As I've trifled through different photography critique sites over the years, and listened to discussions here and elsewhere, it is becoming clearer and clearer to me that there is a strong drive towards "perfect" images. If someone posts an image that has the horizon smack in the center of the frame, or if the model's nose dares to cast a shadow, an image is automatically rejected. This absurdity was amply demonstrated in the tongue-in-cheek posting on The Online Photographer blog. I've struggled with the implications of the article, and the underlying bigger question - when is perfection too much? - for quite a while now.

Chinese calligraphy has been traditionally taught in a manner reminiscent of this. An apprentice learns to copy his master's writing as perfectly as possible. Only then is he allowed to deviate, to create his own style. Perhaps this is how the modern photographer learns. Photographic maxims - such as rule-of-thirds or having the widest dynamic range possible - become what the master calligrapher was to the student.

But I'm somewhat concerned that the accessibility, ease-of-use and ubiquity of post-processing tools is draining the life from some photography. I'm sure everyone of us has cursed the unsightly electrical wires in the otherwise pristine landscape, only to shrug and take it out in post. A problem arises when such "flaws" are seen as something that should be gotten rid of categorically.

I'm not advocating turning into a neo-Luddite, or to start making "gritty" photographs which record the world instead of interpreting it. There's not enough beauty in the world, in my opinion. But I'm afraid many of us are equating perfection with beauty - which is not the case. If you look at the women widely considered most beautiful, you can easily see they are not perfect. Marilyn Monroe with her mole, Angelina Jolie with her oversized lips, Michelle Pfeiffer with her eyes which are too far apart.

Perfection, while pleasing, often amounts to boring. A photograph has to have something more than just flawless execution. What that something is, is another matter - soul, touch, talent? Perhaps achieving flawless execution is just the first step in being a great photographer, and that casting the shackles of perfection aside is when images become iconic.

Certainly an opinion. But if you don't another opinion about soemthing, don't ask. Someone may tell you.

Post an image. Get an opinion. Do with it as you please. But don't ask me what I think, and then tell me how wrong I am. Even if it is as mundane as the horizon is crooked.

Have you ever seen an image that was so perfect that could be made better by messing something up?

You're totally missing the point. My posting was not a reaction to some perceived injustices I may or may have not received on a critique site. It was an honest attempt at opening a discussion on the larger sphere, mostly outside of the critique sites' domain. That's why I posted this here instead of there.



Again, that's not the point. The point is that our sense of beauty has been damaged, so that it appears only the perfect images deserve to be even acknowledged.

I have never seen what I would call a perfect image.

"The horizona is crooked." is a better comment than "Wow. Amazing. Perfect."

Next image will not be as good and the horizon will be crooked.

I have had chemical prints graded F and tossed in the trash can because of one dust spot that I didn't think anyone would notice. Wrong. Repeated the print, spotted it properly and was given a A. I see nothing to be gained from presenting a print that you know is not your best effort. (I didn't say perfect.) Why should I expect someone to provide a critique of a print when all I have to say to their comments is "I know. The horizon is crooked." I wasted their time. And I didn't learn a thing. I already knew the horizon was crooked.

(Crooked horizon was provided as an example only.)

I see nothing wrong in being required to copy the masters. They are considered masters for a reason. And I just might learn something from the exercise. I learned plenty about studio lighting when required to make a portrait in the style of Karsch. I am no Karsch, and don't want to be, but I can identify his works and reproduce his style if asked. His style is not my style.

Learn the rules and then you can eff them up with understanding - is an alternative viewpoint.
Lots of the artists famous for doing things differently [e.g. Picasso+Cubism, Dali+ surrealism] were masters at the basics, before they screwed with people's minds.

Sometimes they should and sometimes they shouldn't, depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Flawless is dull.
which brings us to

I like ultrasharp technical perfection and I love blurry, gritty images. I simply choose to use whatever style suits the subject or my mood!

Your point may be more effective if suported by examples of photographs that demonstrate it. Imperfections may or may not be problematic, depending on the contents of a specific image.

