Bethany

The picture was shot at Whitby last week. The first version is this:


The second version is after I've experimented a bit in Photoshop:



All comments are welcomed!

In the first image I am sure most would say the eyes should be in sharp focus, although when I photograph my granddaughter and am off with the focus, no other member of my family are bothered or even notice, and when I point this out they still don't care.
The treatment on the second version masks the eye focus thing and gives the image a look I am sure any Goth at Whitby would be happy with, white face dark eyes, but I don't like the blown out effect on the hair.
The young lady doesn't appear to be a Goth, so I wonder how she feels about the second image.

All the best...Jim.

The only thing that seems in focus is the hair to the left of the image. And the closest eye to the camera is very out of focus. For me, this is quite a dissonant effect.

Are you sure your camera doesn't need AF adjustment?

I'd have to say that the almost-posterised effect does nothing to salvage things. Sorry..

yes agreed. It's severely back focussed, but this could be intentional

In all the years I've been on this forum and over a multitude of AF adjustment threads John has been a passionate advocate of not adjusting the AF on cameras unless you're sure there's a problem and he has stated many ties he's never needed to adjust the AF on his Pentax cameras.

I have to say that after owning a K10D, K20D, THREE K-5's and now a K-5IIs and having to adjust the AF for my lens collection on everyone of those bodies I'm rather envious that John has been very lucky in not needing to.


So onto the image.....

The focussing on the hair to the left is not something I would do. I'm not one for adhering to rules but in this case not focussing on the eyes doesn't work for me. I would have expecte4d a larger DOF at f/8.0 @ 135mm as well.


for me it might have worked as an abstract but the choice of focal plane of the original spoiled it for me at the starting gates.




.

Before we get distracted, the point of focus has nothing whatsoever to do with AF adjustment. What caused that was Beth storming about the crowds at Whitby and I was simply slightly too slow. She moved.

So, the aesthetic response is interesting because I've also posted it on Facebook, where the various mums who have kids Beth's age absolutely loved it.

It's not a technically perfect or even good shot, but what it does do is resonate positively with the sensibilities of a different, non-photographic audience. That I suppose is why compact cameras have suffered as people grab spontaneous images on their phones. Then they manipulate them and produce a different sort of photo art.

This is part of my process of freeing the creative mind from the constraints of 1950s technical perfection.

I like the first one, I don't like the 2nd version.

There is of course a place for an out of focus family album snapshot. In fact kind of approach can lead to spontaneity, capture character well and lead to interesting, happy accidents. But I don't see why any feedback is required for that kind of shotm they are for those that know the subject.

Maybe its just John letting the hobbyist inside peek out.

It's a point of discussion DrOrloff that begs the question, are we so wedded to the idea of technical perfection that we are in danger of losing the joy of photography?

The feedback has hinted at the edges of that possible debate. I think we should think about these things to help prevent getting into a rut.

I agree with that sentiment entirely. I have many snapshots of the kids where technical perfection is the last of my concerns. I wouldn't show them here as noone would find them at at all interesting. The intention behind the photo, its intended audience and its intended place of display are as important as the image itself.

I too fully understand where you're coming from John, but surely you would expect that posting the image on here is bound to invite comment / criticism of the focussing error. If you wanted discussion on other aspects of the image, perhaps it would have been a good idea to point out in your original post that you are aware of the back-focussing and specifically invite comment on other aspects of the image.

Unfortunately the focus is now the only thing that everyone viewing this thread can think about!

I'm not going to comment on this here, only on other aspects. My personal preference is from the original version of the shot, I don't like the processed one. I can see why this effect could be appropriate but for me it doesn't work. I think the first version is worthy as a family shot, a reminder of the day, the sort of shot my wife is always telling me she wants, but that I fail to take!

Regards
David

I did realise David that some would latch on to that, but I guess it makes the point. On ePHOTOzine nobody has mentioned that at all. On Facebook it's not been mentioned that it's blurred but the point that has been brought out is that it's liked as a "moody teenager" shot that makes Beth look much older than her 11 years. Her mum loves it.

I think I'm angling towards more of a Julia Margaret Cameron thing so the technical quality can go by the board for that. What then eludes us is that inner character that she managed to pull from her subjects. The processing I applied was to identify the age group of the subject, so iPhone and Snapseed would have done it I guess, but here I've used my K-5. Probably I should have made sure that the far eye and chin/cheek area were as unsharp as the rest.

Thanks for comments so far!

The views heard here are clearly a testimony to the very high technical & artistic standards of Pentax User photographers!

Nobody has mentioned it because you didn't post the original version on ephotozine, just the posterised version where the extreme processing rather disguises the out of focus nature of the shot. Some will like that look and probably only those who do will comment. Personally I think a mobile phone and instagram processing would produce a more pleasing, more effortless looking result than the above processing which I think is just trying too hard.

I had to Google Julia Margaret Cameron, I would put forward that there is a world of difference between am image from the 1800's which is out of focus, but with good reason and an image which looks like a modern, digital image that is just largely out of focus for no particular reason. I just don't think the styles are remotely comparable. If you wanted the first image to have this look then some more movement might have been in order, certainly what looks completely incongruous is the sharp focus on the hair. I think you might have achieved a more convincing result with the Q and pinhole lens. Even better an 1800s camera.

I don't think technical excellence is that important, but I think this image is a poor facsimilie of a good idea.

Not how I would take a portrait: at least one eye would have to be sharp or it would be binned, but if lots of people "obviously loved it" then maybe John's right, I (we?) perhaps have become so obsessed with the technical side of the craft that we're in danger of losing the joy.

I don't know.

Julia Margaret Cameron is something of a heroine of mine. I'm not certain either image is reminiscent of her work.