What is focus?

[Allen Friday]

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

I find your comment interesting. To me, using selective sharp focus or having everything in sharp focus are techniques--tools to be use by the artist. I very much like and appreciate much the work of JMC. I also like and appreciate much of the work of by members of the f64 group. Their aesthetics are quite different. But, I find each pleasing in there own way.

I have a John Sexton print on my wall. It is all in sharp focus. I find my eye directed initially to the light colored stones in the middle of the river. But as I look closely at the image, my eye wanders and I discover additional, interesting elements. The way three trees in the background stand out, the reflection of the trees on the water and how the reflections plays with the rocks, the texture of the flowing water... This photograph works for me because once I am initially drawn into the image, I can walk around in it and make new discoveries. This image would be diminished if only the rocks emphasized by sharp focus. Likewise, I think most of JMC's images would be diminished if the were shot with a f64 aesthetic.

To me, focus is only one way to give the viewer "something specific to look at." Leading lines, light tones juxtaposed against dark, placement of the subject with in the frame, etc. are ways to direct the viewer's interest. I often find selective focus images to be one trick ponies--here's the subject, look at it, now move on. But, when used effectively, I can look at such an image for hours.

I guess tis is why art is so interesting, both viewing art and creating art.

 

[batwister]

But as I look closely at the image, my eye wanders and I discover additional, interesting elements. The way three trees in the background stand out, the reflection of the trees on the water and how the reflections plays with the rocks, the texture of the flowing water... This photograph works for me because once I am initially drawn into the image, I can walk around in it and make new discoveries. This image would be diminished if only the rocks emphasized by sharp focus.

It's a strange thing to be drawn to the details when looking at photographs. It's ultimately analysis of the incidental. I've found that when looking at Recollections by Sexton, the compositions being somewhat conventional in what they reveal, details do indeed provide the real interest - being heightened above all else by the craft. For me, there has to be something uncanny amidst all that visual information, a specter that isn't fully explained despite the clarity of its photographic description. That's when photographs have their subconscious impact - you see it in everything from Bresson, to Arbus, to Gursky even. It's not just a matter of leading lines and thirds, in the photographs that affect me most, I find the real interest lies in that which is slightly out of context, described but not explained.

 

[markbarendt]

Allen it is absolutely true that focus isn't our only tool and I'm not against all in focus subject matter

I find Karsh's portrait of O'Keefe a print that I wander into then around and eventually to even the texture of the wall. Karsh gives us detail to find but it's the bright antlers catch my eye and Georgia that keeps them interested. As I wander I get to know her and the big icons of her world but there is nothing else, nothing extraneous, in that portrait and each in focus element is intended to be there and clear as a bell. It s only where we look "outside" that we are given less detail. This is a truly formal posed/contrived/controlled portrait.

O'Keefe isn't a typical portrait sitter, IMO her wrinkles, as much as her antlers, were part of her "brand". A more typical sitter is not normally so proud of her wrinkles.