Imperfections can also be part of a style, if this style makes constructive use of these imperfections. Lack of depth of field, or selective focus, is a regular "imperfection" in street photography.

Imperfections can also mar a style, if this style calls for perfect images, such as a near-far landscape composition where either the foreground or background are out of focus.

It all depends what you your intentions, your style and your vision is.

Without examples, preferably from your own work, this discussion is mainly academic.

Consider the history of photography here - for years, the "ideal" image was one that was more of a pictorialist approach, until the advent of "straight" photography began to arrive, and then took over. Photography has since been held to a different standard than other forms of creative expression, because of its ability to record what exists in great detail in literally, the blink of an eye.
Generations of people have grown up with this, and have come to expect it. They expect photography to be in focus, sharp, and capable of being enlarged to BIG sizes. Why? Because it can. Photography is largely consumer driven, after all. Consumers see more sharp, in focus pictures through printed publications then they do the less technically proficient images. That's got to have some effect, even if it is subliminal.
Carried to the extreme, this creates the people that Ken Rockwell has referred to in his tongue-in-cheek column discussing equipment "measurebators." I suppose the same thing can be carried over to people who judge and view printed material as well. It's much easier for most folks to quantify something by an arbitrary set of standards and stay "in the box."
There is nothing wrong with the technically perfect photograph - but a technically perfect photo without an emotional feel to it seems to me like nothing more than an intellectual exercise - something that I suppose Mr. Spock would approve of.

Two comments. Most of the stuff that is "in the box" is there because it has been tried and found to work. Stuff out side the box has either been tried and found lacking, or not tried, or just plain not worth trying. I would not be too quick to crumb on something just because it is in a box.

All other things being equall, the more technically perfect image will like be the one selected. I would quess that an out-of-focus ad photo will lose out to an in-focus one most of the time, regardless of how hip and outside the box the out-of-focus image is.

All other things being equall, the more technically perfect image will like be the one selected. I would quess that an out-of-focus ad photo will lose out to an in-focus one most of the time, regardless of how hip and outside the box the out-of-focus image is.

And that's because most folks lack the imagination to see beyond the technical limitions of the craft. Again, it's easier to stay within the technical limitations then to see beyond them.


Most of the stuff that is "in the box" is there because it has been tried and found to work. Stuff out side the box has either been tried and found lacking, or not tried, or just plain not worth trying.

Well then, with that attitude, there'd be absolutely no evolution or innoivation of art or craft, no matter what it is. Straight photography, abstract impressionism were "out of the box" at one time. Thinking inside the box just stifles innovation. What is different may fail, but the effort to work outside of convention is worth trying, and may lead to something dynamic and new. Sticking with the conventional just creates more and more of the same, and gets lost in monotony. Granted, that's what people like, but that also goes back to the fact that most people cannot see beyond the steady diet of sameness that they get, whether it's advertising photography, action movies, and doctor/lawyer/cop shows on TV.

Some of the most moving images ever made are technically imperfect, such as Robert Capa's blurry and grainy images of troops storming the beach at Normandy. So I guess we need to ask ourselves why these images are so incredible. Perhaps they are moments of purity. Perhaps we are sympathetic, grateful, or even moved to tears. Why?

One's own definition of perfect of course makes all the difference. I have always found images that leave me with questions to be better than ones that don't, technical qualities aside.

So I guess what I'm suggesting is to master your equipment and craft, and then move way beyond that to make great images.

There are nice examples of photographic geniuses in the TOP article I linked to with quite hilarious explanations. As for personal examples, I have a few which have obvious "flaws" I have either decided to leave as is, or to consider them part of the allure of the photo. This shot of a raptor and its handler has an awfully flat and dull sky, yet I've never felt the need to add an alluring sky in post. This one has the horizon smack in the center of the frame. I decided to leave the 6x6 in its original aspect ratio as I feel that's the only "right" way to crop this shot. And this example of a heavily post-processed portrait which doesn't even try to look natural. (My website is in beta, but mostly functional.)



That's actually one of the things that drew my attention to this whole issue in the first place. Out-of-focus photography was quite popular in the late 90s and early naughties. - and still is to some extent. This was especially true in glossy fashion editorials. It quickly became a cliche, and rarely works.

