Julie,
That's an enviable position to be in. How do you manage to avoid the pressures of duties, responsibilities, common chores etc which can so easily interrupt such immersion in philosophical and poetical contemplations?

Let me know the date and venue of your next exhibition, won't you?

Jonathan,
I'd like to ask you in what way you need a camera to make this picture. Is it just easier to process an OOF camera image than start with a 'new window' in Photoshop and use whatever brushes and tools are available to create whatever effect you wish?

Hey Ray-

I won't answer for Jonathan, but I will give a somewhat philosophical exposition. These type of images are not drawings, but lines and shapes and colors that are created by nature. The photographer only has partial control over what is shown, and that's the point. One might find it difficult to do better than nature.

Ray,
I think my mind works a little like Jonathan's. Sometimes when my wife and I are going out for dinner, she asks "what do you want to eat?" My usual answer is "I don't know until I see the menu." My photography is like that, too. If I started with a blank screen in Photoshop, I would have no idea how to begin. But looking at things with my camera along, I can often find things I like visually, even if I might distort them later in Photoshop.

I guess I just need the external inspiration. I don't know if Jonathan feels the same.

Eric

This is great! Thanks for asking Ray, I think I might be able to explain a little bit about what goes into the out-of-focus images that might shed some light onto how I got to this point. First of all, I'm a photographer, not a painter- so I need to use a camera. I tried my hand at painting, but was never entirely happy with what came out (usually a not-great rendition of a good photograph!).

When I first started experimenting with defocusing the entire image, the goal for me was to abstract, or "hide" the details of what I was photographing in order to concentrate the attention onto the larger forms and patterns of the landscape. I had become frustrated with photographs that were not portraying well the impact that I felt when I reached for my camera, or that were ruined (or at least lessened) by "excessive" detail when what I was trying to capture was the overall feel of the scene.

So I tried the out-of-focus thing, and kind of liked it. After playing with it a bit, I had a similar thought as you, why not take all the pictures in focus, and blur them afterwards? This way I'd have both versions, more control, and I could work on it in my office where the bugs aren't nearly so bad. After all, that's how I shoot black & white these days.

So with that in mind, I went out, took some side-by-side, in- and out-of-focus shots of scenes where I would have taken just a blurry shot, and sat down with photoshop for a while. Here's one example:


1. sharply focused


2. same photo as above, blurred in photoshop


3. same scene, defocused in-camera

This scene is a good example where I felt that the details of the tree branches, and all the scraggly stuff in there, was getting in the way of what I was actually trying to take a picture of, i.e. the shape of the trees in front of the lake, the green of the near shore, and the blue of far shore. Technically speaking as well, these small details, when so strongly backlit are often plagued by purple-fringing and chromatic abberations.

As you can see, there's a significant difference between what I could do with the blurring filters in PS versus what I could achieve with the optics of my camera lens (and yes, I did try my best in PS).

For me, what is lost in the PS version is the way that light is transformed by a camera lens. There are a couple crucial elements that I found missing in the PS version;
1. the way that the bright highlights are rendered as disks of light (known as the "circle of confusion"- see Sean's website!)
2. the way that, although there is nothing in sharp focus, depth is still communicated by differences in the degree of blurriness. The little sapling in the foreground (middle-right) is nearly completely obscured, and the trees are non-uniformly blurred (this is more apparent in a print).
To me, the the PS version looks "murky" and blurry, rather than out-of-focus. (I know this is a pretty fine distinction, and one that I have muddled almost continually)

Other examples are more extreme. I'd challenge you to take the in-focus version of the "three suns" image, and make it look like the out-of-focus version.

To me, there is something special about the way that a lens distorts different types of light, and the ultimately, how that light is recorded by my camera. There is also something essential, to me, in the point that James made; my blurry pictures are attempts, as are my non-blurry ones, to capture something that is there, that is present in front of me, on the landscape. I am a photographer for the same reason that I am a biologist by trade: I love the forest. But the reason that I am a photographer and not a painter is that I also love the camera, and the way that a camera specifically, allows me to portray the forest.

