> I am currently in a "debate" with a fellow shooter who believes the rule of > no foreground should be out of focus. I disagree. Composition is a part of > the overall art form, and out of focus foregrounds work when treated with > respect. He just can't see it, even tries to overide the success. Out of focus foregrounds, as a rule, don't work. Sometimes, and in specific instances, they do. The trouble is dismissing the "as a rule" guidance too strenuously proves what? Anyone with a cmaera can get out of focus froegrounds, backgrounds, subjects etc etc. You could go to new-wave photography (for the young) where there are no rules and everything goes. Most of us would call it crap. For me some OOF foregrounds do add to the depth. They seldom work however when they obscure certain pats of the subject. I'm happy to accept thirds, as a rule, out of focus foregrounds, as a rule etc. But when it suits me / the picture I ignore the advice (it is only a rule, not llegislation ;o) rule? It's only semantics > All my photographic life, I have struggled to balance being in and out of > the box. At the end of our lives most of us end up in a box ;o)