[Emphasis added]

That should give you all the room you need to innovate.

Some innovation needs to be stiffled (read, put out of its misery). What you call "straight photography" and "abstract impressionism" were once "out side the box," but they have been tried. found OK by some and put into the box.

While you claim thinking "inside the box" just stiffles innovation, it also profuces a bunch of very good images.

I agree completely that some "innovative" techniques need to be put of its misery. My current pet peeves are unnatural, overdone HDR and the Dragan effect. But HDR is a perfectly valid technique which has its place if used with taste. So although an innovative technique needs to be stopped, that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from it.

I believe the point some are trying to make here is that perfect, flawless images without a soul are sometimes kitsch - postcards, motivational posters, etc. Many photographers are fine with producing such material, but many want more than oohs and aahs. They want to connect with the viewer on a non-intellectual level, their art to be appreciated rather than ogled.

Would we not be as moved if the images were technically better?

Or are you simply saying that poor technique can be offset to some degree by content?

In Capa's war photographs, imperfections are metaphorically representative of the situation in which his images were created. The chaos, the violence and the turmoil of war are conveyed through these imperfections.

Or do we forgive the imperfections because of the chaos, etc.?

Were your supposition true would not photojournalists be sent into war with crummy cameras in order to amplify the story?

Yes, that is the case as well. We certainly tolerate more imperfection as viewers knowing how tough the situation in which the images were created was. It goes both ways.




Capa most likely had the best cameras available at the time. The quality loss is more a result of the situation than of the equipment. I also think that, talking about war coverage, pro/tough cameras are needed. I don't think a Diana, to take but one example, would last very long. Finally, if "crumminess" as a look is a desired goal, it can now be added in post processing.

From memory, development of Capa's film was totally botched, and only a fraction of the frames he recorded could be salvaged - the ones that are now iconic images.

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps we as photographers sometimes put too much emphasis on the traditionally good technical qualities of our images (like focus, sharpness etc.,), when we should be trying to find a way to a illustrate a dream or a thought we had. This is a contstant struggle for me.

"Sharp" is a money thing. Spend money on good equipment if you require sharpness. But a good photographer can produce good photos with any reasonable camera. Did you ever hear a photographer who says he could take better photos if he only had better equipment? Do you believe it? No. Same photos after he trades from Canon to Nikon.

However, I see absolutely no good reason for your image to not be exposed properly exposed. Not necessarily the correct straight exposure, but properly - what you as the photographer - want. If you want "normal" plus 2 stops, that is exactly what it should be. Not more. Not less.

Same for focus. No good reason to have anything other than the focus you want. And that includes depth of field.

Focus and exposure are two variables the photographer can control, so why not? More control over those than the content. I will repeat - Have you ever see an image that would be better if the focus or exposure were worse? If it only had more dust spots.

Of coutse, there may be times when the equipment you have simply cannot do what you want to do. Then you pass the photo by, change the plan or buy so,e new stuff.

Maybe James Natchway could be a good photojournalist if he only had a crummier camera, couldn't focus or set exposure.

_________________

If you can "dream it,"you should be able to expose it and focus it. "Too busy capturing the moment" is a cop out for wrong focus and composition.

Absolutely. I have a number of such shots and I've decided I'm not going to remove the power lines when they are 'embedded' in the composition. Power lines that might simply cut across the corner of the sky and have no compositional relevance are another matter.



That's a difficult subject. The women you refer to also wear a pile of make-up. Generally, symmetry plays a large role in our perception of beauty. I'm told it even applies to mathematical theories.

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'



Quite so, but I think generally what you mean here is that a photo can be boring despite it being technically perfect, not because it is technically perfect. I don't really consider a photo, that uses a shallow DoF in order to remove a possibly distracting background, as being 'technically imperfect', or a film photo that is deliberately grainy in order to create a heightened sense of drama, as being technically imperfect.

ps. Ansel Adams is reputed to have said, "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept", or words to that effect. I'd disagree slightly. There is perhaps something worse; a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept. If the image is sharp, at least you know the concept is fuzzy. If the image is fuzzy, you haven't a clue as to whether the concept is fuzzy or not.