Another reason that I prefer to use my lens to abstract these images, rather than photoshop, also ties into this last point. As has been discussed previously here, people expect a photograph to represent something "true" or "real", rather than something that was "invented" by the artist. By not giving the viewer the "excuse" to be able to think "oh, it's been photoshopped" (which is a big turn-off for many people, maybe even more than a completely out-of-focus photograph), I can force people to believe that what I've captured in my camera was really there, and from there they can respond to it. I hope too, that this might help people to understand that no photograph is a depiction of a scene in a completely unaltered state.

Whew, so there you go- that's why I use my camera. (I also prefer to spend my time out there looking through my viewfinder, than at home staring at my monitor- bugs or no...)

Any comments on any of this would again, (of course) be most appreciated

Jonathan

I also meant to mention that Eric makes a good point, the scenes that I shoot defocused are not the same scenes that I shoot in-focus. In order to find those compositions where, in my opinion, the out-of-focus technique adds something, I need to be looking through the viewfinder and working with the manual focus ring.

As you can tell, I do not uniformly defocus between shots- some are more, some are less in focus. I can assure you that for each one, I have chosen the exact amount that I found most pleasing. Often too, my composition will change depending on the degree of defocusing- elements of a scene interact differently when they're thrown out of focus. And the best time to find that out is when I'm standing there with my camera, not back home in the evening.

Here's an example of what I mean; one of the things that I've enjoyed discovering is the way that criss-crossing elements (grass blades, tree branches, etc.) form "nodes" (for lack of a better term) where they overlap visually, even if they are not spatially adjacent. This is another example of the way that the a lens interacts with a subject in a way that can not be duplicated by the computer.

Here's an two examples of what I mean:





And this is an example of what I referred to in my last post, where depth of field is still portrayed, even in the absence of an in-focus element. Here, the aspen on the far left, and the one just right of centre were the closest to me, and retain some detail of the patterns on their trunks. The trunks just to the left of centre were the farthest back (it was aspens all the way back, I couldn't see the sky through the stand), and have been reduced to solid vertical lines, in different shades of white. I would not have composed the photo in the same way if I had been looking through a "sharp" viewfinder:



Again, most of these examples can be seen in the galleries on my website, along with many other, more sharply focused, images. I'd invite anyone who's interested to have a look around there, and I welcome any comments or criticisms, either here, on the "discussion" section of my website, or privately if you prefer, by email.

Jonathan

Very good explanations and illustrations, Jonathan. I find myself getting more and more convinced by your approach.

I think, of the images you have posted here, your very latest Aspens image works the best for me so far. The subtle differences between near and far and the balances between left, right, and middle areas make it very effective.

I hope I'll get to spend more time at your website soon -- too busy lately.

Eric

Hi Everyone,
I just started reading through this thread a couple days ago, and have really enjoyed reading everybody's responses. I am a photographer myself, but probably not as developed in style, content and aim as what the rest of you seem to be. Actually, the majority of my subject matter is people, predominently children and babies, although I have a deep love of nature and desire to capture those images as well. Many of my newer pictures border on the abstract (although I almost fear to use that word in this forum!) in the sense that as many of you take extreme close ups of parts of nature, I enjoy the extreme close ups (and often play with depth of field) of a baby's ear, or children's feet as they run in the ocean.

A couple people have commented on the fact that the thumbnails don't quite do justice to a photograph, and how different these images look when you see them in a gallery or a large print. Jonathan, I was just wondering if you have printed large versions of any of your blurry photographs, and if so, what you thought of them

Hi Jessica, thanks for joining in- "the more the merrier"

To answer your question, yes I have printed off a number of the out-of-focus images, and find that they work very nicely- sometimes.

One advantage is that I can print them as large as I want (no need to worry about the loss of detail!) which can make the print very striking. The problem that I've run into is that for these, the exact colours and brightness are crucial to the images, and I sometimes have a hard time duplicating the subtleties in print (but I'm pretty picky).

