|
Search this group's discussions
|
the many paths to focusschmocus
|
I'm very interested in how different people get their focusschmocuses (or should that be focusschmoci?) I've asked around a bit, and everyone seems to have different ways of doing it, so I thought this might be a good place for some exchanging of experiences.... I don't have anything particularly brilliant to contribute myself, but I don't mind sharing what I know to get things going!
1) When I'm doing my Polablurs, I use 600 film without any filter in an SX70, which is technically wrong, but tends to make light bleed around in interesting & unexpected ways.
2) I set the Polaroid's focus wheel as close as it will get, and then point the camera at something far away. Preferably something glowy. I have yet to figure out how to make a Holga do a good blur - any wisdom on this subject very gratefully received....
3) I've tried shaking the camera about, but this really doesn't seem to work for me!
4) I've recently experimented with smearing vaseline on a filter over the Holga lens. The results have been very hit & miss - but when it works, it's magical!
Originally posted at 10:04AM, 10 January 2009 PDT
(permalink)
Lady Vervaine edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
I mostly do em with the Hasselblad. The focusing screen gives a very reasonable impression of how the finished picture will look. Plus, the lenses have quite a long focus throw, which encourages not bothering to focus :) Usually I set the aperture to wide open and just fiddle with the focus ring until it all looks right.
Not tried with a Holga, the DOF seems pretty wide. Very close up is probably the best way to get something. When the weather warms up a bit I'm hoping to try some with the Polaroid 230.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
IanLand edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
Yes, Hasselblads seem really great for this.... which only makes me want one all the more....
That's a good idea about the Holga - thanks, I'll try it next time!
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Or, just crop a tiny square from the edge of the frame. With my holga, nothing round the edge is ever in focus :)
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This one was done with a half second exposure on a Leica M8 with a 35mm Summicron by starting to make the shape of a small square with the camera pointed roughly at the subject, then hitting the shutter release when it felt to be about the right sort of movement to get the effect. It's also focussed on about one metre away with the tree being about 4 metres away IIRC.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
cliffpatte edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
holgas will always be difficult for blurry images as the lens is virtually hyper-focal... ie, it's focussed at all distances... so Ian's suggestion of close-up work is a good idea... alternatively (and if you don't want to use vaseline, which as you say can be hit and miss) you could try taping a magnifying lens to the front of the camera... the stronger the better, or maybe two
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
pete gardner edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
@cliffpatte: thanks so much for the info on that very lovely picture - fascinating to learn how it was done!
@ian & pete: the close-up idea & the magnifying lens might both get something out of it, but i guess the harsh truth is, the holga is probably not the best camera for this kind of thing....
one of these days i will get around to posting my vaseline experiments here, but they don't seem to produce focusschmocus so much as a weird kind of light diffraction.....
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i'm finding it remarkably difficult to work out how i do mine (at least in a form that makes any sense). it took a while for me to work out how to stop them being nauseating: i want them as smoooth as possible, generally,and some scratchy ones i find a bit, well, itchy. but i can't really tell how i do them--there just generally seems to a point on the lens where it'll work.
maybe it's just the luck of the holga factory, but i find that on the portrait focus mine does okay distance blurs--like this www.flickr.com/photos/concrete4/2854175545/
i've never tried but how about, say, cling film and overexposure?
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I pretty much do the same as you all, just defocus the subject, which I agree is not so hard with the hassy, though having a consistent fuzziness can sometimes be difficult, it also doesn't help that my eyesight is getting worse as time goes by :)
Also I do pinholes (up to maybe 4 minutes) which give a lovely softness if I'm stationary and an addictive motion blur if I'm moving.
Still very much luck with those, though I am learning some, but a long way to go I think.
(And the diana works well too, i certainly get more accidental blurs with that than the holga.)
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think LV is right about the holga not being the best camera for blurs, or rather, de-focussing, and the other various comments about the effects of vaseline, clingfilm, motion blurring, etc, do highlight the various aspects of non-sharp imagery.