When an image is so fuzzy that a viewer cannot tell what it is about, many would consider it as high "art". Perhaps AA's take is correct after all. So the combinations are:

- Sharp/clear concept/content + technically sharp = good image, per AA

- Sharp/clear concept/content + technically unsharp = bad image, by AA wantobes

- Fuzzy concept/content + technically sharp = bad image, by AA wantobes

- Fuzzy concept/content + technically unsharp = high art, by true artists

Yes. Of course. I missed that point. A fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept really represents the pinnacle of artistic achievement .

Throw in overexposed and I think you have a winner.

#3 (Fuzzy concept/content + technically sharp = bad image, by AA wantobes) I think is what Ray said was AA idea of worst (nothing worse).

No. Joke aside, I meant fuzzy concept + technically unsharp is the worst. A technically sharp image might have some redeemable feature that could be brought out with extensive cropping; perhaps some interesting texture or perhaps just a pleasing sky that could be used in another photo with blown sky.

A blurred shot of an uninteresting subject I would simply junk.

Well put and I agree completely. I struggle with this as well. Each time I start post-processing a keeper, first I stop. I look at the photo and try to come up with a battle plan, to understand what works best with this particular shot, and how it is "supposed" to be processed. This is currently the hardest part for me, but hopefully I'll get better at it with practice. I try to also do this while shooting, but that's sometimes hard when the light is changing fast.

Somebody mentioned the always-entertaining Ken Rockwell. He uses his measurebator term, trying to tell people that it takes more than a good camera to take great photos. Perhaps even the more serious photographers forget that too often, and spend an inordinate amount of time perfecting their gear, neglecting the artistic side of our craft.

I feel the rise of digital photography, and the increasing number of casual photographers with great gear highlights this nicely. Those photographers quite often shoot technically perfect photos. But if my thesis is correct, those of us who can give their photography more meaning than mere flawless representations will continue to prevail.

feppe, if the casual photographer can produce technically perfect photos, why should photographers who can give their photogarphy more meaning (whatever that means) be excused from being technically perfect?

If I can't produce technically perfect images, does that mean I am giving my images more meaning? So is sign of an artist the lack of technical perfection? If the artist wants the image to be out of focus and overexposed, then it should be and that would be the artists technical perfection.

A sunset has a crooked horizon. I point that out in a critique because I think that is a flaw. The artist can say to himself "I know that. That is what the art requires." The casual photographer says either "Thanks" or "I know that but didn't have time to fix it."

But the photographers know people are looking. The artist should know not everyone thinks the crooked horizon enhances his art. The casual photographer knows he should be more careful with "details." Nobody loses, even if the photogrpahers go away saying "What an idiot."

Actually, I agree with Howard here. Technical perfection represents a certain skill of the photographer; the ability to use the quirks and characteristics of lenses, filters and DoF issues etc, to create the effect one wants. Without such skills, the results are going to be rather 'hit and miss'.

Not all images are required to be tack sharp. The portrait photographer often uses a soft lens. Waterfalls usually look best if the water is blurred into a silky sheen, which sometimes requires the use of an ND filter to get a slow enough exposure.

However, tack sharp images can have their own impact and this facility of the camera to produce such images is a hallmark of the photographic process.

Interesting thread. I have nothing to add, except...



sounds like pet photography to me.

Lisa

I get more than a little scared when Ray and I agree.

I want to add that there is a very distinct difference between "soft," "blurred," and "out-of-focus." "Tack skarp" usually menas in focus and as high (or higher) resolution) that can be seen. But even "tack sharp" lenses could be (and have been) replaced by better and more "tack sharp" lenses.

An easy exercise is to take a focused but blurred shot say by using a slow shutter speed. Then take deliberately defocused images of the same thing with a high and the same shutter speed. See the differences.

Same with "soft focus" lenses. You do not get the same results as you get with a properly focused "soft focus" lens as you get with a "tack sharp" defocused lens.

Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em....

