Not to pile on here, but when I see/hear someone using "artistic" to describe one of their own photos, I cannot help but flinch, even without looking at the photo. Maybe its just pavlovian conditioning, but almost every thread where someone posted their "artistic" shots went down in flames. That's not to say that artistic shots are not possible, but it's up to the viewing audience to decide whether the shot is artistic.
The first image has a bright spot (the sun I presume) surrounded by some dark shapes. For this to work, we should be able to recognize what the shapes are, and what the relation is between the bright spot and the surrounding shapes. Usually, well-executed OOF shots use color contrast or some other visual attribute to draw attention to an element of the image, and the out-of-focus area serves to frame the area of interest. Really good OOF images make you stop and tease out the hints in the image.
The second image is clearly of a field, but out of focus. Nothing particularly noteworthy or attention-grabbing there. If you think of a picture as a short story, what kind of narrative does this image convey?
Third image is identifiable, but here the question is, what do you want us to see? The focus is on some green berries at the lower center. However, the depth-of-field is sufficient for us to see the foliage around, which is sharp enough to compete for attention with the berries.
For images to be interesting to viewers, there has to be something there to make us care and take the time to look. You have only a few seconds to make a good impression, and if you don’t capture the viewers attention early, they will move on.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31757-4f5257d19be4e34c6bdcbd2519380d53.jpg?1734160480)
