So, is this a Finished Print or an attempt to pass of as "art" something that most photographers throw away?

The focus (or lack thereof) was intentional. When I started printing, I liked the combination of soft focus, and the sharp divisions between the bands of the test print. I spent a while getting a range of exposure and width of bands to a point that I liked.

-- mike rosenlof (mike_rosenlof@yahoo.com), February 13, 2002

Answers

I'd say it's closer to the latter (though it might be worth saving as a rough draft of an idea). I think the technique could be interesting if the photo to which it was applied were stronger and somehow benefited from the effect. As it is, it strikes me as just an exercise in technique.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 13, 2002.

If the subject happened to be famous, you'd be considered a genius! (Just like Andy Warhol.)

Conversely, if you do it to every shot (in slightly different ways), you'll probably be hailed as having a completely new perspective on representational photography.

If you like it, keep exploring this and similar techniques.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 14, 2002.

Is it a finished print, art, or trash? I guess that depends on what you as the author want it to be. The fact that you put some thought into the project and experimented with it certainly makes it more than trash.

Is it art? If it manages to express something beyond the immediate image, something that resonates with the viewer, then probably yes. If it's an attempt to copy someone elses form of expression (such as pop art), I would guess no.

Ultimately, the answer lies with you and what you want the image to be. I don't think you can delegate that responsibility to the viewer.

-- Chris Marolf (70214.2664@compuserve.com), February 15, 2002.

Thanks everybody. This was part of a bunch of things I was trying related to limited focus, and intentional motion blur, and the like. Most of the photos I've done in this little investigation have been on 4x5 (including this one). I obviously thought this was not total trash--I would have tossed it. The straight out of focus print did nothing for me, but this I found at least somewhat interesting.

I've been happier in general with photos taken with very limited depth of field, but something in sharp focus than with everything blurred. Subjects other than people have been more successful to me.

I've made a few photos or people with a lot of blur due to subject motion that I think have been more successful (exposure times in minutes). One of these days I'll get around to posting one or two of them.

-- mike rosenlof (mike_rosenlof@yahoo.com), February 19, 2002.