Looking forward to the day when they become as "yesterday" as intentionally tilted horizons.


But that's probably a different discussion, eh?

Most of my waterfall shots are the opposite of silky sheen, simply because I wasn't carrying an ND filter. But normal exposure doesn't look interesting. You get the melted ice cream effect. My recommendation is, either use a very slow shutter speed or a very fast one. In between is not nice.

So, Bobtrips, would you say intentionally tilted horizons are "outside the box" now? I would say they have been tried, found lacking and tossed out. The eye wants to make the horizon level, even when their head is crooked. I think that is why a crooked horizon is easy to overlook when editing a photo. The editor must be careful and "look" for it. (I think art photographers make the horizon level or really crooked or obviously tilted, not just a bit crooked so the viewer has to decide whether intention or not.)

Blurred waterfalls are "inside the box," but you would toss them out? My guess is inside to stay. I think people see waterfalls as at least a little blurred.

Maybe photography tries to mimic real life? Seems the most often heard complaint (that at least I hear) is the image doesn't look "real." So, out of focus? Get glasses. Overexposed? Get sunglasses.

I believe feppe is saying that we need to go beyond technical perfection, not that anyone should be excused from being technically perfect. What is technically perfect is up for debate anyway. Is the inclusion of color in a photograph better than a black and white image? Is color more technically perfect?

I think only feppe can explain what he means.

I think that technical excellance is the minimum opener for a critique photograph. (There are few exceptions. A fuzzy image of the Loch Ness monster might be acceptable, for now.) If a photgraph is suppose to be out of focus, it must be, and to the degree the photographer wants. Not more, not less.

If a print is suppose to be b&w, it must not be in color, with the comment from the photographer that "I think this would look better in b&w."

This the main reason I think the photographer should not provide comments during critiquwa. The photographer has provided his best effort. If I don't get that he thought the image looked better with a slightly crooked horizon, I don't get it. The photographer can think I am an idiot if he wants, then do with the image whatever he wants to do. I don't care amd usually don't care to debate the horizon. Yes, I might be wrong and an idiot, but I do know what I like. If the photographer didn't want to hear my opinion, he shouldn't have asked.

Ever sit through a friends vacation slide show that has not been edited - lot's of trash canners? Did you get tired of hearing "Sorry. The horizon isn't straight?" The Eiffel Tower looks like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Or the focus isn't too good on this one. Abd then another. "I was trying to capture the mood, but missed." Or do you just love them all, the art collection?

I did mean what Mr Godman surmised. I'm not advocating taking technically imperfect photos just because we can. But I am advocating taking a good look at our priorities. Getting technically "perfect" images - if there is such a thing - is quite easy with today's equipment, and some training and experience. Transcending that flawlessness is another matter altogether, and that's why I wrote the original post.

There is also the closely related issue of whether a technically flawed photo can be considered great or not. I thought about this and can only find examples of that in photojournalism, as others have pointed out here. That's why I didn't include the issue in my post. Are there any examples of technically and unintentionally flawed iconic photos in fine art or landscape photography? I doubt it but would be thrilled to be corrected.

But that brings up the matter of intention:



This is very true. But does it only hold for seasoned amateurs or professionals? If one doesn't have the technical prowess to produce technically flawless photos, how do you know if the original intention was a blurred photo? Does it matter? Shouldn't we critique a work based only on the (de)merits of that work? Does the context, the artist, her body of work, or her intention matter?

Not surprisingly, authorial intention is a contentious matter for art critics.



Indeed. I know good photographers who put up their entire shoot online with hardly any culling, drowning their great shots among the mediocre ones. I don't remember who said it (heavily paraphrasing): the difference between a great photographer and a good photographer is that the great one shows only his great work.

feppe, thank you for the clarification.

I think that all photographers should submit only their best efforts. The "seasoned amateurs and professionals" should do better than the neophite at technical things, due to experience and aquired knowledge. But as you point out, modern equipment makes technical excellance easier. at least for exposure and focus. That fact should allow the pjotographer at any level to concentrate more on othr things, like composition (and that includes "level" horizons).

