its back to the days of early photography

[gdi]

for those of you who did not notice the flaws, visit this link below and you can look at the larger size of this image. when you're there look at the shadows, look at the sky, look at the transition between the shadows and mids and then highlights.

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/...widget&utm_medium=image&ref=challenges-widget

if you still don't see any flaws then disregard the flaws part of my question and focus on the rest.

I see what you mean. Digital, no doubt...

 

[taemo]

i actually think it's a great shot, i highly doubt that the fog was added post, if yes that's a hell of a good job.

my only gripe with the shot is that I wished they didn't shoot it square format, I would crop the left side as it pulls your eyes away from the couple

 

[csxcnj]

Margu, From this and a couple of your other posts I think you way-over-think things too much sometimes.

 

[noisycheese]

Margu shut off your technical brain and look with your heart and not with your brain.

Also the image was cooked to a much lesser extent than your stuff.

Hear, hear!

That was the whole point behind my earlier post (#21).

Compared to some of today's little known yet technically proficient painters, Van Gogh's paintings were crap - technically speaking.
However, this particular piece of "crap" ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/van_gogh/10912.shtml ) sold to a Japanese collector for $56.5 million U.S. dollars - and those were 1987 dollars, not the current zombie version of the U.S. dollar.

Whether the medium is photography or oil painting, there's more to it than mere technical proficiency and/or perfection.

 

[nikon_sam]

It's emotional...

 

[YYV_146]

I see a somewhat generic, but tasteful piece suitable as decor or cellphone wallpaper. In fact I have more "bland" photos that I took myself for all my desktops, clouds, forest and lake.etc. Of course we all strive to create images with emotional depth, but nobody really wants to get a face-full of emotional depth every morning.

It's something I'd put beside my bed just to make it look less empty. Maybe that's why it's popular?

 

[fdarnell]

It's liked for the same reason people liked Thomas Kincaid's paintings. Kind of has that quality to it.

It's cliche, but I don't mind it. Better than some of the "why did they shoot that" street photos I see on here.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It's something I'd put beside my bed just to make it look less empty. Maybe that's why it's popular?

That sums it up nicely, in my opinion.

 

[jsrockit]

Isn't this type of thing like saying ... I can't see it, so it must not be of worth?

 

[FrankS]

A pleasant >atmospheric< image. It would make a nice postcard or sentimental greeting card.
There are many different types of and purposes for photography. This is a good one for that. IMO

 

[hepcat]

other than the basic technical mistakes which i called flaws, i'm honestly intrigued as to why this image is liked so much in an age where people pay thousands for sharp lenses and 24-36mp cameras bodies.

The "basic technical mistakes" aside, it's an impressionistic work. Most consumers of images respond positively to the "blatant use of the rule of thirds."

Paying thousands for sharp lenses and 24-36mp camera bodies are often the camera salesman's solution that is in search of a problem. His primary concern is not your images, of course, but rather separating you from your cash.

 

[FrankS]

I read this once: it's better to take a fuzzy photo with a sharp concept than a sharp photo with a fuzzy concept. Or something to that effect.

 

[hepcat]

...looks like a hallmark card...

Hallmark buys images just like this because their target audience likes them.

Checking the histogram...

Seriously? Checking the histogram? That's part of art appreciation?

...It provides a romanticized view of the world that allows one to escape the day to day troubles that we actually face.

It's emotional...

It's emotive. It takes people to places they either once were or wish they could be, at least for a moment. It evokes a quiet, contemplative feel... something that is often sadly absent from our 36 megapixel, hyper-sharpened, cell tower connected, commuter world.

It's meant as art. It isn't realism. It wasn't intended to be illustrative, it was intended to be emotive and clinical technical perfection isn't required for that. Trying to find "technical perfection" in pictorialsm (or pointellism, or impressionism, or even cubism in painting) entirely misses the point of the work, which is to convey a feeling of time and place rather than capturing an image of a time or a place. I suppose you could even argue that each of those is a separate discipline with its own set of "rules" for "technical perfection" that are very different from other genres, and it's pointless to judge each of them by the other's set of rules.

ON EDIT... one more thought... The style of presentation of this image works because of the subject and intent of the image. In the more pragmatic world of photo-illustration, advertising, product illustration and so forth the techniques used here would likely render an image unusable. Context is everything when we're consumers of imaging, and sometimes it's difficult to place an image in its proper context when we view it.

 

[shadowfox]

This is a classic example of this axiom:

If the emotional/visual quality of an image is high,
its technical flaws has little or no impact on the viewers.
The reverse is *not* true.

 

[back alley]

'i know what i like'...

 

[Scrambler]

Hepcat: of course not! But I wanted to try to find the "obvious errors," which subsequently I read are not visible in the image linked from the OP but can only be seen by pixel peeping.

My view is the same as most, and my first post covers it. Its popular for identifiable sane reasons.

In the same way blind testing shows uneducated wine drinkers have the exact opposite taste to educated palates. Which is right?

 

[cosmonaut]

other than the basic technical mistakes which i called flaws, i'm honestly intrigued as to why this image is liked so much in an age where people pay thousands for sharp lenses and 24-36mp cameras bodies.

If you start out with a good clean sharp well exposed image then you can edit it a million ways. It's a lot harder to fix/edit a picture that is bad right out of the camera. I am one to believe get it right in the field and don't rely on software to fix it.
There is nothing wrong with shooting digital and giving it a film look. Not all of us want the expense of buying film, sending it out and waiting the turn around time. I love film but it's gotten so difficult to deal with. The last film I sent out cost $13.00 to process and a week and a half turn around. Not to mention the film was $5.00 for a roll so that's $18.00 for a roll of 36. I can shoot my 44 magnum cheaper than .50 a pop.
As for the flaws an artist can make flaws work like Winnogrand did.

 

[ELS]

🙂 - Long live digital photography..

 

[mdarnton]

As they say, if it sells, it's art, and that kind of "art" has sold an awful lot of tourist postcards and promotional calendars over the years. I think this type of photo's success is that it appeals to absolute lowest common denominator of taste. [referring to the original picture in this thread]