4

enter image description here

My wife told me is a trend to aim out of focus on portrait shot. Maybe like focus on the background and let the main subject look blurred.
Is there such trend?
What kind of photography is this?
Anyway, this photo got hundreds of likes.

Tetsujin
  • 23,252
  • 3
  • 46
  • 97
  • 10
    There's also a trend for man buns. Just becaues there's a trend, doesn't mean it has to be good. – Alexander von Wernherr Oct 12 '18 at 07:31
  • 5
    the name of this kind of photography is: bad. For your example, that's not an out-of-focus portrait, that's an out-of-focus everything. And for the number of likes, someone with lots of followers could post a picture of a dirty toilet bowl and still get tons of likes, that doesn't means there is any interest in the picture – jhamon Oct 12 '18 at 08:27
  • 3
    Related Why did “pure” photography displace pictoralism so completely? – mattdm Oct 12 '18 at 13:10
  • I tweaked for a bit of formatting, but can anyone think of a 'better' title? One that's perhaps not quite so speculative, as from the answers there would seem to be something answerable without distorting the OP's intent too far. – Tetsujin Oct 13 '18 at 11:29
  • @Tetsujin I think something like "is it possible to shoot a good portrait with the person oof?" Or (possibly going too far) "what should I consider in taking oof portraits?" Sucks op appears to have left. – OnBreak. Oct 13 '18 at 14:08
  • Yeah, it is a trend created to accomodate the steeper learning curve of modern manual focusing systems ... – rackandboneman Oct 15 '18 at 10:28
  • IMHO it is what story tells us the photo. The imsge you had posted has no or not visible story. Are stones/rocks important or the flower. Important is that object in-focus is bringing context to the story. Hier it is only optical confusion what is important. – Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki Oct 18 '18 at 16:27

2 Answers2

9

I don't think there is any such trend. However, there are ways to use focus, or out of focus, to create interesting photographs. See this article at digital-photography-school.com

Some of these approach modern art for me (meh) but others are quite good. Take for instance this shot:

Or this one:

The person may be oof but they're not quite the subject, are they? The point of these shots is to make something else the subject, while using the person to add context and interest.

In the case of your portraits, try having your subject do what they love: play an instrument, sport, game, etc. Then, make the thing the subject and experiment with that.

Michael C
  • 175,039
  • 10
  • 209
  • 561
OnBreak.
  • 20,509
  • 5
  • 49
  • 81
8

Caution: may contain cynicism... & soft toys ;)

Is there a trend towards out-of-focus pictures?

Yes, inevitably, even if not intentionally.

As more & more people have access to photographic equipment [phones] & the ability to post the results of their efforts to social media, the eventual trend must be towards worse pictures.
Most people are not discerning over exactly what constitutes a 'good' picture & will post anything they think might be 'interesting'.
Watching someone on their phone scrolling down through their morning's social media inbox & 'liking' every other post has never stuck me as being the most analytical review of their peers' imagery.

Worse - If enough people post similarly poor images, someone is bound to consider it 'a trend' & start to copy it - though I'd have thought even the cheapest phone could have got at least one area of the shot in focus.

So... is it really a trend - probably not one that serious photographers are going to be following any time soon.
What makes it a trend at all isn't that the average person takes worse photos than they did when all people had were instamatics, it's merely that they can publish the results far more widely.

More seriously...
I do think there is a huge difference between pushing everything quite specifically out of focus, or moving the centre of attention by selective focus, vs simply 'getting it wrong'.
If even the sharpest parts are still slightly out of focus, as in the OP's image, then what you are left with is a bad photo, no matter what the intent. If either the flower or the near part of the rock formation had been sharp, then it would have told a different story.

A quick artist's impression - the bear & bookcase make a cameo appearance...

Below these first 4, then maybe I'll take a more serious look... but please forgive that these are all really quick examples, not meant to be 'works of art' in their own right ;)

Right click, open in new tab for larger sizes

The bear.
enter image description here

The bookcase - oops, "What ya reading' fer...?"
enter image description here

The surprise Kitty incursion!
enter image description here

The photo-bomb
enter image description here

Now, some of those may have some [small] artistic merit, but to my mind, 2 of them definitely have none - unless you're wildly interested in what types of book I read & how many of those are actually first editions ;-) [1]

Selective focus can be useful if you want to specifically draw attention to a feature or area not usually the one the eye would be drawn to first.

Maybe we want to show off his foot...
enter image description here

Rather than the more traditional approach
enter image description here

For a movie, there is a lot to be said for the reveal; starting soft, maybe backlit, then pulling to bring the hero into sharp relief...
I think this is harder to pull off in stills - but I'll leave it to you to decide.
enter image description here

enter image description here

[1] For the true anoraks, the entire top row that you can only see part of are all first editions, some signed

Tetsujin
  • 23,252
  • 3
  • 46
  • 97
  • 3
    My wife also likes blurry shots because her lines aren't as visible. – xenoid Oct 12 '18 at 07:13
  • 3
    My partner too. I do that in post, or through clever lighting [or both]. I try hard not to do it by taking crap photos with absolutely nothing in focus & hoping all my farcebork "friends" will "like" it :p – Tetsujin Oct 12 '18 at 09:04
  • I don't like such pictures either. With the simplification of technology and the ability for 'untrained' people to take and publish pictures, which they find good, might however require stiff and 'trained' artistic photographers to reconsider the concept of a 'good picture' and that what they have been trained and learned to recognize as a a 'good picture' is not necessarily what the general public see as a 'good picture'. – jarnbjo Oct 12 '18 at 11:47
  • 2
    Funny thought: with face recognition these days it actually takes more work to cause an oof shot. Didn't you know? More work = more artsy = better photo. – OnBreak. Oct 12 '18 at 12:51
  • 3
    An additional +1 for the bear and the Kitty :) – Alexander von Wernherr Oct 12 '18 at 13:36
  • 3
    "The surprise Kitty incursion!" – xiota Oct 12 '18 at 22:43
  • In photography, I tend to agree. I would add one caveat, though. In the field of videography, those oddly focused shots might actually be very much intended. Imagine that the camera starts out focused on the bear, then the focus shifts to the bookcase. What's that? The bookcase is moving aside, and something is coming out from behind it!?! Run, bear! Run! – dgatwood Oct 13 '18 at 00:16
  • 1
    @dgatwood - for sure, it works in video, as a reveal, or leading shot. In stills, though having absolutely nothing in focus seems an odd choice, especially if it's all just 'nearly' in focus; which makes it simply look 'wrong' rather than intentional. – Tetsujin Oct 13 '18 at 10:18
  • 1
    Great post, +1. Another +1 for the lain M. Banks collection... a pity he's not here anymore :-( – Rmano Oct 14 '18 at 18:54
  • 1
    And anothererer..er +1 for the Terry Pratchett Books in the shelf :D – Alexander von Wernherr Oct 15 '18 at 05:59