Because cameras are taking some of the technical load, the latitude given photojounalists should be narrowing.

How do I know if a technical flaw is intentional or not? I don't. As a viewer though, I can judge for myself the flaw and whether it adds or detracts. I can feed that back to the photogapher who then can do what he wishes. Unintentional - learning experience to try to avoid it in the future. Or, if it worked, add it to the bag for future use. Intentional - still a learning esperience. A viewer didn't get it. What can I do to help the viewer next time.

It has been my personal experience that I never learned much from no feedback. A "nice job" only encourages me to do the same next time. Therefore, no matter how good an image of mine is, I expect some sort of definite feedback - this is good, this needs help. When I review prints, I try (but don't always succeed) to give both kinds of feedback. I find it much easier to find the faults, especially the technical type. Maybe that is your point, and I do neeed to work on that. Seldom does an image have no value.

Is here such a thing as technically perfect? I doubt it. But "my best effort" is certainly within the reach of every photographer. When a flaw is pointed out, the two responses that I really hate are "I know" and "I didn't have time." "I know" is usually just lazy. Samw with "I didn't have time." As far as I know evryone has exactly the same number of minutes in a day. It just boils down to how we chose to spend them.

"I know" acceptable only when the photographer sees a flaw and needs help in how to fix it next time. I can ackbowledge the flaw and then ask how to fix it.

While we may find this funny, the Holga and pinhole shooters (examples) are the ones laughing to the banks. Many curators seem to prefer images with "fuzzy" contents/concepts and/or without technical merits. Call me blind if you will, but I often can't even tell what are in such images. Perhaps the curators are bored to tears by the traditional genres such as the technically superb AA like images that don't challenge their imaginations. Or, perhaps the art schools are teaching their students to push the envelops and not to repeat what have already been done. I don't know. But there is no debate, I hope, that how a viewer relates to an image is a function of what's in that image and who the viewer is. We can't expect an image to be appreciated by every viewer, nor can we expect a viewer to appreciate every image.

Personal opinion, and I repeat. I have never seen an image that I thought could be improved by making it less technically perfect. More fuzzy, more dust spots, more scratches. I would add to that "if only that had been taken with a Holga or pinhole."

I often think curators buy what they do because they don't want to be "ordinary" and buy one more Adams or whoever. Many have more money (someone else's) than sense. The Getty simply had to spend money to get rid of it. Anyone with money can buy an Adams, but what if I drop a wad on a photo of nothing taken with a Holga? "I must be a genius to recognize something that no one else sees."

Art schols similarly feel they can't teach "straight" photography or painting or other art. Many students don't want to spend the time and effort to learn technical photography before they make prints. Many students are simply lazy. Too lazy to learn the old masters so they skip that and go to Modern where no one knows what they are doing. And I mean no one. I had an instructor who belived that if you wanted to break all the rules, fine; just know the rules first, why they are rules and why you should break them. Some of his "art" students shot really "new stuff," but could make a portrait one would swear was done by Karsch.


+++++++++++++++++

Let me add that a curator of a modern art museum is probably not allowed to buy an Adams. The curator must buy "modern art."

"Inside/outside what box?" was the first thing that hit me upon reading this post. Certainly they are outside the National Geographic/Arizona Highways box, as I understand the limits of that particular box. They aren't "realistic". It's not what one would have seen were they standing where the tripod stood.

(A 1/2,000 second shutter speed shot that freezes a single drop of water is also not "realistic", but closer. With concentration I can see a single drop as it falls.)

But unless we are talking about a specific box (realistic landscape, abstract fashion, whatever) I think we should be careful about discarding photographs based on either content or technique. If someone likes it, it's liked.

That said, I think at times someone introduces a novel treatment, be it crooked horizons, intentional "smearing" by long exposures, exaggerated grain, oversaturation, etc. that are entertaining, even thought provoking in their presentation. But often those treatments are adopted by many, many photographers and become trite.

Milky water has, to me, become as distasteful as those paintings of big eyed kids that were so popular a few decades back. Interesting on first or second view. Off putting by the thousandth.

