If the focal point of a person isn't on the face, is it

>>3087664
Literally a thread on the board right now about the exact same subject. Fuck off.

>>3087680
You're wrong. I think I know what you are referring to and this is not that. And you can just answer the question instead.

Does sage still works?
That girl has no ass. It makes me sad.

>>3087689
People come here for photography tips. I'm sorry your life is so miserable that you come here to vent. By sageing or derailing my thread is only going to make me post my question once more if I don't get the actual answers I'm looking for, but I'm guessing you don't think far ahead.

>>3087691
Post it everytime you want. That won't change the fact that there is an already going thread with a related theme, but you just want YOUR thread.

File: Capture d’écran 2017-06-02 à 03.18.25.png (16KB, 413x312px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 413x312px

>>3087664
Unless you are shooting something like this, the eyes have to be in focus.

OP The answer to your question is subjective. A picture that looks good is a good picture. Sometimes a mistake can make an artistic masterpiece, and sometimes it's just fucked up.

A lot of well known pieces throughout art came from errors or have technical errors in them. Hopefully that answers your question.

>>3087767
I mean you can say that the answer is subjective and you're correct. But the truth is, 99 out of 100 professional photographers would agree that when a person is the subject of a photo, their face needs to be in focus. I mean, it's almost pretty much logic.

Unless it did some really awesome effect from not having the face in focus or being the "focal point", that photo with the focal point that was on the shoulder like OP said, would have looked even better if the face was the focal point versus the shoulder.

Nobody cares about a persons shoulder unless it had some awesome tattoo or a pet snake wrapped around it.

So to answer OP question, it wouldn't make the photo bad necessarily, but it doesn't make the photo any good.

>>3087682
fuck off

please mod
>>3087664
>>3087063
>>3087394
>>3086132

this guy is clearly an out of control autist spammer and should be banned

>>3087803
I second this

>>3087803
third on this.
It's getting ridiculous the amount of duplicate threads on this bullshit nonsense.

>>3087664
Yes.

If the main subject isn't the sharpest point in the picture it's generally shit.

Even if it's "sharp enough" people will still be drawn towards the sharper parts.

>>3087664
Could be sharp enough. But this question is pointless with a decent camera (decent AF and/or decent MF assists).

You just focus on the eyes or whatever else you want to focus and shoot.

If your camera isn't good enough to do this with what is for your usage reasonable reliability, it's really just time to upgrade something.

Yea, you could also compensate with experience to a certain degree, but it's not better than just getting better gear that is realistically still more reliable.

>>3087943
I mean, is the problem really the camera or the person operating it?

Do some cameras have a hard time focusing on an area you choose even if you deliberately focus on the face? I never knew that but I'd like to know?

>>3087803
>>3087889
>>3087892
samefag