Shop Amazon's Best Sellers in Camera & Photo
ADVERTISEMENT
Comments
You're right, it doesn't work. Stupid idea, frankly.
Thanks for opinions, I've added a link to the description above.
I think the linked example works mainly because the distant face is looking at the camera and the near one isn't, and it's more to do with that than with the differential focus.
Others, as you say, may see it differently.
Others, as you say, may see it differently.
In your two images; the lead image tells me you want us to focus our attention on the foreground plants, and that was your main area of interest. The out of focus figures are merely to add to the composition, filling an otherwise empty, boring space in the frame. Interest added, but not the focus of our attention.
In the version, the foreground is very much secondary and we may not even notice it at all as the eye is instantly drawn to the main subjects of interest, the people. The out of focus foreground plants are merely a way of framing the main are of interest.
In the version, the foreground is very much secondary and we may not even notice it at all as the eye is instantly drawn to the main subjects of interest, the people. The out of focus foreground plants are merely a way of framing the main are of interest.
Two very different images certainly. I prefer the lead simply because the child is showing so much interest in the plants.
Phil.
Phil.
Interesting thoughts. I was mainly interested in the allium seed heads. Meanwhile interesting things were happening in the background. I wanted to leave the figures as background, part of the bigger (or perhaps smaller) picture.
I think both actually work, but I find the lead far more appealing. I think, however, that it’s totally subjective.
My brain hurts ... I'll have a think about this and get back to you when I've charged up the brain cell. 
Blur foreground can be used as a framing (the intention of framing is to lead the eye to the subject) but it can't itself be used as a lead in unless there is something extra element like repetition of shape or pattern etc, otherwise a blur foreground can easily form a distraction...Both the images works for me...
You know your onions, Moira! 🧅😀 Both work well, but I go for the lead as my fave 👍
Re your comment on my 'Scaliger Tombs' upload yesterday, yes you're right, it was rather confined around there. I was stood as far back as I could, and to use my zoom lens, would only have got half the scene in! The actual fisheye shot as taken included even more, but using the conversion to ultrawide-angle the software removes quite a bit from the curved edges in straightening it, but it still does a good job in allowing good coverage 👍
Trev 😀
Re your comment on my 'Scaliger Tombs' upload yesterday, yes you're right, it was rather confined around there. I was stood as far back as I could, and to use my zoom lens, would only have got half the scene in! The actual fisheye shot as taken included even more, but using the conversion to ultrawide-angle the software removes quite a bit from the curved edges in straightening it, but it still does a good job in allowing good coverage 👍
Trev 😀
OK, here goes 🙂 Prefer the lead image. The overall composition tells us that this is a place of interest where visitors can relax. The out of focus figures in the background tell us that it is also somewhere to learn, to question, and to wonder. We might even get to splash about in our wellies so it's a fun place too. Not that I would of course, far too boring 🤢
I think Alistair has come nearest to expressing how I read this. Thanks everyone, it's been an interesting day.
I think this is perhaps a technique borrowed from film. Yes the figure(s) is/are the subject but detail is deliberately blurred out to create a bit more mystery to the screen image. I think it is about how much is revealed and how the imagination is stimulated. For this reason I find your lead image the most effective.