One of the most "digged" images on the web (hope that is a meaningful statement) is one of a waterfall in eastern Europe. It's a very beautiful set of moderate-height waterfalls shot at a very low shutter speed. While admired by many, to me it looks as if there has been a major catastrophe at an ice cream plant upstream. Hundreds of thousands of melted vanilla are rushing downstream....

So, yes, I am talking about personal bias. But putting my bias in the context of "too much of a good thing can give one a belly ache".

What box? Fair question. I was originally think the "norm." but I will change that to mine. Pretty self centered.

While thinking about your post. I realized fashion photographers and the people who pay their bills aren't trying to sell me anything. A am not the audience. Come to think of it, I don't even know anyone that dresses that way nor do they shop where I shop. Fashion photos may be what you would see standing next to the runway, but I have never seen that on the street. I can just as easily argue "not real" as you do about National Geographic.

No photo will appeal to all people. Their must be an audience.

But back to the notion of technical excellance. Fashion may have a different set of ideas about what is excellant. That's fine. But I think fashion photographers are then held to those standards. Overexposed a stop means a stop, not two. Are the rules as free as "Point. Shot. Whatever I get is perfect."?

I was thinking about looking at a bunch of fashion shots and commenting they all look underexposed. The photogrpaher explains that the battery in his flash was dead, but assures me the shots are otherwise perfect. Then there are several overexposed by a couple stops, The photographer explains he realized his flash wasn't working and borrowed one. He didn't have time to learn how it worked so he overexposed the shots. Toss the lot. Not arty. Too big a leap (for me at least) to make in technical excellance.

"Too much of a good thing can give you a belly ache." I think it was Way WEst who said too much of a good thing was wonderful.

++++++++++++++++++

See Bobtrips post below. Yes, I did mean May West.

I think you meant May West.

If so, then one might say that too much of some things can leave one sore but with a smile on ones face....

I didn't know there were photographers around with that attitude, Howard. Is this an anecdote from personal experience of photographers' attitudes, or are you just repeating what some photography teacher told you?

To Bobtrips, knowing how supercritical you are of my photos, does the following waterfall shot appeal? D60, 500th sec, f11, ISO 400, 15mm lens, uncropped.

Click to view attachment

To Howard: you may pull this photo to pieces but I reserve the right of rebuttal, but without the pathetic excuses you refer to above .

ps. Forgot. For the record, Milla Milla Falls, Atherton Tablelands, North Queensland, Australia.

I can't think of a single photograph generally regarded as "great" in which technical perfection, whatever that means, was an issue of any kind -- either the presence or the lack of it. When it's present, it's taken for granted. When it's not, it's unnecessary. Technical perfection used to be hard to get because everything was done manually and at slow speeds, and then had to go (blindly) through a series of chemical baths in which many things could go wrong. Therefore, most images had some imperfection, but it didn't keep them from being considered "great." If you're a collector, one of the one-going discussions that takes place is whether or not a print of a given image is a "good" one. Ansel Adams printed several hundred and maybe more copies of Moonrise, in several different sizes, and the quality varies (although it's usually extremely high) -- but the image itself is considered by most collectors to be one of the greats; in other words, the quality of the image exists separately from the technical perfection of the print. Capa's Normandy landing photos were damaged in the lab (he didn't process them) but are still considered great, partly because the damage to the photos seemed to enhance the terror and violence of the moment. Paul Caponigro's "Running White Deer" has sharp trees and blurred white deer; if he'd chosen another technique, he could have had blurred trees and sharp white deer; if he'd chosen another technique, they both might have been sharp. So which is technical perfection? Henri Cartier-Bresson's "Behind the Gare St. Lazare" (man jumping a puddle) is actually a little fuzzy...so what?

I can even think of a couple of famous photos that were partially faked -- in one, a figure was eliminated because of a conflict with another figure (but the photographer neglected to remove the shadow of the missing figure) and in another, by O. Winston Link, his famous drive-in shot with the plane on the drive-in screen, the image on the screen was almost certainly a cut-and-paste job.

