<<< o >>>in the distance 30 comments + add yours

Here's another one from my walk on Fleetwood beach with John yesterday afternoon – I'll be interested to hear what you make of it. Oh, and check out his latest entry, it's quite unusual (and no, I didn't get a good shot of it).

As for the wedding we shot today: it was fun. As always, my shots weren't as good as I would have hoped – shooting weddings is definitely not as easy as shooting for a blog – but we managed to get some good shots between us. Now all I need to do is edit down the 581 shots to around 300 then colour balance them all. What fun ;-)

1.58pm on 20/5/05

Canon 20D

EF 17-40 f/4L USM

40mm (64mm equiv.)



aperture priority






C1 Pro


focal length
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
image quality
RAW converter

3x2 + piers [Fleetwood] + fylde coast
comment by mattp at 10:13 PM (GMT) on 21 May, 2005

I just can't find a way in to this one I'm afraid Dave - the in-focus portion seems to act as a barrier rather than drawing me in, so my eye has to fall upon the structure in the background as the second point of interest, but it is too far out of focus to hold any attention.


comment by Martin Hruda at 10:17 PM (GMT) on 21 May, 2005

I like the photo, but it seems to me that there's too many objects blurred and I think the viewer would like to see more items than the iron pole.

comment by djn1 at 10:21 PM (GMT) on 21 May, 2005

matt: that was my wife's reaction to this shot too ... pretty much. I guess I have my own thoughts about this one, that I'll hold off mentioning for a while, but I suspect you won't be alone in your reaction.

Martin: yes, I suspect you're right ;-)

comment by nogger at 10:34 PM (GMT) on 21 May, 2005

I keep trying to focus on the building in the distance and, obviously, failing. It's a very strange sensation.

comment by jlb1982 at 10:35 PM (GMT) on 21 May, 2005

it's out of focus. it's a neat picture, but my eye was all trying to find something to rest on. then i saw that bar in the foreground. but since it looks too much like the rest of the dark structure it still gets lost. sorry.

comment by ross at 11:14 PM (GMT) on 21 May, 2005

what kind of eyes do you expect behind the ironbridges,-blur out-

comment by StuartR at 11:50 PM (GMT) on 21 May, 2005

This makes my eyes hurt, it seems well composed, but I would like to see more of the image in focus...

comment by s.hu at 12:03 AM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

i think whatever you like you should post - if this is something that you think is cool, more power to ya. it's good that you don;t hold back because of what others may think. definately unexpected, and i like that. i like how the eye travel never stops or settles on one area. convention, bah who needs it? ;)

comment by /\/\J at 12:54 AM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

i think if the pole in focus was brighter and stood out more it would be better. i still like the shot anyways

comment by VPra at 01:04 AM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

I somewhat see where you were trying to go with this Dave, but there is too much blur. Also, there is no real focal point that captivates me and i find all th objects under the bridge to be extermely dark. Not your best at all. Keep working at it mate.

comment by Nick at 02:51 AM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

I'm very interested to see why Dave likes it. For me, it does not seem to say or do anything. Allmost as if the shot were taken when you tripped the shutter by accident while focusing.

comment by bryanj at 04:13 AM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

this ones hard to look at. not like your others is it. i'm a little surprised you decided to go with this. on the other hand i'm not. i think thats what makes you so good photography. your not afraid to give it a go.

comment by Sharla at 04:19 AM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

I was a bit startled to open the shot and find it was apparently totally out of focus. Then I discovered the near bar. My feeling though is that the bar doesn't have enough presence to anchor the picture. I feel a bit like I've been hit between the eyes with that bar and now they refuse to focus.

I admit I'm confused by the underexposure effect and wide aperature to maximize the lack of focus. So, pray tell.

comment by fraxinus at 11:06 AM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

I found myself waiting for the image to pop into focus while loading - I thought it was a progressive jpeg!
Other than that, I pretty much agree with most of the other comments so far. It's a 'challenging' picture for the viewer, but if it has significant elements for you, as the photographer, then you are right to post it. I think that s.hu has picked up on one possibly relevant point - a picture without a real subject maybe?

comment by pierre-nelson at 11:26 AM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

Excellent, the fuzzy idea is excellent!

comment by doffer at 12:15 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

Hi david!

