[Leica] Poor Technique?

[Vondauster <Vondauster@aol.com>]

Hi All,

In a message dated 98-04-20 06:30:09 EDT, Alan Hull wrote:

<< Any part of a photograph that is out of focus is a reflection of poor and
 lazy technique and is of no value whatever.  It is a waste of chemicals >>

This is a downright silly statement. While I agree that, for my taste as well,
the object of interest in a photograph should generally be sharp and well
exposed, there are perfectly good reasons to leave the background blurred.
Refer to the first seagull picture on my website
(http://www.fsl.noaa.gov/~vondaust/stock/) I've mentioned in the past. With
Alan's rule in force, I would never attempt this photograph, since it would
have been impossible to have the rather unattractive background in focus even
if I had wanted it to be. I do not think that photograph is of no value.
Incidentally, I believe it was shot around f8.

My objection to a number of the "artists" producing blurred Holga-Diana images
and claiming that these are art is simply this: Picasso's extreme
abstractions, for example, were of interest precisely because he had mastered
the techniques of classical painting. Everyone new he could paint a beautiful
picture of a model with excellent realism. His deviation from traditional
styles was therefore not a lack of talent or skill, but a reasoned artistic
choice. Likewise, had say Ansel Adams made blurred photgraphs of Yosemite with
a Holga, then I would pay attention to the results.

My two cents worth...

Will von Dauster