Image quality is not my problem

daveleo

daveleo

what?
Local time
6:39 PM
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
3,692
My problems are content and final interpretation.
What am I really looking at? and how do want to see it?

This is the morning's lament and, like they say on the internet, I needed to share that with you.
:(
 
Why are you looking at it?
Why do you feel its important to share it?

For me a. it affirms my existence. b. i want to leave a record that i lived, and c. i want to create an image that strikes a life affirming chord within another human being.

wonderful thoughts to start the day with.
cheers! from Harvard Square

Kwesi
 
Thanks Dave, this is an interesting point. I need some time to think about and I'll come back, I m leaving home now and will be back late tonight.

Shortly photography is communication. You share an idea, a content. But you can also share an aesthetic. It depends on the contest. Hmm, it's getting complicated...
robert
 
Dave welcome to the really difficult part of being a photographer. The technique is the easy part. The vision is the infinitely difficult part. It is a life long journey so just sit back and enjoy the ride. Sometimes it will just click and sometimes you will struggle. If it were easy everyone would be making images with real content but most of what we see, on the world wide web, are as Weston called it obvious or I refer to it as nouns.
 
Kwesi said:
Why are you looking at it?
Why do you feel its important to share it?

For me a. it affirms my existence. b. i want to leave a record that i lived, and c. i want to create an image that strikes a life affirming chord within another human being.

wonderful thoughts to start the day with.
cheers! from Harvard Square

Kwesi
Click to expand...

I shoot in Harvard Sq a lot :D

I share your sentiment of wanting my images to strike a chord with someone else. If I've done that, then I feel like I accomplished something.
 
"Image quality is not my problem"

It is a problem for me instead. But not in a way that most of forum users think about. My problem, is that I look at other people's photos for beauty, inspiration, knowledge. I don't care so much if they are sharp, because not all photos look better when they are. And I also do not care the least about the chromatic aberration and magenta cast, because I only like B&W. So, the problem is, that most photos are not good enough. This can be said of my photos as well.
 
Image quality is different thing for different situations.
Lest say, glamour shot with lingerie :) I want it focus.
Or bug life size picture, needs to be sharp.

Do I want this hobo street shot to be taken with macro lens?
Absolutely not.
Landscapes with everything in focus are boring as well.

And noise reduction is useless exercise.
 
I don't care about image quality, unless it goes in the way of the image "Quality"
it often does, so I do pay attention to the performance of my gear (and there is an incredible amount of variance there)
 
daveleo said:
My problems are content and final interpretation.
What am I really looking at? and how do want to see it?

This is the morning's lament and, like they say on the internet, I needed to share that with you.
:(
Click to expand...


As DAH would say, "authorship, authorship, authorship"

From my own experience, it's been a long and often frustrating (though still fun) journey to answer those 2 questions.

So.... I feel you, brother!
 
Not only do I not really care about image quality--it only has to show a slight nod to competence with the medium as far as my purposes go --but the fact that 99.9% of images are seen on little screens is a real blow to the skull of people insisting on "full frame" 20+MB mega files. Really not necessary. I don't think the Metropolitan Museum will be calling me up tomorrow and wanting 40x60 prints. The real world is rarely wanting anything over 1000px jpegs. Content is king!
 
Interesting question.
I think the image has to have just enough "quality" to convey your message. (see Ko.Fe.'s post above)
The viewer may see what you saw or may see something totally different. (see Kwesi's post)
Some photos, even on a small monitor, instantly strike a chord whereas others make me nauseous. Medium of presentation is important but as Stephen Kling said, "Content is king!".
 
Just keep working. It's how any craft person finds their niche materials and output.
Keep working. Keep experimenting. Keep looking for inspiration and the input of those that inspire you.
If you don't even feel inspired to explore. It's ok to just simply take a break.

Architetcts look at architecture and nature.
Film makers watch films.
Clothing designers explore fashion.
Woodworkers... Chefs....Coaches ... Coders... etc... Get the idea?

It comes from inside you but very likely something from the outside will wake it up!

Cheers!
 
f16sunshine said:
Just keep working. It's how any craft person finds their niche materials and output.
Keep working. Keep experimenting. Keep looking for inspiration and the input of those that inspire you.
If you don't even feel inspired to explore. It's ok to just simply take a break.

Architetcts look at architecture and nature.
Film makers watch films.
Clothing designers explore fashion.
Woodworkers... Chefs....Coaches ... Coders... etc... Get the idea?

It comes from inside you but very likely something from the outside will wake it up!

Cheers!
Click to expand...
Some -- unfortunately not all -- even study engineering and materials science, so their buildings will stay up. Or indeed can be built at all: Sydney Opera House.

A phrase I've long espoused -- I may even have coined it -- is "the quality plateau", the level of quality at which "better" cameras, lenses, exposure, etc., are less important than the aesthetic/technical skill of the photographer.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dave, the best explanation of writer's block I know--and of which I was reminded by Roger's use of the word 'plateau'--is when a writer reaches a point where the capacity for self-critical appraisal exceeds the capacity for creative surprise and wonder. This can handily be transposed to visual artistry. If the technique feels repetitive + increasingly empty, it may be time to take on another project where you can feel you're seeing the world anew without a critical or technical vocabulary (yours or the great dead's) getting in the way, or immediately quantifying/qualifying what you have just done.

I've written elsewhere about (re)turning to photography when my writing life reached a point of mental/spiritual exhaustion. This sort of genre/disciplinary shifting for the sake of learning how to apprehend the world all over again, and transform it creatively while pursuing (personally ) new techniques is another way to approach the conundrum of So What, the boredom and ennui that overtake most mortals now and again.

When photography or (if you like) nonverbal visual thinking is not doing it for me, I pick up one of my guitars (it's not as bad as the camera hoard--I have only 8 guitars). I have decades of technical experience (scales chords theory performance etc.) there, but turned my attention to jazz only about 6 years ago. That world of composition and improvisation is another immersive, nonverbal form of creative refreshment from which my other interests benefit.

One more variant on what I think I'm trying to say: at junctures like this, what can one do to be an enthusiastic or happily bewildered student rather than a bored or pedantic master of technique? Find surprise and wonder. Or rather let them find you by whatever means.
 
Last edited:
daveleo said:
My problems are content and final interpretation.
What am I really looking at? and how do want to see it?

This is the morning's lament and, like they say on the internet, I needed to share that with you.
:(
Click to expand...

Hi Dave,
It means you're a real photographer, and it's tough, yes, but it's sooo beautiful...
Sharing feelings is cool too! And healthy!
Cheers,
Juan
 
If you're looking for inspiration or change, I'd find someone whose work you like, and ask them to talk about what they see and don't see in your photographs, in the theory that they might know what they're talking about. I wouldn't ask the anonymous assembled masses [here].

Kwesi's second sentence is the gem of all that's above, in my opinion.
 
That's the fun of post processing. You've taken a picture, now you need to figure out why. Your questions are spot on - what were you really looking at and how do you want to see it?

Add - how do you want others to see it? Frame to the essential(s), or place what you saw in a broader context and let the viewer discover for themselves? Lead the view with burning, dodging, vignetting, WB choices, etc., or leave it 'straight' and rely on the strength of the elements?

My frustrations are:
- the shot was taken with some nebulous 'other' viewer in mind, and bores me;
- I find what I wanted to see, but I was stupid at the time of capture and didn't place myself in the right place to make a good picture of it;
- my technique was sloppy (focus, exposure, DOF,), and I don't have the ingredients to make a picture of what I saw in the way I wanted it to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom