blurriness in portion of art photo

[Mad Aussie]

Without seeing the photo in question it's really quite impossible to give direct advice here.

However, generally speaking ... it's still hard

Having part of your subject blurred is common and quite acceptable depending on the subject and composition. Aperture, zoom, and how your subject is positioned in relation to the plane of your sensor all have an effect on this.

There are some things that rarely should be blurred though, a persons eyes for instance, especially if that person is the main subject.

In the end though, photography is very, very subjective and what works for me won't always work for you etc.

[Marko]

I'm with MA here - there is no rule...we'd need to see the picture to offer proper advice.

[Andrew]

In art there are many different opinions about what is good and what is actually art. There are also just as many opinions about what is photography and what is computer programming. It's all what keeps things interesting I guess. Motion implied in photography is quite common. Panning with a fast subject, holding still on the background while the subject moves through the frame, making unreal looking waterfalls using ND filters, etc, are all means to show speed. There was a recent thread here about movement in the shots. Is it art? Is it play? We all have our own opinions. Some photography that goes for lots of money isn't worth a second look to me.

In the example you refer to I'd have to say no, it's not art. In fact per your own admission it's just a mistake. Painters just don't throw coloured oil at a canvass and hope the Mona Lisa appears. Had you planned and executed a concept or idea you had preconceived and managed to capture the moment then it may have been art,,,to you. And that's good. Nobody can tell you what you do or do not like to look at. That's not what you did in this case though and didn't even recognize the visual until after the fact. It's just blurry.

[Iguanasan]

In art there are many different opinions about what is good and what is actually art. There are also just as many opinions about what is photography and what is computer programming. It's all what keeps things interesting I guess. Motion implied in photography is quite common. Panning with a fast subject, holding still on the background while the subject moves through the frame, making unreal looking waterfalls using ND filters, etc, are all means to show speed. There was a recent thread here about movement in the shots. Is it art? Is it play? We all have our own opinions. Some photography that goes for lots of money isn't worth a second look to me.

In the example you refer to I'd have to say no, it's not art. In fact per your own admission it's just a mistake. Painters just don't throw coloured oil at a canvass and hope the Mona Lisa appears. Had you planned and executed a concept or idea you had preconceived and managed to capture the moment then it may have been art,,,to you. And that's good. Nobody can tell you what you do or do not like to look at. That's not what you did in this case though and didn't even recognize the visual until after the fact. It's just blurry.

Careful about trying to describe art. Just saw a blurb on the news tonight about a monkey that's currently making hundreds of dollars per painting. He likes to use his hands, feet and tail to paint on canvases and they sell like hot cakes.

[Andrew]

On another thread about a week ago I eluded to the artsy-fartsy crowd that ran galleries and count monkeys, elephants and Andreas Gursky as top artists. The problem with most of the overnight genre artists and their promoters is that tides shift fast in that world and what hangs on a wall today could be lining the bird cage next month.

[JustinRyan215]

Careful about trying to describe art. Just saw a blurb on the news tonight about a monkey that's currently making hundreds of dollars per painting. He likes to use his hands, feet and tail to paint on canvases and they sell like hot cakes.

But people are also stupid....

[celksy]

I find this dialogue interesting, although I'm sure that to some of you it may be tiresome. Personally, if I like a photograph, the value wouldn't be diminished if I found out a blind person took it by accident.... on the other hand I can appreciate something that's been carefully crafted. After reading a some responses (which I respect, don't get me wrong ) maybe I should just slink away..... but I'm going to go ahead and show my partially blurry image.

There may certainly be reasons other than the blurriness why this is not a "good" (help me find a better word here!) image - so have at it.

"Japanese Tree" It's composed of some type of fungus, I guess, and some icky brown stuff on the north side of an old resort hotel.

[kat]

IMO, blurriness is great in many ways. For me though, with this image, I would of liked to have seen something that captures the eye specifically (the focus point) and then the blurriness wouldn't be a problem. Where this photo, to me, seems in whole an abstract, I would of liked it all in focus. But then again..it's personal preference.

[Mad Aussie]

From what I can see you have focused in the bottom right corner somewhere and the aperture was a bit too open to allow a decent depth of field creating the gradual blurriness as we look across the photo to the top left. This would have totally worked if you had been right down low and looking across the subject because then the blurriness would be in the background and helped to isolate the part you focused on more. Hope that makes sense.