Focus (out of) as expression? There is a rolling and roiling discussion about "technique" here on UHH, technique usually being understood as sharp focus and full range of tones. I...

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

There is a rolling and roiling discussion about "technique" here on UHH, technique usually being understood as sharp focus and full range of tones. I don't think that sharp focus is necessary in art photography, in which expression and idea presupposes technical skill but does not consider it an essential. What do you think, in terms of this photo?

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I feel it all depends on the subject.
The door photograph does not work, at all, for me.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

RichardTaylor wrote:

I feel it all depends on the subject.
The door photograph does not work, at all, for me.

And why is that, please? Do you think doorways are not good subjects in general, or is it this doorway? Or something else?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Doors can make for good subjects (I have a few photographs, and 3D creations, of them myself), however when looking at this photograph my eyes are trying to make the image sharper. It is not a very pleasant experience. (I do have 20/20 vision after cateract surgery on both eyes, earlier this year)

For myself doors can be interesting architecturally and/or the image makes one wonder what is on the other side, or just shows a glimpse of what lies beyond.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

RichardTaylor wrote:

Doors can make for good subjects (I have a few photographs, and 3D creations, of them myself), however when looking at this photograph my eyes are trying to make the image sharper. It is not a very pleasant experience. (I do have 20/20 vision after cateract surgery on both eyes, earlier this year)

For myself doors can be interesting architecturally and/or the image makes one wonder what is on the other side, or just shows a glimpse of what lies beyond.

Got it, and understand. Actually, the closed and darkened doors in a dark space, ill-defined, spooked me, and that's what I intended.

Just to understand, is this closer to a good subject for you?

(Download)

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

artBob wrote:

And why is that, please? Do you think doorways are not good subjects in general, or is it this doorway? Or something else?

For me, I think it would be better if there were something beyond that doorway to draw you in. It seems a bit one dimensional as is. But then again, on the other side of that door could be anything, so that should excite the imagination too. I have come to the conclusion that for my sensibilities, art is accepting that which can be. One mans trash being another’s treasure. Just because something isn’t wrong, that doesn’t mean it’s right. Or vice-versa. That’s art for me.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

artBob wrote:

Got it, and understand. Actually, the closed and darkened doors in a dark space, ill-defined, spooked me, and that's what I intended.

Just to understand, is this closer to a good subject for you?

It is a good subject, and appeals to me.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

pmorin wrote:

For me, I think it would be better if there were something beyond that doorway to draw you in. It seems a bit one dimensional as is. But then again, on the other side of that door could be anything, so that should excite the imagination too. I have come to the conclusion that for my sensibilities, art is accepting that which can be. One mans trash being another’s treasure. Just because something isn’t wrong, that doesn’t mean it’s right. Or vice-versa. That’s art for me.

👍 Very true in terms of liking. In terms of appreciation, or recognizing that something is good art even though you don't like it--that is difficult.

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

artBob wrote:

👍 Very true in terms of liking. In terms of appreciation, or recognizing that something is good art even though you don't like it--that is difficult.

Agreed. This doorway has much that I like, and don’t like. Some think it’s crap, others are neutral and a few love it.
But, like or not, it’s art.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

pmorin wrote:

Agreed. This doorway has much that I like, and don’t like. Some think it’s crap, others are neutral and a few love it.
But, like or not, it’s art.

I like this one a lot.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

artBob wrote:

There is a rolling and roiling discussion about "technique" here on UHH, technique usually being understood as sharp focus and full range of tones. I don't think that sharp focus is necessary in art photography, in which expression and idea presupposes technical skill but does not consider it an essential. What do you think, in terms of this photo?

That is an interesting photograph.

I agree that sharp focus is not necessary and sometimes not desirable in art. And in the photographic arts it is a tool you can use. Or not.

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

artBob wrote:

Got it, and understand. Actually, the closed and darkened doors in a dark space, ill-defined, spooked me, and that's what I intended.

Just to understand, is this closer to a good subject for you?

That one pulls me in. The open door and lurking shadow intrigue me.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

artBob wrote:

There is a rolling and roiling discussion about "technique" here on UHH, technique usually being understood as sharp focus and full range of tones. I don't think that sharp focus is necessary in art photography, in which expression and idea presupposes technical skill but does not consider it an essential. What do you think, in terms of this photo?

This would have been a nice image if SOMETHING was in focus. When first viewed I had to check that I had the right glasses on.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

artBob wrote:

...Just to understand, is this closer to a good subject for you?

This man's shadow - doorway photo gets your message across with strength. Exactness is at times a photo virtue, but I agree with you that flexing the focus and mashing a few rules of composition will be stronger and more interesting. The same subjects in a crisp pasteurized photo following exactness lacks flavor .... Pasteurized Milk is pure, but spoiled with Yogurt Culture is much tastier.

Stephan G

artBob wrote:

There is a rolling and roiling discussion about "technique" here on UHH, technique usually being understood as sharp focus and full range of tones. I don't think that sharp focus is necessary in art photography, in which expression and idea presupposes technical skill but does not consider it an essential. What do you think, in terms of this photo?

Art is a lot like language. Much depends on vocabulary.

When I view initially any image, I strive to look at it without any presuppositions. Then I walk away to "process" what I saw.

As to the attached shot, I saw a doorway with many possibilities of interpretations. Many in the supernatural arenas. So, the shot has many story paths. It allows technique to be the usage of certain vocabulary in the presentation and the interpretation.