Is imperfection more stimulative ?

[yanidel]

I bought a book this weekend called "Paris my love". The title is definitely not as good as the pictures but I enjoyed it so much that I flipped through it in 2 hours. The book is mainly made of pictures of last century's best "Doisneau, HCB, Capa, S. Weiss, Plossu ..." from early 1900's to 2000. The main impression that it left on me was the difference in sharpness between pictures from approximatively the pre-60's and the ones afterwards. I also found to like much more "unsharp" imperfect images than the most recent ones, independant of subject. Even in terms of grain ... it was so strong on some of them that ISO2500 on the Leica M8 looks minimal in comparison...😉 yet the pictures were amazing.

So, to get to the point and given that many lenses reviews/forum threads focus on resolution, noise and sharpness (asph vs pre-asph, film vs digital....), haven't we just fallen in a technology and marketing trap ? Stated in another way :
Do pictures imperfections result more stimulative to the human eye and mind as a generality and independantly of the subject ?
Or contrarly, these imperfections are an inherent part of pre-60's photography and we associate it inconsciously to the postulate : unsharp = old times = interesting times (to sum up "good old times") ?​

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

No, I think you're right--too much clarity can be inhibiting. The more the viewer uses his imagination in interpreting the image, the more powerful it will be.

There's a limit, obviously--a blank frame is not especially stimulating. But excessive technical excellence can be a turnoff, sometimes.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Or contrarly, these imperfections are an inherent part of pre-60's photography and we associate it inconsciously to the postulate : unsharp = old times = interesting times (to sum up "good old times") ?​

This may indeed be a significant part of it, though by no means the only part. It's not just the unsharpness: Paris probably WAS more interesting, in many ways, 50+ years ago. I certainly liked it better 35 years ago, when I first went there, than I do now.

Also, one photographer I was reading about recently said that he shot in B+W because it dates less. This may also be a part of it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Morris]

Stated in another way :
Do pictures imperfections result more stimulative to the human eye and mind as a generality and independantly of the subject ?

​

I think it has something to do with their resemblance to newspaper quality images.

For many of us, history is remembered through black and white newspaper photos rather than high definition colour photos or video clips.

 

[Fred Burton]

I'm not sure imperfection is a goal to pursue. Perhaps it is just that some photographers are so good at what they do that their art rises above the imperfection, rather than being enhanced by it.

 

[sjw617]

But excessive technical excellence can be a turnoff, sometimes.

Is there such a thing? The picture is in focus or not, exposed right or not, framed well or not. Do you have an example of a picture you are talking about?

Steve

 

[dave lackey]

This may indeed be a significant part of it, though by no means the only part. It's not just the unsharpness: Paris probably WAS more interesting, in many ways, 50+ years ago. I certainly liked it better 35 years ago, when I first went there, than I do now.

Also, one photographer I was reading about recently said that he shot in B+W because it dates less. This may also be a part of it.

Cheers,

R.

I agree with Roger as most metropolitan areas are less attractive now than they were 35 years ago. As a professional city planner, I have studied this for many years.

As an example, my hometown is Atlanta, Georgia that was small and generally friendly in 1970. Today, it is a sprawling metropolis that now stretches, north to south, 110 miles! The daily travel by car totals over 93 million miles PER DAY! Most old landmarks have been torn down and newer structures built...etc. The photos taken of Atlanta today do not have the character that the older images do.

So, yes, changes in the urban environment can make for less interesting images.

Ever watch Lemans, the movie with Steve McQueen? If not, then you owe it to yourself to rent this classic. Then, compare the images of the town of Lemans and the racetrack itself with what is shown today. Less character...much less and the movie is in color not black and white.

Then, again, photography can be like sex, I suppose...the more imagination the better! But we won't go there...😱

 

[gns]

I don't think you can generalize. Whatever the look, from grainy out of focus high contrast to pin-sharp lush tonal scale, it has to work in the picture. There has to be a reason for it.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[yanidel]

But maybe the Paris or Atlanta of today will look attractive to people in 2060 as they will be history ?
The city of Paris has not changed that much IMO over 50 years (though I was not born then) as for buildings and monuments account for. It has improved in some aspects (La Défense, Louvres pyramides, Beaubourg, .. ). I spend hours walking in the city and I find many of the settings to be similar to 30 to 50's pictures yet the big difference is cars. They are all over the place (parked and moving) and it is very difficull to take a picture without one in your frame.
Nevertheless, in 50 years, a Volkswagen Golf IV will maybe look as a great background setting ! People way of dressing and haircuts of today will be looked at with nostalgy of "old times" I guess. And the great Aspherical lenses sharpness will be looked at the style of the early 2000's ... ? 😉

 

[bsdunek]

The composition, lighting, timing, and many other factors influnce a photograph. Not that it's new, but so many photographers today are 'gearheads'. We had s few back in the 40's when I started - they made very sharp, perfectly exposed photos that were extremely boring.
A lot of the photo artists today are reverting to old processes - wet plates, tintypes etc. and are making some beautiful pictures.

