13 Examples of Great Photos When Being Out of Focus Makes the Shot
The quest for tack sharp photos is something most photographers are on the quest for – but sometimes it is a lack of focus can really make a shot what it is. Here are 12 images that either are completely ‘unfocused’ or which use focus selectively. Learn more about the technique of taking unfocused images here.
Image by Tiago Ribeiro
Image by VictoriaPeckham
Image by Jeff Kubina
Image by Brian Auer
Image by Young Toymaker
Image by dotbenjamin
Image by RobW
Image by Pulpolux
Image by Gabriela Camerotti
Image by abstrato
Image by abstrato
Image by Joe Penniston
Image by nathangibbs
64 Responses to “13 Examples of Great Photos When Being Out of Focus Makes the Shot” - Add Yours
August 11th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Great examples indeed.
No focus is just another way of breaking the rules, and it’s one of the easiest and first ‘rule’ to be broken, when photographer is starting to explore more than just the sharp focus and perfect exposure – And that’s always welcome :)
Here is an example of nightly urban view with no focus – http://www.ilanbresler.com/2008/10/night.html – I used the 50mm f/1.8 for this shot.
August 11th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Nice selections. I’ll certainly give a try the next time i’ll go out to take photos.
I tried to break that rule of focus during last 14th of July ( National holyday in france). I think it works great with fireworks too ;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/art-e-fact/3719696747/ (I used a nikon D90 and Sigma 28-70 F2.8 @ 58mm).
August 11th, 2009 at 2:39 am
Interesting technique but for my part, i believe that only a few of the shots presented are trully thought of purposely out of focus shots and the others seem to me to be just mistakes that turned out somewhat good.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:12 am
I’ve found that the most useful out of focus shots for me are ones that can be used as textures in other photos, as wallpapers, or that can be re-purposed for graphic design purposes. They don’t necessarily have to serve as stand along photos.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:16 am
I love shots that break the standards… and think these out of focus shots are very creative and artistic! could make for a good project :)
August 11th, 2009 at 3:41 am
The only images I liked were those who still focused on something.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:56 am
I was at a 49ers training camp and got this accidentally out of focus shot. I think my camera is in love.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:58 am
You really have to know what you’re doing and what you want from the shot. Otherwise you might be really disappointed when you missed a great shot because it’s completely out of focus. Personally, I always try to capture scenes as sharp as possible because you can always add lense blur afterwards. It’s not as good as real depth of field but gives you more flexibility. Try saving a picture that’s out of focus. No chance.
My rule of thumb is: capture as much detail and information as possible and do the artistic stuff in post production.
That’s my amateur approach to photography, as I said, if you have a picture in mind and you know exactly what you’re doing, you can try this. If you miss a great shot because of this, you might regret it.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:10 am
Yeah, I have to agree that I think what makes a good photograph is focus. Not necessarily literally (i.e. sharp images) but some sort of focus. I like the first image because of its simplicity. The out of focus has a purpose. The only other shots I like is when something is in focus, especially the shot of the child chasing the bubbles and the boat. I personally don’t really see the point of the extremely out of focus blur. I like the one of the woman on the couch as it is just enough out of focus to have an interesting artistic flair. As for the rest… not a fan. But that’s what great about art. I don’t have to love it because I know someone out there will.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Hm, somehow I only like the 8. image a bit. the “totally out of focus” images give me nothing. I agreee more with reznor that this can be done more easily in Photoshop (but usually shoudn’t).
August 11th, 2009 at 4:47 am
I agree that the blur effect can be easily added in post… however, I think there’s a certain quality to intentionally out of focus photos that are shot that way, as opposed to those that are “fixed” later. Out of focus subjects might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but there’s nothing wrong with a little experimentation – which is what I think this article is really about.
I’m really quite fond of photo #12, I don’t think it would be anything remarkable without the blur and the hints of natural bokeh on the rim of the boat, but with them it’s a really beautiful shot.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:55 am
I tried this while camping a few weeks ago. Was able to catch my family on Grandpa’s fishing boat. I really like the out of focus effect.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2492/3749974790_0547fd430d_b.jpg
August 11th, 2009 at 4:58 am
The only shot that is even worth publishing is the pool shot, That illustrates Depth of focus. All the other shots are just badly framed. Theres a difference between soft and out of focus.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:58 am
These remind me a bit of an I took a few months ago.
August 11th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Before you say you don’t like these, imagine them blown up very large for wall hangings. Sometimes you want something muted that just adds to the color of a room. You can create amazing abstract art by just aiming the camera and blowing the focus out. I love it.
And no, I disagree that you can achieve similar results in post with Photoshop or whatever. You can approximate the look but it will always look fake. Blur filters just make a soupy mess by spreading pixels around. Real lens blur gives a very magical glow that almost gives away the lens used (some of these pics are using a 50/1.8 I think) because of the way the light is diffused by the optics. Specular highlights, bokeh, I’ve never seen this capability convincingly rendered by any plugin.
August 11th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Sorry, not convinced. They make my eyes hurt.
I am short sighted and the habit of trying to focus is hard to break.
‘Blurred’ paintings I can cope with, but blurred photos – No.
August 11th, 2009 at 5:50 am
@cath55: I agree with your statement about the shots making your eyes hurt.
August 11th, 2009 at 6:16 am
I don’t believe any of these are sooc intentionally unfocused shots…unless something else is in the mix (filter, gel, vaseline, you have it). Emphasis on sooc…maybe the 3-ball shot…but the rest have been processed for effect…I’d prefer the title “13 Examples of Great Photos When Being Out of Focus was the starting point in producing a great picture”
August 11th, 2009 at 7:06 am
i also agree with most the comments here… “a picture is worth a thousand words”.. make sure it says at least something comprehensible. It’s okay to leave a little mystery (the crowd, the statue, the pool player, the child with bubbles, the boat).. as long as the general gist is given, let the viewer fill in the rest for themselves…. but when you can’t even make out a subject or emotion, it’s as if you’re thousand words are in a different language.
just my opinion
August 11th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Some of these images are focused on something within the image. Wouldn’t that just be called bokeh? Just trying to learn.
August 11th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Some of my favorite shots end up being accidents (and I don’t mind admitting it!) Baby squiggles out of my f1.4 DoF, sudden lighting change or test shot results in crazy overexposure. At this point in time, I’m working on thinking creatively when these accidents happen, rather than dismissing the pic as “wrong.” Next step in my personal photography development will be to make these “accidents” deliberate to get what I want.
I will say that some of the fully out of focus pics gave me a bit of a headache. (The B&W on the couch is nice, though.)
August 11th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I think some of these are interesting at least. I tried to do something like this.
http://picasaweb.google.com/D.VanAtta71/RiversidePark?authkey=Gv1sRgCNPI7aHVq4_jlQE#5368484692043177810
My friend who I was shooting with that day didn’t get it but i liked it.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Same thing happened to me and i ended up loving the photo
August 11th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I like the image by dotbenjamin. This technique may not be everyone’s cup of tea but it’s worth trying it out.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
August 11th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
How about this one from NiH: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mybd/3190408285/
Not exactly an “Out of Focus” frame, but things that *are beyond the focusing perimeter is what makes the shot so vibrant and interesting.
August 11th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I like this style!
August 11th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I think some of these don’t qualify as out of focus, but rather selective focus. Namely the bubbles, pool, grass, and boat.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
This site has been taken over by negative, judgmental people who refuse to allow that anyone with a vision different from their own is capable of producing anything worthwhile.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I find the out of focus style to have some great posibilities creating a certain type of mood and atmosphere. The mickey mouse one is fantastic and the girl on the bed quite mysterious and alluring.
Heres one of my onpurpose unfocused picks: http://www.flickr.com/photos/larrycabin/3810710913/
August 12th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Ilan, that shot reminds me of the old Blue Note album covers. Nicely done.
This was a happy accident. I was at a riding stable with my girlfriend. I was carrying a P&S. I caught this:
http://www.zooomr.com/photos/rxpictures/7947825/
August 12th, 2009 at 1:37 am
I really need to get that Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 for my D60. I think it will help me with these kind of photos.
August 13th, 2009 at 4:42 am
I like to experiment these types of shots. I think It would be harder to explain what you wanted to capture in the scene.
