Photogonow@xxxxxxx writes: > Here are a few 'acceptable' - blurred photos - that use our mind to > complete them. > > http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGall2.asp?catID=97 All of those seem to be examples of *partial* blurs. And every one I've looked at closely has key parts of the main subject quite sharp. I've never found any trouble relating to *that* kind of use of blur -- any more than with the background being out of focus, or something like that. It's the ones where *nothing* is sharp that I often have trouble getting anything out of. And not *always* (though I can't seem to find an example to show); just *often*. I certainly don't insist as a theoretical requirement that a "good photo" *must* have something sharp in it. I've seen counterexamples. I do think it's rather hard to find an image where that's the best way to present it, and I do think that many people *trying* to make that sort of image often fail to make it hold my interest or communicate anything to me. But this is also just talking about my preferences and experience, not about any grand overlying laws of the universe that all must obey. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