As the others commenting, i'm not able to find anywhere to rest my eyes... I'm just searching the whole picture for a focused and meaningfull spot, but the focused point is, in my eyes, to dark.. Good composition though it didn't turn out too god...

But i'm glad you gave it a shot, because it's really a challenging picture for the viewer, it just didn't make it all the way :(

Have a nice day, and keep the pictures coming, we love it :)

comment by Adrian Hudson at 12:27 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

Sorry Dave. I can't get this one at all. I thnik I see what you are aiming at but it doesn't work. Just TOO much out of focus. It tips over the edge of art into the realm of a misfocus shot. A casual observer would think "hah, his camera focussed on the closest object - he should have selected a focussing point manually". If it were mine it would be for the recycle bin.

comment by jcyrhs at 01:05 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

i can't get what you're trying to express through this one dave...

perhaps it's time u reveal the truth!

comment by Jem at 01:29 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

I think it's an interesting and querky shot. It's something different and that's what makes it interesting. Yes, maybe it doesn't conform to the standards most expect, but that would make it "normal", and there's nothing worse than being normal in my book ;)

comment by djn1 at 01:37 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

lol, I guess this one didn't quite work then ;-)

But to explain ...

I guess what I was after here is a shot that wasn't quite about anything – no central point of focus, no explicit center of attention. There's an interesting out of focus building in the center of the shot, a blurred structure off to the right, a forbidding sky and some distant hills. And all of these are 'balanced' by an overy dark bar in the foreground, too ill-defined to hold your attention for more than a moment. I guess, if anything, that I was going for a shot that couldn't be 'fixed'; one where your eye wanders around the scene failing to find a central point, wondering what it's all about.

Or, put another way, it's an attempt to play around with what a photograph 'should' be.

And, despite the experience being a negative one for most of you, I guess that that's what I achieved. All of which isn't much use though if nobody likes it ;-)

comment by btezra at 04:23 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

~a wee bit dark imo, constructively it's not a huge nit ater reading your thoughts above-your eye has a unique quality that invents itself over and over, that's the key. I/eye am wandering, which is a fine attribute of the frame; make me see ALL of it, that's a bonus..~

comment by Fellow Eskimo at 04:53 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

Well, yours is really dark, not really in focus, and not that all captivating. I guess I dont particularly care for it ;) But your friends...blob thing he got is intresting...

comment by jcyrhs at 05:38 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

so i guessed. You were trying to break the "photography rules"...

"the wanderer"

comment by .:pvav.photoblog:. at 07:41 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

Very interesting photo.

comment by Daaave at 07:49 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

Hmm, not great imo. Underexposed and the choice of DOF doesn't do a lot for me.

comment by djn1 at 08:57 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

It just goes to show that the number of comments does not equate with an image's worth ;-)

Thanks everyone.

comment by m d at 09:56 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

When the concept takes precedence over the actual final output, it's time to sit back, relax, smoke a fatty, and just come up with something just plain beautiful ;)

comment by Ryan Rahn at 10:14 PM (GMT) on 22 May, 2005

I also think the effect would have been better if the focused pole was better lit. It is the only thing in focus and it hardly stands out at all. Interesting effect, though.

comment by s.hu at 01:02 AM (GMT) on 23 May, 2005

i already made a comment on this one, but i would now like to say that i love it. completely love it, though it seems i am the only one. like i said, i love that my eye never stops looking for a place to land, and it's even better now that you said that was your intent ;)

comment by flygirl at 07:03 PM (GMT) on 23 May, 2005

Hmmm, didn't take the time to check out the other comments, so I have no idea if people liked it or not. I like the idea, mostly the idea of the frame, but it's too blurry for me. Would have liked to see more in focus... But that's just IMHO...