This is, I think, due largely to the difference between viewing the images in a medium that is projecting light (a monitor) versus one that is reflecting light (prints). I think my ideal gallery show would be to have the walls hung with large, high resolution, perfectly calibrated (and framed), lcd screens- each one displaying a single image (or I could have a different show every night!). If anyone knows of a gallery like that, let me know...

Jonathan

A little late to the discussion but a reaction that I have is that for me, I enjoy the sharp focus abstraction because
1, I don't have to strain to focus an out of focus image. It' like my mind is on af and keeps tracking.
2. Abstractions in painting are always in focus, distorted, skewed, etc, but alway in focus. Even the softest muted painting is always in focus. This allows me to dig deeper into the image that's presented before me.
For a test, take the OOF image apply WC filter, sometimes interesting result, sometimes nothing of any value.
A very interesting discussion and will allow the conventional to step out the box.
Wyndham

Ahhh... an astute observation Ray! yes..quite a balancing act, and yes I am in an enviable position. I have had to set boundaries for myself, (time mainly), and realise there is no point in philosophising and creating art at the expense of the commitments I have made to the other responsibilities I have chosen in my life. My mind is always observing, listening...pondering, and my family are used to me stopping suddenly to take photographs. My exhibitions have provided an opportunity for us to travel together, and it is quite special to have one's 18 year old son come and help his mum set up an exhibition.

My first priority is my family, so time on task is usually 'school/university time'. It is just a fact of my life that I close books/turn off printer/pen down, to pick up our boys from the train - and that is just the way it is, and I wouldn't have it any other way. ....in saying that though, there are times when there are piles of washing and eggs for dinner

Julie

Ray,
Next exhibition is in Sydney 29th November at Esa Jaske Gallery, Esa Jaske Gallery . Will also let you know when my next exhibition is a bit closer to home - in Brisbane.

Julie

this is an interesting and timely thread. i liked this image because of the out of focus foreground trees. i wondered if this were an interesting approach or something that screams rank amatuer with DOF problems (which of course i was at the time). either way, i like it because it's complex but the foreground trees soften the complexity of the branches going this-way-and-that.

Wyndham, I like the image of an autofocus brain that can stop searching for focus- even I can relate to the frustration that can cause!

It's an interesting comment you make that abstracted paintings are always "in focus". I know what you mean, but wonder how such an essentially "optical" characteristic can be applied to a painting? I had the pleasure of viewing some of canadian artist Lawren Harris' paintings this weekend at the local art gallery. His work, they way that he portrayed Canadian landscapes, was very influential to my artistic development early on. My few attempts at painting usually looked like thrown-away Lawren Harris canvases! His paintings are, as you describe, "in focus", but he discards the details of the scene to concentrate on the larger forms. A few examples:





What's interesting is that Harris began in a fairly representational style, and by the end of his career had evolved into what might be (although probably not) called "pure" abstacts.

An advantage of using a paintbrush instead of a camera on broad landscape scenes is that you can selectively choose where to include, or exclude, detail. With a camera, it's all or none (unless, of course, you're close enough to your subject that a narrow depth of field can have an effect).

I'm interested to know what you think is gained by applying the "watercolor" filter in photoshop to an out-of-focus image? Is it that it becomes more "recognizable"? more similar to images that you are familiar with? Although, as I've mentioned, I shy away from using the computer to create images myself (although I have no problem with others doing so), I'm interested in understanding the difference in peoples reaction to images that have been abstracted or distorted on a computer, or by any of the techniques that have been mentioned in this thread (camera movement, multiple exposure, "defamiliarization", etc.)

Thanks again for adding your thoughts,

Jonathan

...I like it too! Great mood, although (as roughly defined in this thread), I'm not sure that it would "count" as abstract. It's great to see other people playing around with focus (intentionally or not- at least you didn't toss the image!) And I've certainly encountered the term "rank amateur with depth of field problems" myself !

I thought I'd share this image taken by Courtney Milne (whom I've mentioned earlier) that uses the blurred-foreground technique to a beautiful end: (he entitled it "The Three Sisters, through flower petals, Canmore, AB")



Thanks for sharing sgwrx (not your real name? )

Jonathan

The using of the watercolor filter on the OOF image is great.

