Blur versus Out-of-Focus: Discuss!

[ghache]

Motion and fast objects going too fast for the shutter create a totally different blur than camera shake.

Camera shakes create a very nastyblur to the whole image even if you focused correcly. IMO its the best way to ruin an image (even before bad composition). Thanks god for VR lens, camera high iso performance and mono/tripods.
On the other side, you can get a perfectly sharp focused subject even if some element of the pictures are "out of focus and blurred". That picture is can still be usuable and can turn out to be an interesting shot after all.

 

[table1349]

A question was posed in my thread ( http://<a href="http://www.thephoto...more-my-photos-your-viewing-pleasure.html</a>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?

Why, Are you felling a little farklempt? Put on a Barbra Streisand album. You'll feel better. http://www.nashvillescene.com/image...tch/b/original/1481089/673b/Linda_Richman.jpg :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

 

[Studio7Four]

My line of thinking exactly Overread. The reason I find it to be more than mere semantics is amateur TPF users, looking for C&C, can be taught properly what to do when a photo seems OOF. But is it really OOF or a blur? Telling them their photo is OOF when indeed it was in focus and the problem stems from too low of a shutter speed or camera movement, makes it difficult to correct their mistake when we send them down the wrong road. They may start to believe that a fault lies with their lens instead of not having a tripod (for example). I know it seems like semantics, it probably is and I'm just anal (well I stink like one). But I find each should have a distinct meaning to people so that we can correctly point users looking for C&C to the right technique.

Again, I tend to confuse people when I write, so if this is hard to follow, well, then I deserve nothing more than a good ear-beating.

Thanks for starting this thread. I agree that there is a need to distinguish between blur and out of focus, and hopefully this thread will get noobs (well, and others) thinking about the difference, regardless of what terminology they prefer. Let me throw another factor into the argument - a shallow depth of focus. I've seen examples of in which the photo has a very deep depth of focus so the subject doesn't stand out. In critique it was suggested that if the background were blurred the subject would pop; next thing you know the photographer has applied a guassian blur. Yes, the subject now stands out, but the background looks off. Objects closer to the subject should be less OOF than objects further behind. Had the photographer understood that this is a function of focus (distance) and not just of blur the photo would have looked better.