"2001: A Space Odyssey" comes to mind.

I recently tried removing my lens and shooting through an 8x loupe by holding it in front of the lens flange and adjusting "focus" by moving it back and forth. I'll let you know if anything interesting comes of it.

David, this is wonderful. In its imprecision you've captured more feeling than ever... You've also managed to make a photo which seems as artistic as John Singer Sargent.

MAGIC!

i like the experiment, but i'm not a fan of the white 'blob' (her hand?) i would have liked to see her whole face

bjorn: the 'white blob' is the shoulder of a fairy costume she was wearing this afternoon.

Even with the imprecision you can see a lot on this one. The eyes add a sence of magic to the blur felling of the rest . I have missed this young lady. Long time with out seeing her :) Was the coustum of a little princes?

Since I'm checking your blog daily, I always enjoyed your portraits the most. This one is awesome.

It may have been a fluke but I really like the effect. You can make an awfull lot of money in L.A. taking shots like this! The stars would be queueing up and you're cheaper than Botox.

Just as I know her!

ok, i think it takes away a little too much of her face

Dave... I'm not sure anything close to a 'sharp focus' happened with this at al :) I'll give you 3 reasons why I don't like this:

1) I think there is too much dead space on the right.
2) The fact that it's out of focus makes it seem like it was done by an amateur.
3) That blob .. that you say is part of her dress, halos over too much of her lips and chin (as bjorn said)..

I'm sorry that I have to be the first black sheep in your herd, but I'm not much a fan of toying with portraits, especially ones of kids..

Feel free to dispute me everyone ;) .. but I hardly think this is magical.

I am more in Miklos' camp than the admirers'. Too blurry for my taste. I found it interesting, though, that the thumbnail at the top of the comments page seems crisper and I like it better.

I'm with miklos on this, frustrating image that doesn't invite the observer to participate.

You just fly on up and we just shoot you down.

Upon saying this your ego gets enough compliments, so, this still doesn't sway the balance ;)

Interesting attempt, but not of Chromasia standards :)

I had come across a similar attempt at
http://homepages.iitb.ac.in/~grover/photoblog/050224.htm

As always, looking forward to tomorrows shot, David.

I love this photo because again it has very graphic qualities which I know (or think I know is a hallmark Daves work)

Miklos: The dead space you refer to is perhaps more correctly called 'white space' and it is used for many reasons but usually to create a certain amount of tension in an image.

The eye is the most dominating feature and is placed unequaly from all edges of the photographic plane (the frame) again this adds an amount dynamic interest.

To soft focus look therefore provides a suitable contrast to the graphic qualities of this shot.

Also I know this has nothing to do with it but in editorial photography this would provide a nice area to run some type across the white space.

The white blob adds interest for me but only because the eye is strong enough to hold the picture together.

Thats my take on it anyway.

I apologize if someone already said this since I haven't read through the comments yet, but I think the problem is that her shirt is white. If you tried the same shot with her in a black shirt I think it would recede more and your eye would be drawn to her face instead of trying to figure out if that's her shirt or her hand, and the sort of blending that's going on between her face and her top would be gone.

John: That is a fairly biased response in my opinion aimed directly to protect a friend. Which is totally respectable. However, I find it questionable that Dave thought of all of those technical aspects when he took this photo. Especially when he said "I was aiming for a more sharply focussed shot, and am not sure what happened with this one"..
With any level of psychoanalysis, _any_ photograph can be looked at as "art" .. But in my opinion a photograph is mostly successful if it grabs the viewer's attention right off the bat, and if it speaks for itself. It's hard to give criticism on "work" like this especially if the photogrpaher attempts to justify it by saying "whatever the cause I am pleased with it...". And that is because after you read that.. how do you gently say that "this is not good at all?" ... You can't. Which brings me to my previous comment, and you writing your two cents on defending it so no feelings would be hurt.

That's my take on it anyway.

Also, thank you for your correction.

Dave - While this may not be my favorite image of yours I am still glad that you posted it, mainly for the reason that you mentioned...that it is a change from a lot of your recent work. I also wanted to bring to your attention, when hovering over the links to change the skin on Chromasia, the black theme displays -- skin chromasia: dark theme -- just as the dark theme link does.

Magical? How so Peter? Would you have known this was shot through a crystal ball had David not mentioned it? Or rather, any effect using a 'third-party device'? It just looks like an out of focus shot with low light and using a slow shutter (no flash). And comparing this to a Sargent? What?! If there is one thing I appreciate, it's that it doesn't have the usual myriad of Photoshop 'adjustments' that Dave puts into his photographs. It seems untouched. There should be an emphasis on how to use the camera, learn what it can do, learn composition and mise-en-scene, and take a good photograph.

My wife's comment on this shot, having read the comments, is that this is a "Marmite shot" – love it or hate it ;-) And I guess I have mixed feelings about it in that I still like the end result but would have preferred the effect to have been a little more pre-meditated. In terms of the specific points made:

The blurring between her shoulder and face is distracting. I suppose this didn't bother me quite so much because I know that the shoulder straps of her costume are covered in feathers; i.e. here face is partially obscured by them rather than just looking as though it's blended with the background. But I can see that in the absence of this knowledge this aspect of the shot looks a little odd.

The white space, IMO, is fine – I often prefer offset portraits.

