But if your exposure is completely off, then you have no shot ...
kevinparis
Established
don't think anyone is advocating the complete throwing out of the concepts of focus and exposure... its just whether 'perfect' exposure and focus are prerequisites to making a an interesting image....or whether an interesting image lives on its own merits
K
K
kipkeston
Well-known
The quality has to be sufficient to not distract from the image itself. That's all.
FrankS
Registered User
If you think of Cappa's D-day landing photos, the terrible technical quality of his photos actually add to the dramatic effect.
http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425805699/141083/d-day-landing-omaha-beach.html
http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425805699/141083/d-day-landing-omaha-beach.html
Last edited:
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I don't think so. Capa was a very, very brave man but I always wished his pictures of the landing were of better quality.
It's probably a matter of taste.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
sper
Well-known
You go out there, you do what you can. Nice lenses are nice, however nice pictures can be made with rather pedestrian arrangements of glass. More and more I turn to Cosina, the undeserving underdog of rangefinder equipment, and Tri-X, the absolute get the shot film.
A picture with fantastic corner sharpness, zero distortion (and dare I say it) beautiful 'bokeh' can still be a boring photo. The most important thing is the story you're telling.
All that said, I do think about IQ hand in hand with content, which is a process that works for me.
A picture with fantastic corner sharpness, zero distortion (and dare I say it) beautiful 'bokeh' can still be a boring photo. The most important thing is the story you're telling.
All that said, I do think about IQ hand in hand with content, which is a process that works for me.
sper
Well-known
Most of Capa's photos from that day were destroyed or severely damaged by the lab tech in charge of processing his photos. The could have been his best negatives for all we know!
For those of you with M8s/M9s that's similar to when your Mac goes that that unhappy face screen, except imagine all the Mac Geniuses quit that same day.
ederek
Well-known
I've been reflecting on this thread for several days now, great discussion.
Originally I suggested that quality was important for 1) larger printing and 2) potential for cropping. Bah - Whatever - not really a good justification for quality being important, just speaks to potential to do more with an image [in the future]. But what about how the actual 800 pixel wide image seen on the web impacts me?
I think I've learned that the actual quality (either 'good' or 'bad' IQ) for a street photo that 'works' is absolutely critical.
This post helped me with some great examples, illustrating how 'poor' IQ could in fact "make" the image:
The other camp generally has the view that:
and
I think I've learned that one doesn't serve the other, but rather there is a marriage that either works, or doesn't for a given moment.
Alpacaman - Thank you for articulating this so well.
Appreciate the OP's query - really learned something here..
Originally I suggested that quality was important for 1) larger printing and 2) potential for cropping. Bah - Whatever - not really a good justification for quality being important, just speaks to potential to do more with an image [in the future]. But what about how the actual 800 pixel wide image seen on the web impacts me?
I think I've learned that the actual quality (either 'good' or 'bad' IQ) for a street photo that 'works' is absolutely critical.
This post helped me with some great examples, illustrating how 'poor' IQ could in fact "make" the image:
The photographer decides what she wants her photo to look like and if image quality is important or not. I think it takes guts and very clever photographer to shoot supersharp, superclean images in the street, because the street by nature is full of distracting elements and imperfections that you have little control over, like yellow rubbish bins LOL
Blocked shadows, grain, lens flares, motion blur, vignettes, plastic lenses, crappycams etc are commonly used to hide such imperfections, or even to "make" a photo by creating aesthetically pleasing artifacts.
Blocked shadows:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vasilikos/3903908092/in/pool-908122@N25
Burned highlights:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hughes_leglise/353267884/in/pool-908122@N25
Blur:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dirtyharrry/4118626281/in/pool-908122@N25
Grain:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafmad/3243262717/in/pool-908122@N25
Grain, flare and blocked shadows LOL:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/krameroneill/3223552619/in/pool-908122@N25
Crappycam:
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive...K7O3RHKRCN9&ALID=2K7O3R14ATRO&PN=51&CT=Search
etc etc...
Others, like Matt Stuart, Paul Russel, Nick Turpin etc prefer the clean/natural looking type of image, and it matches the aesthetic and the subtle humor/irony they want to convey to the viewer, without hiding anything. This is in fact the more modern approach to street photography.
So, it all depends basically
The other camp generally has the view that:
and
I think I've learned that one doesn't serve the other, but rather there is a marriage that either works, or doesn't for a given moment.
Alpacaman - Thank you for articulating this so well.
Appreciate the OP's query - really learned something here..
jky
Well-known
I've always judged images as follows:
1. Content
2. Content
3. Technical quality
Great content w/ slight technical flaws supercede any perfectly exposed, properly metered, super sharp, noise free image of crap in my opinioin.
The issue with street photography that I've experienced is it is very difficult to achieve # 1 & 2 above....
1. Content
2. Content
3. Technical quality
Great content w/ slight technical flaws supercede any perfectly exposed, properly metered, super sharp, noise free image of crap in my opinioin.
