Blur versus Out-of-Focus: Discuss!

[AgentDrex]

A question was posed in my thread ( http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...two-more-my-photos-your-viewing-pleasure.html ) about whether blur is the same as Out-of-focus...

I obviously say they are different breeds. One stems from movement of the whole camera and/or subject and one stems from moving the lens to the wrong position using a focusing ring (either missed automatic focus or wrong manual).

What other thoughts are bouncing around out there concerning this?

 

[AgentDrex]

I realize my thoughts are as convoluted as the way I write them out.

 

[e.rose]

I'd be inclined to agree with you... however arguing the semantics of the words in your other thread is sort of pointless because the fact they were trying to get at is that the photo wasn't sharp period.

 

[Robin Usagani]

It is either sharp or blurred.. pretty black and white.

 

[Light Artisan]

You can have motion blur that is in perfect focus.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Blurred applies to motion as well as out of focus. Since you can still refer to out of focus as being "blurry". Blurred as an adjective does not require motion. However, to me the big distinction of whether something is good or bad is whether its your subject that is "blurred" or part of the scene ( and perhaps a small portion of the subject ) to indicate motion. If your subject is blurred completely, I consider it OOF. ( I understand there are exceptions if you are going for some sort artistic take on things like a blurred train speeding by for instance, but this applies to MOST cases ). OOF can be applied to not just simply missing the manual or AF, but perhaps panning technique, shutter speed, and holding technique was not proper. Thats my general opinion on it.

 

[thillsphotography]

Depending on the subject matter, I think it can make an incredible photo being out of focus

DSC_0008 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

My view anyway!

 

[KmH]

You can have motion blur that is in perfect focus.

Could you elaborate on that a bit, and/or link to some examples?
I don't get how motion blur can be perfecty focused.

 

[skieur]

From a strictly compositional point of view, the rule is that the major part of your subject MUST be sharp, in focus/not blurred by motion of camera, subject or anything else.

skieur

 

[PASM]

One stems from movement of the whole camera and/or subject and one stems from moving the lens to the wrong position using a focusing ring (either missed automatic focus or wrong manual).

What other thoughts are bouncing around out there concerning this?

Out-of-focus could result from either 'operator error' or the subject changing position. I think they are just different ways of expressing an effect...one is empirical the other is vernacular.

 

[Light Artisan]

You can have motion blur that is in perfect focus.

Could you elaborate on that a bit, and/or link to some examples?
I don't get how motion blur can be perfecty focused.

Here's an example, bird is in focus but the wings were moving too fast for the shutter speed:

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

You can have motion blur that is in perfect focus.

Could you elaborate on that a bit, and/or link to some examples?
I don't get how motion blur can be perfecty focused.

Here's an example, bird is in focus but the wings were moving too fast for the shutter speed:

No, you have motion blur that is seperate from the focused portion of the subject. The bird is in flight there for the focused body is technically in motion also, yet you managed to freeze it in sharp focus.

Nice shot BTW.

 

[Overread36]

You can have motion blur that is in perfect focus.

Could you elaborate on that a bit, and/or link to some examples?
I don't get how motion blur can be perfecty focused.

Hmm its easy - just focus the camera correctly on anything and then use a shutter speed too slow to stop blur from motion (either at the subject end or at the camera holding end). The result is a shot that is in focus, but which also has blurred details on the subject. You can also see this lots with panning shots - blurred wheels on cars, blurred legs on animals and wings - blurred propellers on aircraft etc.....


As for me there is a difference between out of focus and blur through motion and often I see this fall apart in macro shooting. I'll see people comment that "the shot is out of focus" when the focus is clearly correct (you can see both advancing and retreating blur and the plane of focus in the shot) but the details are still blurred - in these cases its the result of shutter speeds to slow to freeze motion (hand or subject or both) and can also be from apertures that were too small (diffraction softening appearing like blur even on in focus areas with a correct shutter speeD)

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

You can have motion blur that is in perfect focus.

Could you elaborate on that a bit, and/or link to some examples?
I don't get how motion blur can be perfecty focused.

Hmm its easy - just focus the camera correctly on anything and then use a shutter speed too slow to stop blur from motion (either at the subject end or at the camera holding end). The result is a shot that is in focus, but which also has blurred details on the subject. You can also see this lots with panning shots - blurred wheels on cars, blurred legs on animals and wings - blurred propellers on aircraft etc.....

)

But those blurred portions, the wheels, blurred legs and wings ( the motion blur itself ) is not in focus. You can have a photo containing multiple elements, but they are seperate. Thats like saying that because I selectively color a flower in a monochrome image, that the monochrome portrion is now both monochrome as well as vibrant with color.

 

[Light Artisan]

Goonies, you're wrong... my example proves it. Sorry, but the whole bird is in focus, I'm not skilled nor fast enough to get just the body in focus... if the wings were still they would not be blurred. Motion blur and focus are two different things, you can have both - it's not a one or the other situation.