What is focus?

markbarendt · Jan 19, 2013

Her son, H. H. H. Cameron, a photographer himself, recalled that when focussing and she came to that which was beautiful to her, she stopped there, instead of screwing the lens to the more clearly defined focus which at that time all photographers aimed to secure. (Julia Margaret) Cameron herself, in a letter to Sir John Herschel [England 1782-1871], asked What is focus- & who has a right to say what focus is the legitimate focus? It is, therefore, not surprising that her images were unsharp; what is more amazing is that some are sharp

Found in http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/505

cliveh · Jan 19, 2013

Focus is what any photographer wants it to be, as it was for her.

Felinik · Jan 19, 2013

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"

- H.C.B

markbarendt · Jan 19, 2013

Felinik said:
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"

- H.C.B

i like that.

ic-racer · Jan 19, 2013

"Focus" has a specific definition as dictated by the physics of light. Perhaps you mean "what is it to be 'in-focus?'" That is a subjective concept.

Prof_Pixel · Jan 19, 2013

ic-racer said:
"Focus" has a specific definition as dictated by the physics of light. Perhaps you mean "what is it to be 'in-focus?'" That is a subjective concept.

I would say the the term 'in focus' has a specific optical definition; when 'in focus' a spot would have the smallest circle of confusion.

The term 'focus' by itself doesn't seem to have a specific meaning.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 19, 2013

technically, a very good answer.

markbarendt · Jan 19, 2013

ic-racer said:
"Focus" has a specific definition as dictated by the physics of light. Perhaps you mean "what is it to be 'in-focus?'" That is a subjective concept.

They're not my words, they belong to Ms. Cameron, I excerpted a select few for the title.

I think it would be quite valid to define "in focus" as "where the expected image looks right on the ground glass", essentially it can be "focussed properly for the task at hand".

I think her point is that a common/shared/scientific definition isn't a requirement of good photography.

In context Ms. Cameron is one of the people who helped start the soft focus era in photography.

In the paper I referenced above they had an interesting discussion about focusing the lenses of her day, her choices, and her possible failings; seems the chromatic aberration on many lenses required a normal movement of 1/40th of the focal length to fix focus, after you focused. It was not a WYSIWYG world as it is today.

Felinik · Jan 22, 2013

markbarendt said:
i like that.

Yup, it's a great quote from a man who as far as I have seen has not really published a lot of unsharp photos....

batwister · Jan 23, 2013

In terms of pictorialism, I guess the strongest formal element would be where the 'focus' lies. That's to say, the apparition to which your eyes are led. This is something F/64 didn't get in its clinical approach - i.e. if everything is in focus, what are we looking at? The boards, the thistles, the texture of the wood? Dead Link Removed The only answer is "everything", since F/64 was a statement of technical intent - resolving power.

Looking at Weston's still life work aside from F/64, the statement lives in his concentration on form and sharpness becomes an incidental necessity. Where F/64 was about objective 'focus', pictorialism was about subjective 'focus' - it took a while before photographers realised both were vital in making a great image.

Subjective 'focus' shouldn't be confused with 'focal point' since much of pictorialism, like F/64 was in essence abstract. Most great photographs or paintings have multiple focal points.

Curt · Jan 23, 2013

"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

markbarendt · Jan 23, 2013

Curt said:
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

A bit of irony, eh?

markbarendt · Jan 23, 2013

batwister said:
if everything is in focus, what are we looking at?

That's my biggest struggle with f64 type stuff.

ic-racer · Jan 23, 2013

Prof_Pixel said:
The term 'focus' by itself doesn't seem to have a specific meaning.

You mean a specific meaning other than its definition?

Focus = The point to which rays that are initially parallel to the axis of a lens or mirror are converged or from which they appear to diverge.

markbarendt · Jan 23, 2013

ic-racer said:
You mean a specific meaning other than its definition?

Focus = The point to which rays that are initially parallel to the axis of a lens or mirror are converged or from which they appear to diverge.

So, how is a technical definition important to a work of art?

Prof_Pixel · Jan 23, 2013

ic-racer said:
You mean a specific meaning other than its definition?

The word focus can have many meanings. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/focus

Vilk · Jan 23, 2013

markbarendt said:
So, how is a technical definition important to a work of art?

etymologically?

http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Τέχνη

markbarendt · Jan 23, 2013

Couldn't translate, what language.

ic-racer · Jan 24, 2013

Prof_Pixel said:
The word focus can have many meanings. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/focus

Of that list for FOCUS only a single definition applies to light and optics. 1a.

markbarendt · Jan 24, 2013

markbarendt said:
Couldn't translate, what language.

Found it, look in the left column. Here's English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

Ghostman · Jan 24, 2013

What is in focus is that which the focus is on. I prefer on focus.

markbarendt · Jan 24, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
What if a photograph is about everything in the photograph? Why must a photographer lead a viewer's eye? That old "what are we looking at" bit always bothered me.

Purely for clarity I'm going to oversimplify a bunch and it reflects my personal preferences.

When I look at Ansel Adams' Clearing Winter storm I think "Wow, nice background!"

When I look at Ansel Adams portrait of Georgia O'Keeffe and Orville Cox I just think "Wow!"

Yeah, the subject matter is different. But, as truly good and really honestly special as the former is, it is still very much like looking out a window. The latter really gives me something to look at.

Lest you think it is purely a bias toward portraits, http://www.flickr.com/photos/vishal_mathur/2802653820/ That shot gives me something to look at and keeps my attention better than Clearing Winter Storm. As does this http://www.flickr.com/photos/8703006@N05/2763181408/in/photostream

For a photo to keep me interested, it has to give me something specific to look at or I lose interest.

Similarly, when someone says "Wow, you really nailed the focus/exposure/made a great print." It is a compliment about my skill with my tools and I do appreciate those comments. When someone says "wow great shot" and they ignore the print quality I feel I have done much better.

markbarendt · Jan 24, 2013

Ok so here's a shot that I think would be ruined if it were fully sharp http://www.flickr.com/photos/27386920@N06/3907107381 and this idea is what I think ms. Cameron was talking about.

markbarendt · Jan 24, 2013

Glad that helps Michael.

I agree that the tools of the trade are technical, part of our craft. The application/ideas they express are not though, that for me is where the art resides.

Jim Jones · Jan 24, 2013

Isaac Asimov's triple pun: "Three brothers went out West to establish a cattle ranch, but couldn't think of an appropriate name for it. So they wrote to their father back East, and he replied, 'Call it Focus, for that's where the sun's rays meet.'"

What is focus?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency