Sam

This picture leaves lots to be desired. Unless you are very new to photography, I don't know why you posted it. Maybe, it's what they call art these days. Was this intentional, accidental, or the best you could do? Maybe it belongs in the Technical Gallery, because the film had expired.

I recently saw an alergy relief medicine commercial where they demonstrated the idea of being stuffed up by having the person severly out of focus in the foreground. I thought, "hmmm...." and put it on my To Experiment With list.

I like the shot.

Yep, initially looks like you have focussed incorrectly.
Only thing I can make of this is that if the foreground subject was deliberately pushed out of focus then you could be making a statement about faceless individuals in time and place. But, I may well be in danger of reading this into the image because I am not familiar with your work. I also note that you do not reply to any comments on your images, at least I have not seen any and maybe you should consider so doing as a courtesy.
Finally, if this was an important shot to you why use expired film? All my shots are important to me and I would not consider using out of date filmthat could lead to unpredictable results.
Regards
John

If I might offer a small defense here, while I too don't get the whole "subject out of focus" thing, there is such a thing as experimentation which is more than permissible. Using expired film to produce unpredictable results may well lead to a few happy accidents, and there's nothing wrong with trying for that. I don't know that this image is an actual happy accident, but give the kid room to try. Y'all are bashing a high school aged kid here- perhaps that's why he never replies to comments, if all you do is put down his work and tell him he's wrong. This is no worse than an Eggleston photo of a non-frost-free freezer.

I was not aware of the photographers status. Even so I tried to be constructive. No comment I give is intended to discourage, if you want to experiment with outdated film OK but I would suggest that you establish what is achievable first with fresh film. If there is some other reason why use have used expired film them as long as you are making images please carry on doing so, I will always appreciate looking at them.
Regards
John

Have you ever read Mortensen on the subject on creative criticism? Valuable stuff!

Honestly, I shot this image for people to come to their own conclusions regarding its meaning; to spark debate. I have my thoughts about it, but what other people come up with is interesting. And I did intentionally "misfocus." It is common practice to have the background out of focus while an object in the foreground is correctly focussed, so what is keeping a photographer from having the background in focus while leaving an object in the foreground out of focus?

This is the critique gallery, right?

I don't like it. Now, if you're new to photography, and this is one of your first attempts, I appologize (read the manual and APUG and it will get better). If you're not, and just trying to find new ways, you're lost. But, if you're one of these new-age, post modern photographers, we are not talking the same language.

i don't mind the expired film or subject (sam?) being out of focus, but the placement is what i don't particularly find aesthetically pleasing. i pretty much only shoot expired film, and think they put expiration dates on it just so you buy more, its not like a "sell by date" on milk where the milk goes sour a week later. i find the shrubs on the left side of the house ( and the top+left side of the house ) to unbalance the composition. the blurred head/torso works very well with the pruned shrub/tree and the cropped car on the right. the house clapboards adds texture ( like the metal+glass of the car ).

john

I think there is a great deal of value in the intent, and it is very much worth persueing. As for this implementation I tend toward Jnanian's views.