I think it probably falls into three main types; firstly, the properly defocussed image, where the point of focus is sufficiently far from the film plane that even depth of field effects won't render a sharp image... and where point sources of light are rendered as characteristic circles of confusion - or bokeh as they often (mistakenly) called
the second type would be images derived from placing various diffusion materials in fornt of the lens... vaseline, cling film, etc, and is commonly referred to as 'soft focus'
lastly, images that are rendered unsharp by rapid camera movement... either linear, as in shooting from a car, etc., or by shaking, ie, motion blur
of course, images can contain more than one or even all three of these effects and I'd be interested to hear what people actually think constitutes a 'focusschmocus' image
having tentatively submitted a couple of images that were essentially motion blurs, which do not appear to have been accpted (rightly so), I'm of the opinion that a focusschmocus image should primarily be a de-focussed image... if it also exhibits soft-focus or motion blur, that's fine, but they shouldn't be the dominant effect
what does everybody else think?
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
most of my seriously unfocused images are taken with my polaroid SLR 680 in low light -- although i've tried a few with my hasselblad too, with mixed results -- sometimes works great, sometimes just looks like a mess.
but i DO have a hard time "seeing" the splendor of my own defocused images -- i love other peoples', but often think my own look too messy or chaotic. hopefully that will change over time...
edit: have experimented a little bit with pinholes, too, which i absolutely love (when they work) -- not sure why i don't do more?
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
lawatt edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
pete i think you're right about the business of motion blur. from my point of view it goes with what i said about 'itchy' blur--there are definitely some gorgeous examples of motion blur, like cliff's one above, but often they can have be, exactly, messy and chaotic. not that i don't sometimes like messy and chaotic, but only when they work with other elements. defocus tends to be more of an appealing thing in itself, for me at least.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
concrete4 (a group admin) edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
this has become such an interesting discussion - thanks everyone for such thoughtful engagement!
i should say that i first encountered the term 'focusschmocus' in concrete's tags, so i would defer to her in all matters relating to it - i just think it's a brilliant term, which gets at something i've been thinking about for a while now - and to judge from the wonderful pictures you've all contributed to this pool, clearly many others do too :)
for my part, i think it's hard to pin down a precise definition of what makes a good focusschmocus - perhaps by its very nature, it's a little elusive....
the guidelines we drew up when started the group were simply that a) nothing should be in focus, and b) the image should be charming - with charm to be determined by the brutally subjective feelings of the curators! within that remit, i think any path is permissible - though in practice, it may be that some paths tend to produce images we find more charming than others.
pete's three categories of blur seem absolutely correct to me, and a very helpful way of thinking about this question - though of course within them, there are many variations - for example, all the different kinds of filters etc that one can use.... but yes - i think those probably are the three main paths to focusschmocus. i think any of them is capable of producing a charming image in which nothing is focus - though i suspect that motion blur is probably the least likely to do so....
i wonder why that is? i like what concrete says about smoothness - motion blurs are seldom smooth, and there's little more charming in this world to me than the blissful smoothness we see in, say, the edward olive abstracts.... i also like what both lawatt & concrete say about the potential for a blurred image to feel nauseating or chaotic - it's a very fine line, and in trying to curate a really outstanding collection, perhaps we can only really follow our gut instincts....
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
whoa whoa no deferring to me :)
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ok - i will defer to you on that - no deferring ;))
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i may have a relevant point or two with regard to motion blur.
first i should say that i think pete has articulated the most
important distinctions - for me those distinctions emerged
from a long period of experimentation with each. i do
think it is possible to get smooth motion blur, with or without
soft focus, or even defocusing, using a particular kind of
rhythmic movement of the camera, sometimes in conjunction
with supplementary movement, like walking or swaying.
i have worked with shooting from a moving car as well, and
basically consider all of these techniques a form of what in
cinemaphotography is called panning. the range of panning
has an effect, so does the smoothness of the pan and the
speed. i can done some with a tripod, using regular single
plane movement, multiple planes, sequential planes, and
erratic shifts of planes. some of the most interesting effects
and some of the smoothest are often achieved with very
small physical movements - fractions of an inch; it can also
be that several short movements in sequence are quite
effective; in some long exposures (i.e. ca. 10-30 seconds),
i have choreographed a repetitive movement pattern for the
camera beforehand.
in short, if you think of the field of view as having a potential
for panning either horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, or circular, or some combination of all of these, or perhaps random and erratic, at
a rate between extremely slowly to extremely fast, with or
without repetitive sequences of an orderly or disorderly kind,
then you have all the variables for this kind of panning
covered conceptually.
of course, most of this theoretical analysis has come after getting out and experimenting with the camera, trying things, analyzing results, and trying again.
ps. be prepared for lots of very strange looks, and for people looking
at you like you are having what my daughter calls a spazz attack!
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
mark valentine edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
Iwould love to see some examples, mark.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
okeedoke! coming up!
1. this one for example is a hand held shot, using what
you could think of as a arced tilt shot. It was a second
long exposure, and the lens was on 33mm focal length,
and f/10 - it was initially in focus, not defocused or
soft, although it was foggy and misty, as well. basically
the movement was from a "low" point - more or less
the normal angle, and pulled up smoothly through the
course of the second long exposure, in a curved arc
(with no start-stop motion, and rotating the camera up,
not moving it not straight up without changing the angle)
2. here is one that was created using the same
techniques, but that creates results that would
not fit in with the constraints of focusschmokus
as it is in part "in focus"
exposure 10 sec, at f/29, focal length 33mm
using a right angle movement pattern, roughly
half second up, half second left, half second
right, half second down (and then moving
up by a half inch or so) - the result is several
"passes" over the pattern, with a slight change
in angle for each pass
oh, the light source is a large bank of small, colored
and white christmas tree lights spread all over my
neighbor's trees - i was back in the street, at night,
about twenty or thirty feet
3. the next one involves two types of camera motion:
one slow rotation to the right throughout the course
of the exposure (horizontally) and small, start-stop
motions ascending vertically, about a quarter of an
inch in short, rhythmic steps
exposure 1 sec, f/29, focal length 59mm
4. finally, one take with a very small degree of movement, only
a couple of inches, in one smooth arc, moving in the same
direction as the subject was walking
.2 sec exposure, f/29, 44mm focal length
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
mark valentine edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
i'd be curious to hear more about the third distinction, and
the point you make:
"and where point sources of light are rendered as characteristic circles of confusion - or bokeh as they often (mistakenly) called"
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There are so many ways a picture can be out of focus, a lot have already been mentioned. I suppose focus itself is an elusive thing.
I often put a magnifying glass in front of my camera lens- and the result is a thin sliver of focus in a sea of blur. Like a fly in a giant lump of amber- crystal clear but suspended in a shapeless formless mass of coloured light. I think this is what some people call bokeh- the attractive mistiness that's before and beyond the part of the image that is sharp.
Then there's pinhole focus- another thing I enjoy. It's focus, but not as we know it. Especially on 35mm film. Pinholes can do wonderful things but they aren't lenses.
Then there's motion blur- which can stylishly seperate the moving from the stationary elements in a scene- and its uglier sister camera shake.
Then there's 'bad focussing'- focussing not on the 'subject' but on some area of empty air in front or behind it. I suppose that's the most common.
Then there's tilt or lensbaby focus- the film plane is not parallell to the focal plane of the lens, and then there are all kinds of things that can eat away at the sharpness of an image- like too much light artound the subject of too much film grain or 'noise'.
The magnifying glass approach is probably my favorite technique- but a thin slice of focus in a sea of blur is probably a thin slice too much focus for this group.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
seriykotik1970 edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
Mark I suspect the point he's making is that for a lot of people bokeh are just the lovely little circles of cuteness. When in fact the word just means blur, so really refers to anything out of focus in the image. There's someone saying some things about it here
I love, particularly, that last one you've posted, but those are all fabulous motion blurs (see, I knew you were proving me wrong!)
They all stay away from the scratchy end of motion blur and really make it part of the image: that is, it's not just a normally framed image that you've slapped some motion blur over the top of, the blur actually contributes something to the formal qualities.
I think for me similar rules apply with bokeh, though: not just bokeh for the sake of it: it has to actually tie in with some idea of formally putting a photo together.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thanks crete, that's clear - glad those blurs aren't off base!
i like what you add at the end about bokeh tieing in with some idea
of putting the photo together. Have you developed means of gaining
control over that characteristic? Choice of shooting into the light source
as opposed to oblique to the light source? DOF?
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
One of the reasons I like my Blad so much is because I know exactly what the bokeh is going to look like, the lenses have quite a strong signature in that respect, and I know pretty much exactly how the transition from in to out of focus is going to be at any aperture, so making blur an integral part of composition is now a largely deliberate process. That's much less true with some of my other cameras though, which involve more trial and error. Much as I hate the idea of gear being important in photography (we all know It's All About The Photographer), there's no doubt that what I use for a particular shot makes a difference to the overall look I end up achieving for that shot, even if (I hope) there's an overall deliberative approach to everything which precedes the choice of camera. Except toy cameras, of course, which get chosen precisely because they have a very distinctive look, and limit your technical options, but in a fun way, leading you to concentrate on very direct aspects of composition and leave the rest to fortune.
Originally posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
IanLand edited this topic 41 months ago.
|
|
|
mark... yes, concrete is exactly right in saying that my point was about the erroneous attribution of bokeh to the cute circles of light... and I think your other points and examples are interesting as they clearly demonstrate the variety of effects that can be achieved with motion blurs and hit at what I'm coming to understand (I think? - please correct me) is really the core value of focusshmocus... a smoothness and fluidity, irrespective of the means of obtaining a 'non-focussed' image, which is a pre-meditated and integral part of the of the image ... I realise now that a lot of my unsharp images would be more at home in a group called 'itchy & scratchy' because they have quite an abrasive look to them.
I also find (and totally agree with) Ian's opinions about choosing specific cameras and lenses, very interesting... it does make an important point that to consistently and successfully produce images which deliberately contain bokeh (or are completely de-focussed) requires a degree of control, sensitivity and awareness that is often not a consideration when shooting 'straight images'... and Ian's images demonstrate this quite emphatically.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
cool - this has all been very helpful to me - crete, pete, and ian.
i'm looking forward to its continuation, and to ian loaning me that
blad for a while!
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
yes it's really nice having so much discussion round here already :)
for me it's been a gradual process of learning over the last year just what control i do have--as i learned what effect various settings and ting have. it seems to me that it has to be camera specific--and it's part of the fun of using so many different cameras, i find: as suggested above, holgas are problematic, instant cameras (especially the instax, i found) perhaps even more so.
aperture/dof has to be the most crucial element as far as i'm concerned--i only recently started using a lens that went down to 1.7 and suddenly discovered that it was actually possible to have too much blur--i was shocked!
and whilst i have a vested interest i definitely agree with pete that perhaps it's harder to make really good blurs than to get really good infocus shots. the idea of sensitivity is really appealing because there does seem to be a level not exactly of guesswork but just of knowing what is the right point of defocus; it takes me a while to adjust to a new camera or lens or whatever to get back beyond that initial jarring stage.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There is no special technique I use.
I "discovered" the beauty of things being all blurry/defocused when I switched to manual focus for good on my main camera (the camera was given to me; I'd been warned its autofocusing feature wasn't working properly and at some point, I got so annoyed with it that I switched to MF and never switched back).
All the other cameras I own now - with the exception of one Polaroid camera - don't even have AF, and I don't really miss it.
But yeah, as concrete4 said: it's possible to have "too much blur" (.. though that's probably very subjective). I manage to get it "right" (for my tastes) most of the time these days, however. :)
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh, and: I'm not a great fan of blur caused by movement. I take my blurry photos like I'd take a "regular" picture, only I'm defocusing instead of focusing.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For what it's worth if any one is trying the "something in front of the lens" approach ie. vas or cling wrap. You might want to compare it to the same filter medium but on the rear of the lens. I used to use a filter with the glass knocked out and fine denier black stocking stretched and glued to the filter ring. I had one that screwed to the rear of my Mamiya RZ lens's. The RZ lens's conveniently had a filter thread on both ends of the lens.
You get less flare with black stocking especially on the rear element as it gets only the light transmitted to the film. Black stocking used to soften nicely but not probably enough for the focusschmocus feel. Cling wrap would probably be better.
Also as most of you seem to be shooting film in the Holgas then how do you find defocussing in the darkroom? Far more control.
Now days, being totally digital, if I don't do it in camera or through movement then it's the digital darkroom for me. I know I've just blown what little credibility I had. Ahh well...
cheers
Philip
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
Le Masurier edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
 |
Adachya [deleted] says:
This was a great discussion. I got a lot out of it. I'd like to set out and try a lot of these techniques. I sort of fell into out of focus by shooting through the viewfinder of medium format cameras and really liking some of the out of focus stuff I was getting. Soon I really began to prefer them. I've been shooting some 120 film with a Seagull ( all I can afford right now) and as soon as I get a few rolls I'll send them out. Time is tight though, so might take a while. Look forward to posting them for you guys to see.
I really enjoy this group and everyones work. I'm very new to photography and I'm learning a lot from all of you. I appreciate your comments; Lady, Ian, Concrete, and that you all stop by. :)
Posted 38 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This discussion has been a revelation to me! Thank you! I thought there was something perverse and unusual in my fondness for blurry shots, but now I see it may be a science and is certainly an art!
Posted 37 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@virgo: well, in truth we probably are all a bit perverse & unusual over here at focusschmocus - but we've learned to love our perversity & indeed celebrate it :))
welcome to the group!
Posted 37 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i usually try to find a rock to trip over, or walk into a telephone pole with my camera in hand, always ready for the perfect moment when both time
and environment collide in perfect harmony.
i must admit, a number of fine beers and wines, perhaps an overtaxing day at work, some outstanding bills (the electricity having been cut off), and an empty stomach sometimes lend to the delicateness and more subtle nature of many of my film captures.
thank you lady and crete for your wonderful group which i love so very very much!!!!!!!
Posted 37 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
and I use manuel focus and on purpose i focus wrongly..i mean i shoot out of focus if i want a flu photo..and since i love this abstract way of shooting, i generally shoot manuel focus and out of focus in the camera
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
First, I want to say, this is definitely my new favorite group. So inspiring and so many beautiful images!
I stumbled upon this group when concrete4 invited my Pasadena Avenue photo to be included:
Most of my Holga photos usually don't come out this way, but I guess this was a happy accident! And now I want to be able to consistently capture this feel somehow.
In this particular photo, all I did differently was set the Holga on the ground, put it on the Bulb setting and did a longish exposure (maybe 5 or 6 seconds on a very overcast day?) I was also using 3200 speed film so I don't know if that helped or not, but this group has definitely inspired me to try more of these out-of-focus experiments!
Thank you for the invite concrete4 and for the comments on my photo Lady Vervaine!
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The bulb function is an interesting one--there's a few other things in the group with people using it really effectively, because otherwise (as mentioned above) holgas tend not to do blur too well.
The highspeed film probably helped in terms of increasing the grain and that lovely softness.
Welcome to the group :) and we're looking forward to seeing more of your experiments!
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
concrete4 (a group admin) edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
focusschmocus /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to focusschmocus discussion threads