Thanks Jonathan, what most important about this thread of course is expanding boundaries. Where would we be if not for artists like Pollock? but, his paintings really were in focus LOL.

-steve

I've found this quote back that I've been looking for since this thread started- it's from Courtney Milne's book, "Emily Carr Country".

"Occasionally, I will deliberately allow sun flare on the lens to form an integral part of the composition, something normally considered a mistake in photography. ... Another technique I enjoy is to record a number of exposures on the same frame of film. It is a way of focusing attention on the quality and shimmer of light, rather than on form. By diminishing shape and making it a less dominant element, I can portray the universal forest rather than a specific one. Similarly, when I purposely move the camera during an exposure, the actual shapes and details of the trees are obscured and the resulting image conveys more about my impression, and less about documenting the scene."

Milne uses different techniques than myself to achieve a somewhat similar objective. I'm wondering how/what other people feel about these other techniques of abstraction, beyond either removing context, or my own out-of-focus technique?

Jonathan

It's interesting that Milne mentions sun flare as an abstraction technique. I have used that one -- quite by accident, using a rangefinder (MF film) camera, so I didn't see the flare when I took the picture. My first reaction to the proof print was that it was a disaster, but then I looked again and decided I liked it. I have even used it in an exhibit (of course, I don't tell people that it was an accident). I'm sorry I haven't scanned that image yet, or I'd post it.

I'm again reminded of Edward Weston's comment that he would "print on a doormat if it would give me the effect I wanted." So I'm for using any trick/technique you can think of, as long as it gets you the effect you want. Sometimes it may take a lot of near misses before you really get it to work for you.

So keep on with the focus experiments!

Eric

Joanathan,
Okay! There is a difference between an in-focus image blurred in PS and a lens-defocussed image. If you are going to swoon over blurry images, then the difference might be significant.

Just playing around a bit with some 'artistic' filters in PS, I came up with the following alternatives to try and inject some interest into what is, I'm sure you'll admit, a rather uninteresting example.

Click to view attachment

In my opinion, the two blurry renditions are probably the least interesting. Others might disagree.

I tend to sometimes use the artistic filters in PS when I'm trying to salvage a cock-up. The following image of an overgrown joey trying to scramble into it's mother's pouch because it saw a strange biped with a long, cream-colored nose (the Canon 100-400), is spoilt because it is not sharp. I had the wrong ISO setting. An artistic filter, in this case, 'accented edges', disguises the fact it is not as tack sharp as I woulld like it to be.

Click to view attachment

Ray,

I wish you hadn't posted your latest examples.

I have never bothered trying the "artistic filters" in PS before, but your samples make me begin to think that they may have a useful place after all. The trouble is: that gives me yet one more excuse not to throw away my obvious losers.

Eric

Eric,
You should never throw away your losers. The following image is one I would have thrown away were it not for the auto settings of ACR which somehow produced a recognisable image from the total blackness of a flash not fired. I like it and I'm keeping it, even without artistic filters applied.

Click to view attachment

Ray,

I like that picture, but I wouldn't call it a "loser" at all. On those occasions where an "accident" gives me a better picture than the one I intended, I definitely keep it. And, of course, I'm willing to take full credit for the accident.

By "loser", I mean the kind where I look at it and say to myself, "Why on earth did I ever think that would make a good photo?" If I still wince whenever I see it, even after the tenth time, it's probably time to chuck it. But I never do.

Eric

Which is why I have over 120,000 images in my archive; nearly 2 terabytes...

And lately I've been considering one of those 13-bay enclosures that I could populate with 500 GB drives . . .

I'm glad the Army is letting you have a little time to check in with LL now and then, Jonathan.

Eric

I think we'll have to change the saying from .."Putting away some pennies for a rainy day", to...."Putting away some pixels for a rainy day"

I've been on leave the last 2 weeks; I fly to my new duty station in Baumholder Germany this afternoon.

Trouble is, Jule, in Australia there are simply not enough rainy days to justify collecting so many pixels. On the other hand, if you become really famous, then your rejects might add value without your lifting a finger .

lol...

