What is focus?
-
- Thread starter markbarendt
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale (US) Topcor 210mm f5.6 w/ Horseman Extension Tube/Board
- Started by HaroldC3P0
-
For Sale (US) Nikkor 300mm M f9 w/ Horseman Extension Tube/Board
- Started by HaroldC3P0
-
For Sale (US): Horseman 45FA 4x5 Camera
- Started by HaroldC3P0
-
Want to Buy Body cap for M42 Pentax mount
- Started by multivoiced
-
Want to Buy (Rada? Rollex?) Roll film back for Kodak Recomar No. 18 camera
- Started by alanshaw
Forum statistics
OP
OP
i like that.
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.
technically, a very good answer.
OP
OP
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.
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Format
- 35mm
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....
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
OP
OP
A bit of irony, eh?
OP
OP
That's my biggest struggle with f64 type stuff.
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.
OP
OP
So, how is a technical definition important to a work of art?
OP
OP
Couldn't translate, what language.
Of that list for FOCUS only a single definition applies to light and optics. 1a.
OP
OP
What is in focus is that which the focus is on. I prefer on focus.
OP
OP
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.
OP
OP
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.
OP
OP
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.
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.
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.'"
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |