Discussion: Focus and street shooting

Richard · September 29, 2009

One of BD's comments in another thread prompted me to start this one. Does street shooting have a greater tolerance for soft focus than other photographic families? If so, up to what point? HCB was famously quoted as saying that "sharpness is a bourgeois concept," which is a wonderfully French way of expressing disdain.

I have struggled with where to draw the line, but I am not inclined to cut street shooting any more slack than other genres. Still, sometimes it's tempting to overlook some technical flaws when other things work. Here's an example I shot recently:

This one's not soft, but focused way behind the subjects. For purposes of discussion, let's ignore other faults that it has. I love the scene, but reluctantly accept that I just blew it, and there's no amount of Photoshop shenanigans that can fix it. Damn.

So where does one draw the line? I suppose there's no rule but there might be a rule of thumb. :ear

bdcolen · September 29, 2009

Richard wrote:

One of BD's comments in another thread prompted me to start this one. Does street shooting have a greater tolerance for soft focus than other photographic families? If so, up to what point? HCB was famously quoted as saying that "sharpness is a bourgeois concept," which is a wonderfully French way of expressing disdain.

I have struggled with where to draw the line, but I am not inclined to cut street shooting any more slack than other genres. Still, sometimes it's tempting to overlook some technical flaws when other things work. Here's an example I shot recently:
This one's not soft, but focused way behind the subjects. For purposes of discussion, let's ignore other faults that it has. I love the scene, but reluctantly accept that I just blew it, and there's no amount of Photoshop shenanigans that can fix it. Damn.

So where does one draw the line? I suppose there's no rule but there might be a rule of thumb.
[/CENTER]

First, I'd suggest that what HCB really meant was that image trumps technique. A photo can be razor sharp, have perfect color balance, obey the rule of thirds - and not be worth the pixels that form it. Frankly, that's the case with an awful lot of the photographs that people everywhere tend to fawn over.

However ... that doesn't mean that backfocusing isn't backfocusing. Or that every blurred, out of focus image is good just because it would have been good had it not been out of focus.

This image, however, comes a lot closer to excellent than you give it credit for. As I look at it, it looks to me as though the man is sharp - I think what you've got is enormous depth of field but movement by the woman and the child in the foreground - who is also out of focus, but that's okay.

This photo of Bob Dylan and John Baez is one of my all-time favorite photos. Nothing in it is sharp. It was shot in low light, with what passed for fast film and a fast lens in the mid-60s - and neither were fast. But it perfectly captures two people at a certain moment in time. So who cares if it's sharp?

(And, yes, the original is much more distinct than this little jpg)

rutt · September 29, 2009

When HCB said "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept," he was explaining his decision to use the new miniature 35mm format. At the time, the orthodox view was that good art photography required sharpness, the kind that only larger formats could deliver. HCB balked at the idea of being anchored to some enormous camera. He said:

hcb wrote:

I suddenly understood that a photograph could fix eternity in an instant.

I said damn it, I took my camera and went out into the street

I believe that HCB grew artistically and technically long after the 30's, the years of his most famous and iconic work. After WWII, the image not well focused and perfectly exposed is very rare (can't really think of one.) He lost none of his astonishing sense of composition.

So, I don't think he meant to forgive poor technique. But he would not sacrifice the freedom of a small camera to some overrated concept of technical quality.

craig_d · September 29, 2009

bdcolen wrote:

This image, however, comes a lot closer to excellent than you give it credit for. As I look at it, it looks to me as though the man is sharp - I think what you've got is enormous depth of field but movement by the woman and the child in the foreground - who is also out of focus, but that's okay.

It looks to me like the man is just outside the near edge of DOF, to judge from the sharpness of the street paving. Motion is obviously one reason why the child and possibly the woman are a bit blurry, but the stones in the street aren't moving and the sharpest part of the image is clearly beyond the couple.

Does this mean it's a bad picture? No. It captures just the right moment. The child's position and expression are priceless. I do think the focus is a technical flaw, but if we're going to obsess over every imperfection, we should write camera reviews for DPR and forget about actually taking pictures.

Richard · September 30, 2009

OK, I am quite comfortable with the idea that technical perfection is not essential to a great image. And it's clear that technically perfect images are often perfectly boring, not because they're perfect but because they are not worth looking at. What I am struggling with is how much to trust my gut rather than my brain. If I had taken that pic of Dylan, chances are I would have thrown it out. Big mistake, obviously.