I thought I would have a play yesterday with some of the concepts that Jonathan (jmdr) mentioned with regard to using focus as a tool for abstraction. I experiemented with various scenes and I think the best that I came up with yesterday was this;
Click to view attachment
which was out of focus in-camera. It captures the feeling I had whilst I was there, with colourings, the definite division between the grasses and the forest, and also the specked light, but still probably not that great an image.
The in focus scene was this;
Click to view attachment
Julie

So let's get this straight, Jule. You were standing in this beautiful field of tall grass, admiring the lovely pine trees, Australia's attempt to reduce green house gasses and provide a resource for future timber needs, and suddenly you were afflicted with blurry vision and a feeling of being invaded by aliens descending in miniature flying saucers. Right?

Sorry! I couldn't resist.

I know the feeling. If I take off my glasses to clean them, or if I brought the wrong glasses with me, I get that effect. Now I'll know to call it "abstraction".

Eric

lol Ray Good to see that I provided a few laughs!
Julie

Hey Eric ...now you know how to be an 'abstract artist'
Julie

For those who followed this thread on abstraction, the time has come for my own exhibition. I invite all who are interested to view my work - in Sydney from 29th November - 23rd December. Details http://www.esajaskegallery.com/Exhibitions.html

julie

The samples on the website look really nice. I wish I could see the real show, but it's a bit too long a walk from the northeastern U.S.

Congratulations, Julie!

-Eric

Sorry to arrive so late to smell the coffee in this thread; I just spent some time reading from the beginning. I've been experimenting with motion blur for about a year now, and I'm still not sure whether or not I'm on to something. Or, rather, I should say we - I hadn't realised so many other photographers were experimenting along similar lines.

Please have a look at my website at http://www.kingma.nu/ and click on the galleries 'Memories' and 'Motion'. There are also brief 'artist's statements' (click "About this series...").

In these experiments, I usually take a lot of pictures, easily a hundred within an hour or so, while moving the camera. I shoot RAW and select the images that work for me in Adobe Bridge; I then adjust brightness, contrast and saturation in RAW conversion, but not much else. No Photoshop filters.

What I've learned sofar is:
- the images that work best, fairly rigorously adhere to basic principles of composition in the way the various image elements interact in the way they fill the frame;
- they work well in series of images that complement each other, more so than 'traditional' (in-focus) images
- although the object is not to focus on details, it's my experience as well that the images work best when printed large (24"x36"), with a myriad of subtle color transitions to enjoy;
- they are fiendishly difficult to print well because of the very fine and gentle gradations that are easily ruined by dithering patterns or posterization and whatnot.

So please tell me what you think!

Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Gerard,

Wow! The six you posted are stunning. I find them totally convincing, and beautiful (and my own predisposition is toward the f64 school.)

I'll check your website as soon as I have time (got to go out right now) and offer comments.

Eric

Just for fun, I posted an "abstract" image of my own here. I'm curious to see what y'all think of it...

Gerard, wow- beautiful images! I especially like the 3rd and 4th images you've attached to your post (and the 1st is a close runner-up).

I also had the pleasure to have a quick look at your website, and was inspired by the different variations of motion blur that you've created. I also really appreciated your description of the artistic choices you make to obscure or enhance detail in your images.

I was wondering how you "decide" when to use the radial movement (e.g. "Memory nr. 1"), and when to use the linear movement (e.g. "Autumn forest 1-3")?

(and I had a big smile on my face when I saw "Memory nr. 12"!)

Jonathan

Eric, Jonathan,

Thanks for your kind and enthusiastic feedback! It's a big help to me that some of this stuff connects with anyone. Jonathan, I hadn't really thought about using various techniques of blurring, but you're right. Your favorite picture, Memory 12 of the girl turning cartwheels, was made without moving the camera, but only thrown out of focus, what you experimented with (by the way, it's darned difficult to get a digicam out of focus, I set it to super macro mode.) I feel motion adds energy, which works well with pictures of running dogs and children. If you use only out-of-focus without motion it's somehow more restful or tranquil, and that seems to work well with some of your images as well.

