borderline

Late Developer · « **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2010, 01:57:40 PM »

I have embraced the blur......

I've just had a look at some recently shot negatives - used Nikon F5 with Tamron 90mm macro lens / Kodak Ektar 100 print film. Here's one that I shot of some form of fruit or other.

The combination of green and purple is the thing I liked best. I also think a square crop suits this shot best - too much wasted space round the edges for me on the 3:2 negative...

SuziLivingstone · « **Reply #14 on:** September 06, 2010, 02:00:56 PM »

Quote from: jojonas on September 06, 2010, 01:52:15 PM

Quote from: Suzi Livingstone on September 06, 2010, 12:47:58 PM
I just got that close up set, haven't got round to using it yet..

it's a nice set. I mostly use the middle lens. I cut up some string that I lengthened up and taped to the lenses to be able to more easily determine where focus will be.

this one was shot with the one for the shortest distance of the three, I think I'd prefer to call it macro instead of close-up though. I guess it's borderline

Ah good idea. I was wondering whether to get the macro set too but I'll wait to see how experiments fare with this set first.

hookstrapped · « **Reply #15 on:** September 06, 2010, 02:04:04 PM »

I love the blur. It might have something to do with being quite nearsighted. I even set up a tumblr photo blog dedicated to it (see my sig).

SuziLivingstone · « **Reply #16 on:** September 06, 2010, 02:08:21 PM »

Quote from: hookstrapped on September 06, 2010, 02:04:04 PM

I love the blur. It might have something to do with being quite nearsighted. I even set up a tumblr photo blog dedicated to it (see my sig).

I've heard that from a lot of toy camera photographers, and I'm the same - I refused to have my vision corrected until it got dangerous ie getting hit by cars etc

I do use blur for certain things but I prefer a soft, fuzzy blur than outright full on blur.

This is about as blurry as I get.

Late Developer · « **Reply #17 on:** September 06, 2010, 02:23:10 PM »

One last one from the same film:

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #18 on:** September 06, 2010, 02:32:13 PM »

when I first got "into" photography I was all over the place..reading everything I could on focusing and then blur..but once I saw the work of "keith Carter" I knew the look I wanted to obtain..not that I necessarily can but I sure try on many occasions.. He is my hero as far as photography goes! Its good to have goals!

SuziLivingstone · « **Reply #19 on:** September 06, 2010, 02:33:19 PM »

Quote from: Diane Peterson on September 06, 2010, 02:32:13 PM

when I first got "into" photography I was all over the place..reading everything I could on focusing and then blur..but once I saw the work of "keith Carter" I knew the look I wanted to obtain..not that I necessarily can but I sure true on many occasions.. He is my hero as far as photography goes! Its good to have goals!

He's one of my favourites too, he's amazing.

SuziLivingstone · « **Reply #20 on:** September 06, 2010, 02:35:14 PM »

Diane, wouldn't you LOVE to attend one of his workshops? I know I would.

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #21 on:** September 06, 2010, 02:46:43 PM »

I would give anything to do that! Not that I could afford it but I can dream..you could come over here and we could go together..while I am dreaming might as well add you into the scenario...

Wouldn't that be fun?

SuziLivingstone · « **Reply #22 on:** September 06, 2010, 02:48:11 PM »

Quote from: Diane Peterson on September 06, 2010, 02:46:43 PM

I would give anything to do that! Not that I could afford it but I can dream..you could come over here and we could go together..while I am dreaming might as well add you into the scenario... Wouldn't that be fun?

That would be awesome, we can dream. Someday...

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #23 on:** September 06, 2010, 05:42:55 PM »

Ed....I adore that "blurred" windmill..wasn't that a postcard at one time or another.?.(if I weren't at work I could go look but alas.....

rdbkorn · « **Reply #24 on:** September 06, 2010, 06:56:22 PM »

What a great discussion and wonderful examples. The way I see it, we each make art for ourselves first and foremost, and for what the doing of it tells us about ourselves. "Concensus" and "convention" do not enter into it, particularly if either conflicts with what you really want to do.

sapata · « **Reply #25 on:** September 06, 2010, 07:58:56 PM »

Great thread and great photos....! I like soft and blur as well depending on the situation. I think for me the softness works with pinhole and the blur works great with toy cameras. I love selective focus taken with a Large Format cameras but so far I haven't been able to produce any successfull shot.

Quote from: Suzi Livingstone on September 06, 2010, 02:08:21 PM

I do use blur for certain things but I prefer a soft, fuzzy blur than outright full on blur.

This is about as blurry as I get.

Lovely picture Suzi...
Here's same spot from a diferent view, taken with my Pinrette camera...

SuziLivingstone · « **Reply #26 on:** September 06, 2010, 11:38:50 PM »

Quote from: sapata on September 06, 2010, 07:58:56 PM

Lovely picture Suzi...
Here's same spot from a diferent view, taken with my Pinrette camera...

Thanks, and wow.. love your view of it too..

Mojave · « **Reply #27 on:** September 07, 2010, 12:19:41 AM »

This is a great thread!!! The new stand outs for me are the fruit and the fountain shots. Wow!

Keith Carter, Susan Burnstine, and Sally Mann are my favorite blur artists that come to mind right now.