I'm not a pixel peeper and don't hesitate to post shots that I know are soft or have other issues when I think the good outweighs the bad. Though I try not to, I don't worry about cutting off the heel of someone's shoe when the shoe has nothing to do with the shot. But missing the focus of the subject still seems like severe error to me. I guess I lack the confidence necessary to decide that it's OK sometimes. As BD has said, we're our own worst editors.

Had I nailed the focus, this probably would have been one of my best street shots. What I got was close, but no cigar.

michswiss · September 30, 2009

So many things we see on the street are normally only caught in peripheral vision. It isn't the sharpest part of of our eye's natural perception. My hypothesis is that we aren't as bothered by softness of focus in those situations. In fact, sharpness might be a detractor in some cases where instinct wants us to avoid certain types of intimacy.

thoth · September 30, 2009

I sometimes feel like the Darth Vader of photography. Come to the unsharp side...

On a serious note, I rarely throw out a photo just because it's soft. Yeah, maybe my photo in Richard's link isn't that interesting, but there are certainly tons of blurry stuff that is.

bdcolen · September 30, 2009

michswiss wrote:

So many things we see on the street are normally only caught in peripheral vision. It isn't the sharpest part of of our eye's natural perception. My hypothesis is that we aren't as bothered by softness of focus in those situations. In fact, sharpness might be a detractor in some cases where instinct wants us to avoid certain types of intimacy.

Really interesting take...Really.

Candid Arts · September 30, 2009

I look at it like this. Focus and motion blur are two completely different things. And it all depends on what you're trying to make the photo say. In the case of the Bob Dylan photo...that photo is meant to show motion and emotion. If that had been perfectly in focus and sharp and completely stopped the motion of the dance, it would have been a completely boring photo.

I think in the case of your posted photo, the technical error does outweigh the situation (for me). Because the "focus" of the photo is supposed to be the couple hugging (I'm guessing) and not the area behind them. To freeze that moment of them hugging would have been what you wanted to do with the photo. The motion blur of the girl would have still been there if the focus spot was on the couple, but still would have tremendously added to the photo.

If your intent was to focus on a couple, and you focus behind them, then it's an error. If your intent was to focus on the crowd behind the couple because of something that was going on, and the subject matter permits that, then you got the photo. It all just depends on what the photo is trying to say.

My .02

rainbow · September 30, 2009

This topic reminds me of art masterpieces whereby all the experts agree on something being great before finding out it is a forgery...

By this, I mean, if you had posted this photo without saying you made a mistake, many would have loved it (I actually still do) and let you know why. My take would be "I love how there is all this emotion and happiness occuring with the couple while the world moves on completely unaware or uncaring..." The girl in the bottom corner elevates this photo even more.

But with your commentary, the discussion has shifted because the idea of having made an error colors the responses and becomes one of technical merit and whether an error is "overcome". But, can such a photo not represent a deliberate attempt at a photo essay or challenge and be a great representation of that (such as "blur the obvious subject and have the eyes drawn to the peripheral people"). For example, in your last dinosaur photo, if the dinosaur were out of focus (whether deliberate or not), could not the amused bystanders made the photo interesting enough (especially as the final shot of the series)?

Richard · October 1, 2009

Candid Arts: I think your analysis is spot on. I agree completely.

rainbow: Good points. I suspect hat if I had just posted the pic without commentary the reaction would have been split: some would have grumbled about the missed focus; others would have responded to the joy. Since my intent was not to focus on the crowd, I tend to see the glass as half-empty, but man, that little girl makes it half-full all by herself.

Jenn: Interesting observation. I'm not sure I grasp when it would apply to the subject rather than the background. If we want to avoid intimacy with the subject, wouldn't it be logical not to take the shot at all?

michswiss · October 1, 2009

Richard wrote:

Jenn: Interesting observation. I'm not sure I grasp when it would apply to the subject rather than the background. If we want to avoid intimacy with the subject, wouldn't it be logical not to take the shot at all?

I'm not really attempting to excuse the photographer for having taken an out of focus picture, but rather how the viewer might take it in. Another metaphor is that a woman wearing a teddy or a teeshirt can be sexier for her partner than standing in the nude. The allusion, the emotion is more powerful when aspects are left to the view to interpret through their own eyes.

The intimacy part is, for me at least, what street photography is about: taking a shot someone else would shy away from. When we are on our game, we see things others tune out. So peripheral vision plays an active part. The difference is that we'll at least attempt to stop, study and shoot it.

Discussion: Focus and street shooting

Comments