Tango Girl

[Fine_Art]

This is the first shot I've seen from Kevin that I don't like. It's not the shot, it is the processing. I held off bringing it up since Kevin mentioned it's a subject for an upcoming article on processing. Nobody else is talking about it so I will mention my gripe, which I am sure Kevin expected to come up.

Software based OOF looks completely wrong. As photographers we mentally see the plane of focus in the shot. Seeing the left side blurred we think for a second tilt lens, no it is wrong, it looks painted in. It is also a bit grunge which is not my taste. The big issue is painted in blur. It is almost impossible to get it right so I never use it. You have to add increasing amounts based on distance from the plane of focus. So we all rely on lenses with good 'rendering' to do it properly.

What is proper? Does painted blur to keep the viewer looking at the subject give you more artistic freedom? Yes. Does it look good? Almost never.

The author will probably show alternate raw processing as part of his discussion. So what do others think of is as processed?

[Farmer]

It looks "wrong" because that's the established paradigm of what the lens can do, but surely testing that and looking at ways of expressing outside of that is very valid in an artistic sense?

This is not a record shot - we're not looking for technical perfection or accuracy, but rather something that stirs emotion.  In that respect, I think it's a good shot - it achieves that.  It's OK to not like it, ofcourse, but I would suggest that if you don't like it just because it doesn't look as you expect it from a technical point of view, you may want to allow yourself to remove that restriction and view it with more freedom.  If you still don't like it, fair enough :-)

[Ben Rubinstein]

Is that what is is? Software blur? Couldn't work out why my eyes went funny every time I looked at the pic.

[Jim Pascoe]

The reason it does not work for me is that the statue has been partially de-focussed.  The technique does not fit this particular crop in my opinion.  If the statue had not been there the diffusion would have been fine.  Personally I do not see it as a depth of field replacement because it is so obviously not like shallow DOF.  It's just another way of drawing the eye into what the photographer is trying to show us - similar to DOF or vignetting.

Jim

[Fine_Art]

That is why the shot is interesting for discussion on a forum or for the article, which I look forward to reading.

To me it seems there is a saddle point between record photography and artistic impressionism that generally does not work. You get the 'not fish nor fowl' problem. A good lens will generally see as the eye sees. You get an image that puts you there viewing the scene. A styled artistic method takes you far from that presenting something else. Cubism is an extreme example. When you sit on the fence there is an impression that the artist is not sure what they want to do. It seems indecisive.

For the shot in question I think a very light even blur everywhere but the girl would give the sense of the guy smitten by the girl where the world fades away when she is seen. Maybe something like that is what the image is trying to create. The blur is just too strong on the left/ top for that. Maybe it is a case of a software option being available that does not quite fit.

[AFairley]

I hadn't even noticed the artificial blur, I couldn't get past the over-contrasty, over-saturated grunge look.  I know, I know, to each his own....

[Kevin Raber]

Once again, each to his own.  This was as I said a chance to try something new out.  Isn't it fun to play once in a while.

Kevin Raber

[Fine_Art]

In the short time you have been here you have shown us tons of amazing shots so I am confident a bad review of some processing will not bother you.

The composition itself is interesting, I am wondering what else you have done with the shot in the article...

[Schewe]

This was as I said a chance to try something new out.

The main thing that bothered me (just sayin') was the fake cut out neg carrier frame that was, um, too sharp! (I'm made a lot of prints using a cutout neg carrier and I never had a print look like that :~).

But, I defend Kev's right to try and do whatever he wants to do and congratulate him for putting up stuff that not everybody will love. That's a keystone of creativity...try something new and be willing to fail and learn from it. (note: I'm not specifically referring to this image as "failing", just a gereneral comment about trying new things).

Know what I mean Kev?

[Kevin Raber]

With a smile I know what you mean Jeff.  Or, maybe it was the few glasses of wine.

[Colorado David]

Well darn!  After reading this topic, I wanted to go to the front page and see the image.  Not there anymore.  Nuts.

[brianrybolt]

+1

Brian

[Kevin Raber]

Sorry about that.  I am in the process of collecting my past home page pictures and putting them on one page so readers can go back and look at them.. We also are trying to add a page so you can see larger views of home page pictures.  It's on a features list we are working on.  I have attached the Tango girl here.

[Petrus]

We should understand the difference between "photograph" and "picture". In a photograph less manipulation is allowed and faux tilt effects are not allowed (or at least the ones we can discern). If we make a picture using the photographic process, old school or digital, then anything goes, as long as it makes the picture better.

In this Tango Girl case it does not work all that well. There is too much softening to make it look natural, but not enough to make it an effect. Just my humble opinion. And I do use artificial blurring, both tilt and iris and basic Gaussian when I see fit. Which is quite often...

[daws]

When this one loaded on the front page, my reaction was an instant, visceral "Whoah!" Composition, pose, color, what's blurred & what's sharp, the whole thing, worked for me. Love the skin tones, really love the composition. The only bit I'd futz with, if it were mine, might be the halo around her head -- darkening it just a tad and grading it a bit more gradually into the darker tone above & to the right. But overall it's a slam-dunk for me, and I'm not usually a fan of heavily cooked color shots (tho love 'em in BW).

[David Eckels]

Reminds me of one of those old "Vaseline vignette" compositions.