I have those Holga close up lenses but use them on my Pentax only. They are just too hard to get right if you cant see what you're actually shooting. At least for me they were. But, as it turns out, they all work great with the only lens I have on my Pentax. Funny thing, so does the Diana lens. Just take it off the camera and hold it in front of the standard lens and shoot away. Same with the Holga close up lenses. Here are two examples. I get some really nice blur with these combos. I cant remember what film I used for the lizard but the columbine flower is Agfa Silvertone most likely developed in Rodinal, though I have developed that film in HC 110 as well.

Terry · « **Reply #28 on:** September 07, 2010, 02:36:04 AM »

Thinking of blur as I was shooting a roll of Foma 100 this morning. Part of an ongoing test of black & white stocks to find the one I like best. The blur in this shot is rippling water in a stream.

gregor · « **Reply #29 on:** September 07, 2010, 03:02:43 AM »

not to confuse intentional blur with DOF, an inverted lens will usually give nice blur, while retaining somewhat of a sweet spot. Here's one from my one of my dianas... On 'sharper' lenses I often resort to a vaseline coating on the lens or if I'm feeling extreme, a couple of coats of clear nail polish.

One of my flickr contacts uses a lens made from a monocle, mainly on her hassy. Sweet shots. Here is the link to her stream:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=monocle&w=87066989%40N00&ss=2&s=int

Mojave · « **Reply #30 on:** September 07, 2010, 03:29:46 AM »

Love your shot Gregor!!! And your contact on Flickr is amazing!!! I have definitely got to figure out what I can do with my Pentax. Those macro lenses create a blur around the edges that I dont get with my glass macro lenses, same with the Diana lens, but I can only take macros with them. I cant take landscapes and while the Holga gives me a nice blur around the edges, and I like it, it doesnt always work. In perfect light I get almost no blur, or what appears to be almost a double exposure blur but only in the lower corners. I really need to play around with different things to see what I can come up with.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #31 on:** September 07, 2010, 08:56:02 AM »

interesting shot terry~ the scattered patterns is pleasing for my eyes to roll around in haha

mojave, I'm liking the lizard shot there. seems like a good combo. I've tried my lenses iwth my contax rts but I kind of butchered that roll while exercising that cam xP

original_ann · « **Reply #32 on:** September 07, 2010, 06:48:22 PM »

There is something most comforting, and quite inherently beautiful in the eyes of long time film cam shooters... and that would be exquisite 'detail of a bleary-eyed blur. It's absolute blurfection, is it not?

vicky slater · « **Reply #33 on:** September 07, 2010, 08:28:54 PM »

one from today...i don't know that it's my favourite from the roll (the others do have sharp points) but it's the one i loved first.

Heather · « **Reply #34 on:** September 07, 2010, 10:17:49 PM »

Vicky - That looks very post-prom crashing out, although obviously the young girl is too young for that sort of thing.

I recently have been embracing the blur a lot with a willing willow tree and the earthy winds.

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #35 on:** September 07, 2010, 10:58:51 PM »

Oh, blur is wonderful - I constantly shift between the two!

Mojave · « **Reply #36 on:** September 08, 2010, 04:17:15 AM »

Love the blurry tree shots! Wow!

And Phil, those shots of you are some of the best self portraits ever!!! I really need to get over my fear of pinholes.

Skorj · « **Reply #37 on:** September 08, 2010, 12:01:08 PM »

Blur? Love it. It was strong enough for a whole exhibition...

Wensleydale Blue · « **Reply #38 on:** September 08, 2010, 12:27:18 PM »

One of the most enjoyable (and instructive) threads that I've ever come across. Astounding work - sort of thing I'd like to cut out and keep in my scrapbook.

G

hookstrapped · « **Reply #39 on:** September 08, 2010, 02:07:50 PM »

Late Developer · « **Reply #40 on:** September 08, 2010, 08:10:36 PM »

I found a couple of "blur" shot from the first films I put through the Hassy when I got it a few months ago. OK, they're not massively blurred, but I got the effect I wanted.

Incidentally, I love the photos on this thread. I didn't think I would but I feel I'm starting to embrace the blur. The shots posted recently by Hookstrapped are lovely....

Andrea. · « **Reply #41 on:** September 08, 2010, 08:18:02 PM »

blur; is there anything else worth doing?

Miller · « **Reply #42 on:** September 08, 2010, 08:41:47 PM »

Blurolga

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #43 on:** September 08, 2010, 08:49:03 PM »

Blur seems to go against the grain of technical excellence. Well we can't all have pin sharp, spot on exposures, quality images.

But we can have quality blurred images. A rare colour image from me.

Windy · « **Reply #44 on:** September 08, 2010, 08:55:18 PM »

My pics have become more blury since being introduced to filmwasters.

One of my recent favourites

Molly and Beth_Glasgow by windy_, on Flickr

Mojave · « **Reply #45 on:** September 08, 2010, 09:35:00 PM »

Sheesh, great new editions!!! That city scape is very unique. Skorj, I recognize your shot from a gallery. Not sure if its your gallery here or not but I just love that shot. One of my favs!

I found I actually have a motion blur shot to post. It probably wont get posted elsewhere so I thought I should let it have a home here in this topic.

This is HP5 shot with the Holga and developed at home in HC110.