Interesting. 2 ways to look at it. You can take whatever you shoot and turn it in to something later on. Or,you can rescue a blown a shot. It looks okay on the demos,but I wonder what it would look like up close and personal on the computer screen. I've actually practiced increasing the depth of field of some of pics by blending them together with an HDR program. but that something else entirely.
Sometimes,we are hindered by the camera's and/or the lens inherent flaws and this could be one of them. However,that's not to say that one has to take advantage of it. Not always anyway. There are clearly those times when the blur is used to make sure that the emphasis stays on the subject matter of the photograph and I think that's really where the artist in the photographer comes out. As my idol and primary motivation for my pictures Ansel Adams said.
"It is easy to take a photograph, but it is harder to make a masterpiece in photography than in any other art medium."
He also once stated about the upcoming technology that it should be looked at as another tool. Which I think more fits the current topic of discussion than even the one above. To me,the skill behind the photography is getting everything you possibly can done right before you ever hit the shutter button. The artistic part,is how you frame that picture in the viewfinder,(which is the way we all see the world these days right?
). That and after you get it on the computer. Obviously we strive to get that "perfect" picture,but as I said before,the camera and lenses have limitations built in to them so some work usually needs to be done after the fact,(and that's where we can really have some fun and that's where this could come in handy).
Auto focus is okay,but it too has it's limitations. Many times the camera just doesn't focus where you want it too and aside from the old focus then reframe your shot then shoot technique. That's where the skill shows up still. You still have to tell the camera,many times,where to focus. Which is why I like the development of the customization of of focal points in many digital cameras. That and the manual focus is still the option on most lenses and that's where many of us can and do spend a lot of our time. So while it does make things easy to a degree,it's still up to the vision and the skill of the photographer to see and overcome its limitations as well as knowing what and where to emphasize in your picture.
I see where Boone's coming from and I agree. It's something I talked about to a professional photographer about not that long ago. I said the advantage is,that it's made it affordable for many people to take pictures who previously couldn't afford it. while it may flood the field with a lot of people,it will allow some of those who have that artistic ability to afford to be able to tap in to it. The think they want to be's and the those that can be will weed itself out in the end. Besides,there's always room for more artists. Ansel even stated himself how he would love to come back in 20 years and see what others will have done with some of his photographs. Speaking of Ansel.
"Photographers are, in a sense, composers and the negatives are their scores. ...In the electronic age, I am sure that scanning techniques will be developed to achieve prints of extraordinary subtlety from the original negative scores. If I could return in twenty years or so I would hope to see astounding interpretations of my most expressive images. It is true no one could print my negatives as I did, but they might well get more out of them by electronic means. Image quality is not the product of a machine, but of the person who directs the machine, and there are no limits to imagination and expression."
Edit: All the above just my humble opinion as someone who aspires to be a good photographer one day.
 }})