August 13th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Nice examples. And some of the photos posted here among the comments would be worth publisjhing in the main post… :)
Here is my contribution, let me know what you think of it.
http://laci.blog.hu/2008/11/25/amsterdam_by_weed
August 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Wow, excellent shots dude. Well done indeed!
RT
http://www.anon-web-tools.net.tc
August 13th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
many of those socalled ‘great’ photos can be done by just about anyone having a hand, a finger and a camera … most are plain dull and don’t trigger any emotion whatsoever … others have definitely style (such as the boat and the billiard player) … however, i’m still wondering what’s to digg on this page
August 13th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I find this type of photography really fun and can make you really look at the way you shoot.
It’s clever to try something different.
Thanks for the links!
August 13th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I think some of these don’t qualify as out of focus, but rather selective focus. Namely the bubbles, pool, grass, and boat..
August 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
1. Grab the 35mm f/1.8
2. Take a picture of something. Anything.
3. Bask in your genius.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:06 am
Out of focus shots give me a headache.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Looking at the ones that are entirely (and extremely) out of focus messes with my eyes unless they are very simple and graphic, like the first one (which I love). Generally I think I prefer the ones with at least some part in focus, or at least my brain and eyes like them better…:)
August 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
I respectfully disagree. None of these images work for me, specifically because they are out of focus.
August 14th, 2009 at 10:20 am
As I look at each shot I want to understand the reason behind the shot. In reaching the public I believe a good shot is one that makes the mind reach a conclusion, and each person looking at the photo will reach their own conclusion. Capturing a persons imagination is a great thing. Be selective, with purpose and a story behind your shots. Out of focus shots are great if it gives someone the ability to come to some conclusion as to its purpose.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Coming from a fine arts background, I found that i liked all of these images, whether they are or are not intentionally out of focus. To me they “break the mould” of traditional photography, which, as I have read from reviews here, many people do not like. I realize that some of the totally out of focus shots could be construed as not being photography, but then what about over-processed HDR images and Photoshop altered images? Are these still photographs, when compared to tack sharp unaltered photos?
August 14th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I better examine my out of focus shots before deleting them.
August 15th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Isn’t photography considered an art? Everyone doesn’t have to love every form of art or every art piece for that matter. Take it or leave it, but don’t condem it. I believe it comes down to ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder.’
August 16th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Another great example here, that reminded me of this post so I had to share it!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seymikins/3792600082/
August 16th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Darren, I wouldn’t refer to the 4 images that are not fully out of focus as “in selective focus,” because all shots that are in focus somewhere are selectively focused on some number of potential subjects. This is true even if all potential subjects are in focus – the entire frame – in, say, a photo made at f/64 and focused at the hyperfocal distance with everything closer to the lens placed out of the frame… who’s to say that focus on everything is not the point of the shot? Moreover, most images are truly focused only on part of the frame – it’s just the bokeh here that makes the issue of focus so… well… sharp. :-)
Instead, the images you’ve selected raise the intriguing question of how to read a photograph – e.g., what are the primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. (or “main” and “supporting”) subjects of the composition? This is an aesthetic and interpretive question. From one perspective, the intention of the photographer determines the importance of elements in the composition. For example, RobW may have considered the three ball to be the primary subject of his composition, waiting to be struck by the cue ball, cue stick and player – all of which are then secondary elements informing appreciation of the three ball.
From another perspective, though, the photographer’s intentions are irrelevant and the viewer decides how the photograph itself speaks. Obviously, this is going to be at least as much about the viewer and his or her worldview as about the photograph itself. For example, by referring to RobW’s pool shot as “in selective focus” and in the context of a post on “out of focus” shots, you may be of the opinion that the pool player is the main subject of the shot – or perhaps that the entire tableau of pool table, cue, balls and player is the unitary subject of the shot. In that case, the image selectively focuses on a secondary element to create a certain effect on the player through bokeh (perhaps making her mysterious or saying something about her singular concentration on the task at hand, i.e., she is the three ball, Zen-like).
In contrast, I may be of the opinion that I described above as potentially that of the photographer, in which the three ball is the main subject and the image is all about impending impact, calm before the storm, etc. In this case, the image is no more in “selective focus” than if it were a head shot, because the primary subject is entirely in focus.
