When is it art or a mistake?

Hello All,

This is my first post on the new format boards, although I have been reading in the background.

I took this picture on purpose with a slow synch flash to capture "mood" rather than a definative portrait. We were with friends at a real swanky resturant the decor & mood, not to mention the food was elegant & sophisticated. I took this picture to show motion in the hope that emotion would be conveyed.

Or is it a crappy picture?

Art is so subjective, or is it.

No manipulation, just a tiny crop

Regards

Norman

Well, motion blur can add a lot to an image, it can suggest speed, action, etc. In this case, I don't think it works. The woman is the subject, and the blur totally obliterates her. If istead she was sharp while the surroundings were slightly blurred, I think it might have worked better, but the way it stand now it works against the main part of the subject.

When you feel unsure of an image, break it into pieces and decide what part of it works towards your vision, and what detracts from it. As to your subject line, I don't think there is a line that can be drawn. Sometimes mistakes reveal things that we could never have envisioned, yet some people have vision that surpasses and lucky mistake anyone has ever made. Is experimentation different form mistakes? It is making mistakes on purpose to se the results, is it now? I don't think trying to seperate the two is even worth trying... :D

I think you're close - if the flash was a more dominant part of the exposure (higher ISO, wider aperture) then you'd get a sharper image of her imposed over the blur. Maybe also darkening the foreground although it looks like it's probably blown out. These shots can be tough to do but the results can be great. I find that it takes a lot of exposures to get one good one.

"Painting with light..."

I find keeping that in mind, while seemingly obvious, helps me keep my vision and my creative process on track. Thinking that way also allows me much of the same freedom as a painter. It prevents me from getting too locked in on the many restrictive "rules" of photography, and in turn persuades me to try new ideas that often lead to the "mistakes" you refer to. This is how we learn...

At some point, most serious shooters develop (at least if we decide to make the effort) a "philosophy" about photography and guidelines that govern our approach to it.

With this, there are no universals, and the vastly different ways we perceive the art of picture taking have resulted in MANY colorful and sometimes heated discussions on the subject over the years...

Some folks say a great photo should ALWAYS be able to stand on its own. I've never been convinced that that's true.

While I believe you can always appreciate a single image, I think its REAL power and meaning often become unlocked when you learn of the circumstances of its creation, or more about the life of the person who made it, or see it in a group of other photos by the same person or by others working the same theme. Much like paintings...

You get what I'm saying? Simply, photography, like ANY art, is very subjective. The same image can excite or repulse viewers, can label you a creative genius or a dismal failure. It really depends on who is doing the talking. And also whether you are creating an image for yourself or for others, or both...

I think your shot is interesting. There is no doubt it plays with light and movement. But I agree with Seb that partial sharpness on your subject's face might make it better.

That's normal with these kinds of shots. Most viewers like to be able to focus on something sharp and recognizable as well as something blurred and more emotional. It's a tough balance that comes from trial and error. You should keep trying...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norman

Hello All,

This is my first post on the new format boards, although I have been reading in the background.

I took this picture on purpose with a slow synch flash to capture "mood" rather than a definative portrait. We were with friends at a real swanky resturant the decor & mood, not to mention the food was elegant & sophisticated. I took this picture to show motion in the hope that emotion would be conveyed.

Or is it a crappy picture?

Art is so subjective, or is it.

No manipulation, just a tiny crop

Regards

Norman

---

Hey Steve,

I like your reply, we are on the same wave length. I was taking a grab shot, the restuarant has a web site, so as a self inflicted assignment I thought an atmospheric shot used as a very small graphic to show mood, would fit in with the style of the resturant.

To have a sharp image of a patron I thought would be too specific, forget that it's a person, I'm trying to represent a cool place to go, the lighting was cool, that's why the table is blown out. I guess I'm trying to get too much out of the shot, I have one that is sharp colour balanced & boring, I love this shot because I think it comes close to visual radio, where you the viewer can project your thoughts on what's happening.

Is the woman very attractive or not, is she famous or not, is she a size 6 or 12 it's not about her but about what you think of her. I like the way watercolour paintings can run colour into each other while maintaing the integrity of the image, I'm trying to do something similar, but not doing portraiture in the photographic sense.

"Yours truly lost in Life"

Norman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norman

To have a sharp image of a patron I thought would be too specific, forget that it's a person, I'm trying to represent a cool place to go, the lighting was cool, that's why the table is blown out. I guess I'm trying to get too much out of the shot, I have one that is sharp colour balanced & boring, I love this shot because I think it comes close to visual radio, where you the viewer can project your thoughts on what's happening.

---

I understand what you're saying. What you describe is a common use of flash & blur or a movement shot...

But I think the balance I mentioned still applies. In this case, you might be better off holding the camera still enough (or by using a small tripod) to keep eveything sharp except the subject's movement.

This type of shot can look good either way. Freezing a subject with the lights and bg blurred, or keeping all the architectual details and furniture sharp and having the subject's motion blur.

Still, if you're happy with what you have, that's the important thing...

Hi Norman. I don't have any problem with the blur. I think the lighting on the top 2/3 of the photo does convey an intimate mood. What bugs me is the huge difference in light between your subject and the foreground. The table and glasses are just wayyyy too bright for my eyes.

Spike

I want to add to what steve (Doh! I knew what 18% is, just had a brain frt) said, if I may! He pointed out, calling it philosophy or approach, is we each develop a style. I personally strive for technically perfect pics (even if I'm going for motion blur). Some people say I'm throwing some of my best stuff away.

The biggest problem I see with shots like this is it looks like a mistake by itself (my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt). If it was a one-of within a series of shots it may work better. The problem isn't just with blurry shots. In landscape photograhy if something should be sillhoueted, but some detail is visilbe, it tends to lool like a mistake. The same is true if something should have detail but doesn't. The beauty of art is there's an exception to every rule. Or at times you may accept the flaws because the rest of the image makes up for them.

Conversely, too much of one thing is bad. At our last photo club meeting, the judge (oscar lazoya) pointed this out. One member turned in 5 or 6 of these "mirrored" looking flower images. Each on it's own was OK. By the third one, as bbking said, the thrill is gone. What makes matters worse for the regulars, is this person turns in a several each month. In this case, each on it's own is a splended image.

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norman

Hello All,

This is my first post on the new format boards, although I have been reading in the background.

I took this picture on purpose with a slow synch flash to capture "mood" rather than a definative portrait. We were with friends at a real swanky resturant the decor & mood, not to mention the food was elegant & sophisticated. I took this picture to show motion in the hope that emotion would be conveyed.

Or is it a crappy picture?

Art is so subjective, or is it.

No manipulation, just a tiny crop

Regards

Norman

---

I'm looking to breakout from the rules of photography from time to time, certainly the views expressed hear are representative of photography today, some views at the centre some out on the edge. Thanks........

Norman

"Happy accident."
"Fortuitous discovery."
"Synchronicity."
"Revolution."

Neat image.

Megan