Ex 2.5

I think that there is a similarity with the infinity focused shots and the effects that can be obtained by doing double exposures. It might be nice to try that out, see if I can blend the blurred foreground (or the background) with the superimposed second shot using the camera's in built double exposure mode...
I also think these shots show us a real difference between a more traditional style of painting and a photograph: the inclusion of a blurred part - something that I never remember seeing in early painting: everything was always in focus.
This game of foreground and background in terms of clarity and blur is something which distinguishes photography from painting, I think. I've taken a look at some truly amazing hyperrealistic portraits in pencil, or ballpoint pens, and acrylic, and the undeniable technical skill is so ridiculously good - verging on the insane even; however, they are almost always copied from a photograph and the DoF they have (when they have it) mirrors the effect of the lens, and not the human eye. That is why we only see this shallow DoF in these hyperrealistic portraits after the invention and diffusion of amateur photography (starting from the mid 19th century) and not before.
Am I waffling here?


References


http://diegokoi.deviantart.com/gallery/ [Accessed 29/03/2016]
http://vianaarts.deviantart.com/art/Redhead-Girl-Ballpoint-Pen-310870595?ga_submit_new=10%253A1354630716&ga_type=edit&ga_changes=1
[Accessed 29/03/2016]
http://www.pedrocampos.net/index.htm  [Accessed 29/03/2016]





Comments