I personally don't think technical perfection is very hard to get anymore -- if you can afford a tripod and good equipment, and are shooting landscapes, your camera can probably take something close to technically perfect photographs with very little input on your part. Most photo-journalists in fast-breaking situations will put their camera on auto-everything and concentrate on the action, letting the camera take care of exposure and focus; you need to know a few more things, of course, but if somebody seriously applied himself, I doubt that it would take more than a month or so of parttime work to get to the place where 95%+ of your landscape photographs would meet the standard of "technically perfect."

Whether or not they were interesting is a whole different issue; that's one reason why so many issues of National Geographic are so forgettable.

JC

John,
You've basically answered the question. Technical perfection doesn't of course exist. Everything is relative. Three dimensions are represented by two. Dynamic range is compressed enormously on the print. Images that appear sharp are just that, an appearance of sharpness relative to other frequent appearances and experiences of 'less sharpness'.



From the stories I've read of the taking of that shot, the fact that Ansel didn't even have time to remove an inappropriate filter from the lens and had to guess the exposure, it would appear that the consequences of a lower-than-usual state of perfection on the negative resulted in the need for an unusual amount of processing in the darkroom to compensate as much as possible for that lack of technical quality.

I don't know about you, but I usually feel slightly disappointed when I see old photographs hanging on the wall in restaurants and public places, often showing how a particulat street looked 150 years ago, because they are usually quite blurred. They are often reproductions of reproductions, the negatives having been lost years ago.

However, when I see photos from a true master, whose negatives have been preserved, a photographer who was concerned with the technical quality of his shots and who used the best equipment of the day, a photographer such as Frank Meadow Sutcliffe, perhaps the most famous photographer in the world around the end of the 19th century, I'm amazed at the quality of the prints and can't help thinking if his photos were blurred and indistinct like so many 'reproductions of reproductions from old prints', they wouldn't be nearly as interesting.

This thread reminded me of an article by Chip Simmons that I stumbled across recently:

"Once upon a time I shot a computer big wig…and he was such an ass, I thought (and said) "you know…I don't think people care what you look like anyway…but they do care what you say" ... so I proceeded to shoot him out of focus and as a silhouette."

Also, consider this...

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/flat4.asp?id=6909

There's a lot of sense in that article. I agree with most of the points. Nevertheless, I have to say, I don't like out-of-focus parts of an image that draw attention to themselves, which is often the case when the OoF part is in the foreground or to the side of the part that's in focus. It generally just doesn't seem right and doesn't appeal to me. I don't like portraits where the eye is in focus but the nose is OoF, or picturesque scenes of babbling brooks where there's a big boulder in the foreground that's OoF.



That's an amusing film which raises the intriguing question, to what extent is our idea of beauty fashioned and shaped by the images that inundate us, and to what extent are those images altered and manipulated to conform with some innate preference for a certain kind of symmetry.

I'm a believer in the Darwinian framework of evolution. We respond to our environment and do whatever works. It's curious, and yet understandable, as well as rather amazing, that certain bird species are now imitating the sound of mobile phones; presumably to add to their repertoire of tantalising calls to impress the opposite sex .

I just read the article by Chip Simmons. He could go another logical step and say you don't have to do anything.

I would also say that shooting a portrait out of focud and in sillouettte requres one to know how to focus and light. The technique won't work even close to everytime and probably shouldn't be tried very often. Not every CEO or photo editor will get it.

I may get a job on giant ego alone, but to keep it, I had better produce something the boss wants. I can lie about my skill taking photos, but sooner or later, someone will figure out I'm a lier and the gig is up.

Oh, and I also decided I don't have to think his photos are cool. I can just as easily (and have) decide they are junk. I know I don't care and I'm pretty sure Chip Simmon doesn't care.

It is easy to say I don't want to shoot the cover of the Rolling Stone when I know the Rolling Stone would never let me.

I rather like many of his light painted portraits. I'm not so fond of the rest of his work. I do admire his "Devil may care" attitude, however. :-)

As a long-time fan of surrealism, I like most but not all of that page. His photographs show a fired imagination, which is great. It's obviously not the type of photography that we focus on on this site, but then we can't do everything.

-Lars