Can I post blurry photographs and be cool with that?

Stephane Tougard

Well-Known Member
By it's very definition, photography is the art or the process of producing images of an object on a photosensitive area, either chemically (film) or electronically (sensor). "Art" in this context is not to be taken in its first degree but as a synonym for "skills" : "If you describe an activity as an art, you mean that it requires skill and that people learn to do it by instinct or experience, rather than by learning facts or rules." (Collins dictionnary).

Photography is not a process of creation, it's a process of "production" and it changes everything. Because we do not create photographs, we reproduce an object (a landscape, a situation, a product, a person) on a support. This object may be a piece of art, it may even be created by the photographer itself, it does not make the photography of this object a creation, but just the reproduction of this creation.

A camera is a tool to record and produce images.

A photography is better when it's focused and correctly exposed because it give a better view of the object that was taken on the photograph. The photographer has some latitude in his art to alter significantly the picture to give a more dramatic sense. Very often, the photographer makes reference to the work of other photographers to give a sense of nostalgie to the image, this practice is common in most activities, we tend to reproduce what we know.

It makes that a photograph carries two kind of informations:

- The reproduction of the object
- The alteration of the photographer

Some photographs contains such a valuable information (they reproduce a very rare object), that the perfection of its technical production don't carry a vital importance.

Capa,_D-Day1.jpg Capa,_D-Day2.jpg

Those photographs of Robert Capa are blurry, but they contain very valuable information. There is an historic event of the first importance that will never occur again. Nobody cares the framing, the alteration, the composition, the focus ... Robert Capa himself did not care much about that when he made them. His point was to witness a moment. For those shots, the answer is yes, a photograph can be blurry and the photographer can be cool with that.

In some case, we want to make a blurry photograph, or at least a partially blurry photograph because it's part of the object we want to reproduce.

DSC_6151.jpg

In this picture, the blurry part emphase the feeling of speed of the object in the photo. It's an alteration of the photographer to emphase part of the information he wants to pass in his picture.

We find as well this kind of alteration when we want to isolate a subject from its background using a narrow DOF.

There is a third case when some photographers can blur a photograph for no apparent reason and still be cool with that.

Screenshot 2024-01-06 at 13.25.42.png

That's a painting of Picasso. We all know Picasso, he was a great painter and we owe him for his work. But that picture in particular is a piece of shit, it could have been done by my nephew of 8 yo. We would have encouraged him and told him that's great, he can paint like Picasso. Fact is that the only thing who gives any value to such a picture is the signature of Picasso.

I don't know if this behavior is alienating, but it's clearly misleading because it gives the impression that we can create anything and it's good to go, that there is no background rules to understand, no skill to acquire, no experience required to make a good shot (or a good painting). It created the modern art (in French, Art contemporain, we say "Art comptant pour rien" or "Art counting for nothing") where the creation does not matter anymore, the only thing who matters is who created it (and what is the BS behind his "creation").

Excuse this long article, but I'll finish with Victor Hugo here, and I quote :

“Votre livre est-il manqué ? tant pis. N’ajoutez pas de chapitres à un livre manqué. Il est incomplet ? il fallait le compléter en l’engendrant.”

"Your book is bad ? So be it. Do not add a chapter to a bad book. It's not complete ? you should have done it while you were creating it".

If your shot is not good out of the camera, it's not good at all. Post process a blurry shot who carries no significant information will not make the picture interesting. Learn how to focus properly and remake the photograph will get a much better result on the long run (not everybody has the chance to carry the name of Picasso).
 
Last edited:
You might wanna take this up with William Klein or Daidō Moriyama for eg...

Two minutes on google reveals endless examples of photographers with way more right to have an opinion than anyone on this forum who use blur.

Some reading:

You can say you don't like it, but attempting to apply rules to photography... well, it just feels reductive and a little sad to me. The beauty of photography, like any form of art, is that it is subjective and can and should be enjoyed with that in mind.

It can and should also be enjoyable by anyone with any skill level too. Yes, it's important to some to learn the skills and the techniques, and even the history, but to exclude people who don't, can't, won't etc is just gatekeeping. What harm does anyone without any skills or understanding commit by experimenting and enjoying the process of using photography to create images that might not fit your conventions...?

In short, if you don't like blur in photography, great, I totally respect that. But suggesting that there should only be a set few ways that blur can or should be used in photography by other people who might think and feel differently to you seems alien, and as I say, quite sad to me.
 





It can and should also be enjoyable by anyone with any skill level too. Yes, it's important to some to learn the skills and the techniques, and even the history, but to exclude people who don't, can't, won't etc is just gatekeeping. What harm does anyone without any skills or understanding commit by experimenting and enjoying the process of using photography to create images that might not fit your conventions...?

I can take all the ingredients in my kitchen and mix them up in any random order, then cook them at a random temperature. I'm quite sure that will exclude me from being a good cook. Cooking is like any "art" (refer to my original post for the definition of "art"), it has rules,
and anybody who does not know them, who did not practice them, who did not work with them can not claim to make "art" by making random stuff.

A great cook will not mix up randomly because he knows those rules with such perfection that he can play with them.

It's misleading and it's even alienating to make young cooks believe that they can become great cooks without following any rules. Everybody can learn the rules and nobody has the choice to ignore them in the false pretext of "creativity" and without dooming themself in a dead end.
In short, if you don't like blur in photography, great, I totally respect that. But suggesting that there should only be a set few ways that blur can or should be used in photography by other people who might think and feel differently to you seems alien, and as I say, quite sad to me.