As I indicated, I take a lot (a LOT) of pictures in a short time with various techniques without thinking about it too much, I just try to get a feel for my surroundings and then point the camera at it, and see what happened afterwards on the computer. I see all these thumbnails appear in Bridge and my eyes wander around and sort of come to rest on the ones that work. As to your question when to use radial motion blur and linear motion blur - sometimes it seems to work best when the movement follows the basic pattern of the subject. Again, I don't decide beforehand, but pick out the ones that work best afterward. Basically, the ones I liked from rows of trees are linear movement in the same direction, moving from the tree roots to the leaves. This somehow emphasizes the repeating patterns of trees. If you do that kind of subject with radial blur, it just becomes messy.

Conversely, radial blur seems to work well with subjects that are, well, radial, such as an entire tree crown with autumn leaves etc.

Eric, it may surprise you that I'm also a f64 type of guy - to me it's different sides of the same medal. I also use a 4x5 large format camera, with which I take pictures in extreme detail. In a way, that's the same kind of abstraction, interpreted the other way around. I wrote a bit about that on my website, the "About..." text with the Motion images and the Large format images.


Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu

Gerard,

I've now had a chance to take an initial look at your website, and I immediately bookmarked it. I want to go back and savor it a little at a time. So far I have looked at (and thoroughly enjoyed) Motion, Memories, Austria, and Norway.

I am also very pleased with the clean, uncluttered look of your website and the ease of navigation. And I find your commentaries very informative.

Beautiful work. Thanks for sharing it.

Eric

Eric,

You know, that really makes my day. Thanks a million. The site has developed over a number of years, but I've always had visitors in mind that had to rely on crappy phone line connections in the desert and still wanted to visit the website (if they're still out there, get them a beer will you?) So no fancy flash, no java, no nothing, just the good stuff. A warm welcome to you, and enjoy the ride. Feel free to contact me with any questions!



Gerard Kingma

www.kingma.nu

Gerard,

Thanks for posting these, I am especially fond of the 3rd and last ones!

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Jonathan,

I have enjoyed reading this thread. Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject. Out of focus, motion blur, selective focus... I have used all of these techniques in my work with some success. I think techniques are like tools they are not the basis for what makes it work. I think that you will find if you have a point of interest regardless of the focus the photo will communicate to the viewer better. I shoot abstracts for fun but have a few rules for myself. Although I shoot with a digital camera, I do not use photoshop to alter the image with retouching or filters. I do adjust color, contrast and crop my images but these techniques can be done traditionally during printing. For me, the challenge was to create art with my camera not the computer. I own several original abstract paintings from different artists and thought it would be fun to create something that I could hang on my wall that I would enjoy looking at. Other restrictions I put on myself include shooting handheld, available light, and I do not repeat the subject matter. The latter keeps each image more unique but makes finding your subject much harder. I had these images giclée printed on a very heavy 500 gsm somerset paper and later spot-glossed coated. The size of each print is close to 20"x28". I have shown some of my photos at a few local art shows. It is interesting to see how people react to them but I haven't sold any yet. I didn't create them to sell so I don't really care. Maybe when I am retired I will have more time to spend on my artwork. Meanwhile I will add images to my collection.

Dan

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Hey Dan-

I especially like your spill and lights images. Thanks for sharing.

Hello fellow photographers,
Just logged in as new member, to share and be challenged! I am a Dutch photographer and have "focussed" on the subject of (mostly) abstract natural photos. I published www.natureindetail.nl last week, would welcome you to take a look and comments to learn more.
To give an idea I added these already to this post:
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

One from me on this:



Cheers,
Bernard

My 50mm 1.8 fell apart so I experimented with the obviously flawed optics. By reversing the front elements you can create some interesting effects; especially wide open. This is a view of the forest behind my house with the broken 50.

Click to view attachment

Phillip

Quite a neat abstract!

Thank you for sharing your images. I stand to be corrected, but I'm not certain that your images can be classified as abstract. They are too easily identifiable, and look like crops from larger images.

Julie