 

[Roger Hicks]

(1) But maybe the Paris or Atlanta of today will look attractive to people in 2060 as they will be history ?
(2) The city of Paris has not changed that much IMO over 50 years (though I was not born then) as for buildings and monuments account for. (3) It has improved in some aspects (La Défense, Louvres pyramides, Beaubourg, .. ). I spend hours walking in the city and I find many of the settings to be similar to 30 to 50's pictures yet the big difference is (4)cars. They are all over the place (parked and moving) and it is very difficull to take a picture without one in your frame.

(1) Possibly, or it might be nicer with fewer cars. (2) True (3) Arguable, but I agree (4) Well, yes, that's it really, isn't it?

Cheers,

R.

 

[rpsawin]

I agree with Roger as most metropolitan areas are less attractive now than they were 35 years ago. As a professional city planner, I have studied this for many years.



Ever watch Lemans, the movie with Steve McQueen? ...:

WARNING: WAY OFF TOPIC

Dave,

You and Roger have hit on something here. I live in Seattle and find myself enjoying it less each year as the city I knew disappears. John Wayne made a detective film in Seattle in the early 60's...McQ. It stinks, but the back drop is Old Seattle...I watch it everytime I find it just for that.

Best regards,

Bob🙂

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

The photos taken of Atlanta today do not have the character that the older images do.

So, yes, changes in the urban environment can make for less interesting images.

I dunno, Dave, those sentences are packed with subjective judgements. Most of us probably find the last 20 years of urban growth to be ugly, but wow, I sure find it interesting. And I think such places are packed with character--the character of our age. Personally, I love photographing new things, perhaps because they already look dated to me...think of what William Eggleston was doing in the sixties...he was making pictures of hotel rooms, developments, advertising signs (among other things), which at the time were derided by some people as "snapshots" because of their presumed lack of character. But he saw what those subjects really were, or maybe what posterity would think they were.

I would rather live in a town that looks and feels as though it was built with care. (And I do.) But I would rather photograph, and look at photographs of, human failure.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

But maybe the Paris or Atlanta of today will look attractive to people in 2060 as they will be history ?

See, again, "attractive." What we find attractive is influenced by the time we live in, and I think a good photographer doesn't care if something is attractive or not....a good photographer cares if something arrests the eye, or expresses something important, not necessarily if it's pleasant to look at.

I am definitely against the nostalgia explanation for our admiration of blurry or grainy photos. Personally I don't have a great deal of nostalgia. I like old cameras, I like new cameras. I like Dylan, I like Radiohead. I have twenty chickens and simultaneously maintain three web sites. 😀 It's all one big thing to me, an interesting continuum, and there are appealing aspects to most ages (some, I admit, more than others).

But I think there is inherent interest in imperfect sounds, images, and writing. A great work of art has to have spaces for the mind to fill in. As in this drawing by Rembrandt:

Its beauty is in what is missing. Your imagination completes it. Its imperfection is a kind of perfection, because it's the viewer who makes it whole.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

BTW yanidel, I don't mean to insult you! I think you're an excellent photographer. I just wanted to point out how loaded the word "attractive" is...

 

[venchka]

Is imperfection more stimulative ?

I sure hope so. If it's true, my photography borders on genius. Imperfections galore!

Seriously folks..........

Looking at a lot of fabulous wet plate work (old & new) recently I'm beginning to realize that resolution, edge to edge sharpness wide open, the dreaded overworked Bokeh, and even focus are vastly overrated.

 

[Spider67]

There was a tendency when making pictures look "old timey" to simply photograph them a bit out of focus. And despite that it never worked out the right way as there were always some stutio photographs from the 1890's that were very sharp. On the other hand using old equipment with comparable films- a Leica III and 50 ASA film - sometimes also did not get the "authentic" touch: I remember the pics a forummmeber took with his Leica + Adox film of WW II reenactors in proper uniform and gear. This time they looked too sharp......
And then I had a microrevelation: Perhaps for the photogs then it was more important to get the pictures at any price regradless of the quality......

 

[yanidel]

BTW yanidel, I don't mean to insult you! I think you're an excellent photographer. I just wanted to point out how loaded the word "attractive" is...

Don't worry, I did not see an hint of insult in your statement, you have a very valid point.
Maybe it comes from the roots of the word attractive. I am not big in Latin but I am sure that some of the latin experts on the forum will show a link to attract ... meaning something the brings the picture to you literally speaking. It can be for historical, sociological reasons, aesthetics or as you mentioned, just pleasing. There are picture that attract me though I find them absolutely terrible in terms of composition, techniques and subject.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Ah yes, I see...I took it to mean "beautiful"

 

[icebear]

... that depends

... that depends

imperfection is not generally more stimulative but in cases of a picture with a message it is somewhere between tolerable or doesn't matter all.
What i'm trying to explain : A great shot is a great shot and it will be interesting to the viewer even after the 10th time he/she looks at this picture.

A technically perfect shot with spot on exposure, shot using a heavy weight tripod and the lowest grain film, hand developed and babied during rinsing and still all techical effort to maximize a cutting edge result in resolution etc. can after all be just this : a boring perfect shot that no one bothers to look at twice .

The contents, the message of the picture makes all the difference. Just my 0.02$ on Election Day. 😉