Jessyel: of all the sorts of photographs I take it's portraits that i) I find most difficult to evaluate, and ii) generate the widest range of responses when I post them. And I think this is partially to do with the fact that people seem to apply much more subjective criteria to their evaluation. For example, you recently posted a portrait that was, IMO, almost perfect ... but for one thing; i.e. the exposure was blown on the bridge of her nose. And I don't imagine that bothered everyone, but for me it was too much of a distraction. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that there are aspects of my shot that some people see as distractions and others can either see past, or not see at all, or consider them a feature of the shot.

And finally, with respect to the focus: I've had a closer look at the full-res' version of the shot and her eye is in focus (clear definition of the edge of her iris, and so on) but, clearly, it doesn't look as though it is ;-)

Jason: thanks for the heads-up about the link. I've fixed it.

Well, to clarify, I don't want you to get the impression that I think the shot is complete crap. I got a little peeved with the comments of others if anything. But I do apologize for the slight rant instead of providing constructive criticism which should've been the case (and I appreciate that for my photo). I understand everyone has their own opinions and mindsets, but too often I get annoyed with the 'extremeness of kindness' if that makes any sense. But I am an ass, so hey :-)

"And finally, with respect to the focus: I’ve had a closer look at the full-res’ version of the shot and her eye is in focus (clear definition of the edge of her iris, and so on) but, clearly, it doesn’t look as though it is ;-)"

Isn't that like.. not so good when you have scan over it so much to find a relatively 'good' area.. And by having said that the iris is (somehow) in focus in the full version.. should that make everything alright? Are we supposed to now say "aaahhh well as long as it's there in the full version and not what is presented... this is great!"

I don't think I understand. Sorry for being stupid. :(
I just can't justify it even still...

I think this is a beautiful image. I love the composition of it. There is something very soft, sweet and magically about it. As always your work is inspiring.

Crystal ball? Hmmm... If you see anything - let us all know...

As for the image -- beautiful... She's a splendid subject.... nicely done...

really beautiful pic ... if I say anymore I'll ruin the moment

As always there is much technical debate.
Is the eye in focus? The books would say it must be to be a great portrait.
Who says it's a portrait!
Another great image Dave and even more enjoyable as it's a break from "Chromasia"

Miklos: I was not merely trying to protect Dave. In fact he knows full well that I don't think everyone of his shots is a masterpiece.For instance I PERSONALLY did not like 'Minster Court' it seemed off balance for me and could also not be described as dynamically balanced.

All I was trying to do is be non subjective and explain why this shot works and why the majority of people would probably like it. And I think it is fair to say that you are in a minority. (but that doesn't mean you are wrong either)

Dave obviously has an inherent ability to compose shots. I know the theory, but often struggle with the actual shots.

Sorrry if I have caused you to think that I am biased. I love Daves work but I also love lots of other blogs as well

Great shot. Lovely kid =)

Thanks everyone, despite this clearly not being to everyone's taste ;-)

Miklos:

"And by having said that the iris is (somehow) in focus in the full version.. should that make everything alright? Are we supposed to now say 'aaahhh well as long as it’s there in the full version and not what is presented… this is great!'"

My comment was a response to my original speculation about why this shot was less focussed than I expected, and the fact that her iris is in focus rules out motion blur; i.e. all the soft-focus/distortion is a consequence of shooting through the crystal ball. So, no, you're not in the least obliged to change your opinion ;-)

John: I wonder who would be the minority if all the people that didn't like this shot had the courage to comment...

Having said that.. I'm done with this. It's all a bit crazy. :D

Wow. A lot of feedback on this shot. Perhaps too much analysis in some cases. I instantly liked this photo. Different from a lot of what I've been seeing latety here and on other sites. I'm not sure if the blurred effect adds to the mood, but there is definitely an intensity in those eyes. Is this your daughter?

This is a very refreshing photo in Chromasia. The eye and the dreamy look makes the picture for me. It is almost like she is thinking something, but wouldn't quite dare to say it (the white space).

I think it's great to be out of focus and out of control sometimes ;-)

Dave -- have you ever tried shooting with a LensBaby? (http://www.lensbabies.com/) it allows for a rather old-school means of selective focus and distortion. there's something about this image that makes me think of the effect.

Pramesh: yes, it's our three year old.

P: I haven't tried the LensBaby but I am thinking about making one of these.

I'm sort of surprised that nobody has mentioned the really bad jpeg artifacts in this shot. Or is it my monitor that is out of whack?

It 's a shame because I think I would have liked the picture otherwise. I find it really distracting, especially the left eye, which is posterized and looks a bit freaky. Sorry. Now I know, before anyone complains, that the web version is an approximation of the high-res version of a picture on any photoblog, but I just can't ignore it here.

Otherwise, I absolutely love your other portraits of your daughters.

robin: I can't see any jpeg artefacts in this shot, even at 400% magnification, so suspect it may be an issue at your end.

That's really weird. I don't see anything wrong with any other shots. e.g http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/archives/0501292246_clean.php , which has similar light tones and out of focus regions. I'll check it out.

Dave, my apologies. Somehow I'd kicked my video mode down to 16bit colour. How silly do I look now :-)

So as expected, I do like it now. Just ignore me :-)

robin: no worries :-)

This one breaks my heart, because Dave, I love your photos! This looks like what would've been an amazing shot, but it's just not there for me. To really appreciate it, I had to step away from my monitor; just looking at it as is bothers my eyes, making me sort of squint. The thumbnail makes the eye look more in focus, and therefore more pleasing and easy to look at.

I'm not happy with more than half the shots I take, and since I in no way consider myself a pro, I'm just stating my humble opinion and thoughts, in no way to be considered critique.

Dave, if your pleased with the result, cheers. Keep 'em coming.

You know what, I just came back to this shot through today's comments.

It's stunning.