Nobody here, not me, not you, nobody, has the skills and the experience to play outside of basic rules and claim that this is creativity and art. We can do it for fun, after all it's not forbidden to mix up chocolate and chicken breast and try to eat the result after 48 hours in the freezer, under the false pretext of creating a new dish. Result is disgusting and not edible.

We are on an amateur forum and our main goal should be to try to educate ourselves to the best of our abilities.

And please, do not compare your self with William Klein under the pretext that he has done some blurry shots and you can do the same. The "art" of photography is acquired mostly by practice, William Klein has studied painting and sculpture before being a photographer, he has a lifetime of practice and knows all the rules one billions times better than any of us. If he has broken a few rules, it's definitely not by ignorance (as I said, not everybody carries the name of Picasso).
 
Ha, as if I was comparing myself… 😂

Perhaps you could send me a link to where I can read about all these rules of yours. I’d also be interested to know at which point in my career I am allowed to begin to break them?
 
And please, do not compare your self with William Klein under the pretext that he has done some blurry shots and you can do the same.
With all respect, I don't think Hamish was even considering making such a comparison - as he said himself in the next sentence, he doesn't think he's qualified to comment - hence the reference to those who might be.
Personally I think he's in a better position to comment than many... but that might just be in comparison to myself. ;)

it's not forbidden to mix up chocolate and chicken breast and try to eat the result after 48 hours in the freezer
Bllaauugh!😆
Result is disgusting and not edible.
Quite.

On this whole topic, I wonder sometimes how much different cultural backgrounds affect what we consider 'art' and what we consider, well, nonsense.
Aurellien Pierre is a French photographer and software developer, who I came across through his extensive work on darktable before he left the project on multiple differences of opinion.

He has very strong and fixed opinions on what is art or even just good work, and what is not, perhaps a little like yourself, Stephane.

Whereas to contrast this, I know a few English photographers who - like Hamish perhaps! - take a much broader, perhaps more lenient approach to this.

I don't really think there's one right or wrong way to look at it. And as is probably evident, I don't have any right to claim any opinion on this - I have no formal education in anything artistic.

But it does seem a shame to let different views get in the way of friendly discussion - which I've seen happen on multiple occasions.
As they say, it takes all kinds to make a world.
 
Well well, @Hamish Gill, if you do manage to get a glimpse of this Holy Grail of photography rules, please let us know. Not sure a happy snappin' pleb like me is worthy, though... ah well, back to my box Brownie😏
 
Last edited:
Ha, as if I was comparing myself… 😂

Perhaps you could send me a link to where I can read about all these rules of yours. I’d also be interested to know at which point in my career I am allowed to begin to break them?

You do whatever you want, once again, if you think that mixing up chicken breast and chocolate and freeze the result is a valid attempt to build a new dish, that's all good for me as long as I don't have to eat it.
 
He has very strong and fixed opinions on what is art or even just good work, and what is not, perhaps a little like yourself, Stephane.

He has no strong and fixed opinions, he's a real technician who knows his topic. Maybe he was tired at some point of hearing BS about creativity and art to justify very average work.



 
Yes, exactly the point. You don’t have to eat it…
But if you’re not going to eat it, then maybe you shouldn’t judge it either.

Incidentally… https://www.wandercooks.com/mexican-chicken-mole-recipe/

😉

I did not judge it, you're the one judging and commenting my writings about photography, defining it as "alienating", whatever that means.

In fact, I do not say anything different than what photographers had to learn in the 90's (and before) when they were serious about it. I don't remember any serious book talking about "creativity" and "art". But I remember reading books about chemistry, composition, lighting a subject in a studio, optics ... it was mostly technical (which is normal, photography is a technical subject).

The only none technical advise that most very good photographers, such as Jean Loup Sieff, were giving was to watch the work of established photographers and painters (via books and exhibitions), go out and shoot, shoot again, shoot until you can not shoot anymore.
 
Photography simply isn’t only a technical subject - I can’t get my head around even the idea of separating photography from creativity… such a profoundly limiting and blinkered way to approach the subject…

That said…

Shall we leave it there…? I don’t really think this conversation is going to go anywhere productive from here. Perhaps agree to disagree and move on…?
 
I think the thing that this 'disagreement' for want of a better word has stemmed from, is that (correct me if I'm wrong!) @Stephane Tougard has simply written up his approach and thoughts on his photography, while @Hamish Gill - and myself to some extent - read it as more like a lecture, somehow implying that in Stephanes view, our approach is not valid.

I may be speaking for myself here, but maybe this is one of those langauge/cultural things again - I have the utmost respect for the more rigid approach to any artistic endevour, I just don't think that the practitioners of that approach should belittle or scorn those with a more free an easy approach.
And from Stephane's last reply, I don't think that was his intention?
 
I think the key is to be capable of consistently producing a well-exposed, well-focused and well-composed photo. Once a person has reached that point, there is no reason for them to feel restricted in what they do in camera. I'll just leave this here (Shona Perkins):

https://mybeautifulscotland.com/gallery

BTW, @Hamish Gill, coincidentally there was chicken mole in one of my dreams last night. 😂
 
Back
Top