The issue with street photography that I've experienced is it is very difficult to achieve # 1 & 2 above....
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Really? I've always found it difficult to achieve 1 & 3, sometimes getting 2 & 3 right...
Seriously, sometimes I suspect this content-over-all attitude is just an excuse for not (often enough) managing to get technically good pictures. Technical quality alone is nothing. But a decisive moment captured out-of-focus or in a completely messed up exposure is a decisive moment NOT captured. IMHO.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Right, And as long as the story is told, the value is there: I mean, when there's a value that's more important and moving than any outstanding IQ... The IQ limits aren't too narrow... Great images for the ages can be a bit blurred, a bit out of focus, a bit over/underexposed on negative, but with the best possible printing, only empty spirits stop and desire more IQ... Full spirits enjoy our world... I've been obsessed with technical aspects of photography for 20 years because technique is a MUST in photography, and the ONLY ticket to the next expression station, but with them I've been less obsessed than with aesthetical aspects of it for the same 20 years... I would never say IQ limits are narrow... Narrow are the concept, the instant and the point of view: those define lots of things about the image no matter its IQ...
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I agree some of his images find a benefit there...
And to me it's so clear, that I think sometimes he did it on purpose... In the end, those are the images that became an icon: just as they look, different, vital, away from the highest IQ mainstream... Personally I'd find them inferior if a lot sharper and movement-free... He got great instants of course, and that's where their success lay, and the "low IQ" to some people, can be "the best possible IQ for those images" to other people...
Cheers...
Juan
jky
Well-known
As I mentioned, "slight technical flaws" which was not meant to imply 5 stops of exposure error or focusing at 3ft for somethign that was 20 ft away.
Technicality is not being minimized, but it's much simpler to learn and get better at this than capturing the decisive moment you mentioned.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Yes, you've said so before, and I still disagree. The problem is catching the 'decisive moment' WHILE getting the technical stuff right.
I really mean it: 'decisive moments' are relatively easy.
The Germans around here might have seen the cover of the Zeit Magazin this week: an amazingly wonderful portrait of Gerard Depardieu, the actor -- a moment, an expression captured just perfectly. Then you look closer and you notice that the focus is on his ears and not on his eyes...
It's still a great photograph (to me) but the artist here did NOT miss the right moment BUT he didn't manage to set the focus where it belonged. And I'm saying this is typical.
Or, remember that famous HCB picture of the man jumping over a large puddle in some kind of backyard? Again, it's NOT just the moment that makes the picture. What's almost unbelievable is that Cartier-Bresson managed to catch this moment in perfect technical quality!
Don't worry (too much) about content. Content's the easier part. Get the technical stuff right. Then try not to miss the decisive moments.
kevinparis
Established
really... you think the content is easier than the technical?....the content is the bit the photographer contributes... the rest is just mechanics
K
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Yes, I really feel like that.
Sure, there are only 4 parameters that you have to adjust 'correctly' on the technical side of photography (I'm not talking about 'staged' photography here) -- but do you really get them right, every time? In the street, when you've got almost no time to get the image?
If you do, congratulations -- content then is the harder part for you because you mastered the other part. For me, content's the easier part. I find it not that hard to see good stuff.
(I'd even show you some of it, but publishing street photography is de facto forbidden in Germany.)
kevinparis
Established
reagrding your '4 parameters' ... which i am guessing are focus, aperture, shutter speed and ISO....no don't get them all right every time.. probably don't get most of them right most of the time...
but technical perfection isn't why i take pictures... sure i strive to get the best technical quality in my images... but thats not what defines the image to me .. or to whatever audience I may find.
as regards to your premise that the content is easy... well my work is freely viewable...until i can see your work... I go on what i see, not what is said
but technical perfection isn't why i take pictures... sure i strive to get the best technical quality in my images... but thats not what defines the image to me .. or to whatever audience I may find.
as regards to your premise that the content is easy... well my work is freely viewable...until i can see your work... I go on what i see, not what is said
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Yea, I've gotta agree that subjective content trumps technical attributes.
For instance, I can splash paint on a canvas, utilizing every conceivable brush-stroke technique imaginable, and that only makes me a paint technician, not an artist.
While it's true that the technical and the subjective are much harder to differentiate in photography than some of the other arts, I'd rather have a soft or grainy image that strongly grabs me than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.
~Joe
For instance, I can splash paint on a canvas, utilizing every conceivable brush-stroke technique imaginable, and that only makes me a paint technician, not an artist.
While it's true that the technical and the subjective are much harder to differentiate in photography than some of the other arts, I'd rather have a soft or grainy image that strongly grabs me than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.
~Joe
jky
Well-known
Ideally of course, we all strive to get the image AND the techs correct...
Good, lasting street photography that for example captures harmony in subject, light, composition, spatial placement is extremely difficult.
Getting settings correct is easy in comparison.