On the other hand, I might be in a mood in which I’m primarily interested in the point of impact between the cue stick and the cue ball – the point at which the intention of the player meets the destiny of the three ball (at least, assuming she’s a decent shot). In that case, I’d want the narrow field of focus further back, to catch the cue ball and the player’s hand. Of course, this angle is not optimal for that composition, but even if it were optimal, this three-ball image fails if I’m reading for that point of cue-stick impact. So, when folks say that they don’t like the images in this thread, they may just be looking for – reading for – something else. Of course, once you get to the completely out-of-focus images, you get to representational vs. abstract, photography as art vs. recording and so forth.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:13 am
It’s a nice twist but how does anyone know wether the photographers iintent was to shoot out of focus in the first place. If a profession and I were to take the exact same shot who would receive the acalades. I certainly have had my quota of out-of-focus shots. Although mine were not intentional who’s to say if one of those may become a prized picture.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
That’s an excellent point, gerryymar. In my experience knowing proessional photographers a good portion of our best or favorite work is accidental. The secret is we just don’t tell anyone that!
August 21st, 2009 at 2:53 am
I like a lot out of focus shots, but those here…well, I don’t know…the second one seems interesting to me. The rest look just like focus mistakes or aperture forgotten on f4 instead of f11
August 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
They’re all great shots, but they do follow one rule. If you break a rule, break it good and hard.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:20 am
Not entirely OT, Lucrecia Martel is an Argentinian filmmaker of considerable ability (comparisons have been made with Michelangelo Antonioni). Her latest “The Headless Woman” is in release. In this film she employs shallow DOF and blur-inducing lenses to tell the story.
http://micropsia.blogspot.com/2009/08/mystery-of-lucrecia-martels-headless.html
August 29th, 2009 at 6:54 am
I like some of the shot – they create illusion
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Interesting article. I really like the photo with Mickey Mouse.
September 4th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Every time I see shots with no focus, especially when they are lauded as having artistic value, I scratch my head. Call me backwards and uncultured.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:52 am
What a load of utter crap. Artsy-fartsy nonsense from people who are bored with life and have to think up stupid novelties to amuse themselves. The emperor has no clothes and these images have no merit.
As someone who has worn glasses most of my life, these images mostly just give me a headache. The entire world looks like that to me until I find my glasses and it’s just annoying.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Hey cascade,
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who wishes you could express yourself in a kinder manner. Thanks.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Hark! cascadehush has pronounced, and it therefore must be so!
Also: you kids get offa my lawn!
September 7th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Brian said “what makes a good photograph is focus. Not necessarily literally (i.e. sharp images) but some sort of focus.”. I agree.
Nikonboy’s photo of the bike works for me because something about it (a graininess or texture maybe?) helps my eyes rest on the canvas. I think the strong colours and contrast help too.
However just plain blurred makes my eyes ache as they insist on trying to focus on something that can’t be focused. However, add something to the image such as a texture, and they are happy. The main image is still not sharp but the ‘edges’ of the texture help the eye stop at the ‘canvas’ rather than trying to find a point in the distance where it thinks it will find focus but that doesn’t actually exist.. This is probably why I don’t have a problem with fuzzy paintings such as those by Turner.
It would be interesting to run a poll to see whether there is any correlation between disliking blurred photos and short-sightedness.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:25 am
I appreciate art in all of its forms, and I respect those who do things differently than I would. That said, I have to say that completely out of focus shots give me a headache. Always have, and I can’t STAND it when they do it in film, either. Even just a few seconds of it gives me a headache.
The shots with bokeh or selective focus, however, were very nice. I love the shot of the pool table and of the boat. I think those were the best. The one with the girl on the couch was nice, too.
ALL OF THAT SAID, I’m always happy to read up on new/different techniques, and I may play with this, despite the physical fact that I get a headache. Why? It will help me learn my camera even better. (Nikon D60, bought last April.)
September 10th, 2009 at 5:26 am
I loved NIkonBoy’s photo! It has a very impressionist feel and looks almost more like a painting. Well done, man!
September 25th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
not all but some of the pics above really caught my attention.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
this is one that I took a few months ago – at my ex’s wedding – intentionally making the bridal group out of focus – and NOT because it WAS my ex’s wedding. it is only TODAY though that I realised the flower was 1/2 dead. Still like the effect.
Leave a Reply