Peter Klick
|
It's all in the details, or is it?And another topic to spice up the forum: In photo mags and in competitions I read/hear about the lack of detail in, for example, feathers or fur or hair. But I sometimes wonder if detailed detail (so to speak) is really necessary if it is not the reason the photograph was taken. For example, if you take IR photos, detail is lost. If you use soft focus, detail is lost. And if you paint with oils, obtaining fine detail is a miracle -- yet the painting works.
Just a thought...
|
admin
|
You are right (to a point)Peter,
You have a valid point. In all the circumstances you describe, creativity is being rewarded in sacrifice of "detail". Even focus is not totally necessary in a photograph.
I think where judges do want detail is mainly in natural history shots. The natural history boys and girls are sticklers for detail and sharpness, to the point of obsession.
If you submit a blurred black smudge called "Blackbird" in a natural history competition you won't get very far no matter how creative your shot.
Regards,
Rob.
|
Peter Klick
|
Thank you for your reply, Rob. Your image of a very soft focused blackbird made me smile. Good way to end the day.
|
|
|
|