Perception vs reality

[Tim Murphy]

Dear Board,

I like to take photographs to document people and places, in short things that I have seen. To me they are a visual memory link.

Having said that I have seen photographs taken by others that have both impressed and inspired me. A couple examples are Cassius Clay standing over Sonny Liston, the Vietnamese children running naked from a napalm attack, and the poor soul confronting tanks in Tiananmen Square.

Maybe some of what I wonder about is due to the digital photography world?

My question revolves around why today so much emphasis seems to be placed on technical perfection? Perfect focus, perfect highlights and shadows, etc.

Can a technically flawed photograph still be a good one? Is a technically perfect photograph automatically a good one?

There are no right or wrong answer here. I'm just curious to hear what people have to say.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[ChrisPlatt]

That famous D-Day photo by Robert Capa

That famous D-Day photo by Robert Capa

Chris

 

[peterm1]

"Can a technically flawed photograph still be a good one? Is a technically perfect photograph automatically a good one?"

Yes to the first part of this question but it depends partly on social expectations. Technically imperfect photos were accepted more I think back in film days because of limitations of film and camera technology (especially pre war). But I think we are being conditioned to believe that photos must be perfect. This in part has to do with the nature of the business model for camera and lens technology where the makers have to keep innovating to keep us buying or they die. So they have over time developed lenses that are ultra sharp using wonderful optical technology designed by super computers and they have developed sensors that shoot in the dark almost and have focusing and anti shake technology so everything is pin sharp. And so it goes. We now expect that and regard it as not only normal but to some extent necessary.

I am not into reportage and documentary photography being more moved by the artistic aspects of photography but I think my comments apply in both realms. I have written articles over at Steve Huff's site extolling the virtues of "imperfect" photos for artistic purposes. I believe that good image making is more than just having a technically perfect image - a meme that too many fall for these days. If you doubt this go to some of the sites that really focus on "gear" more or less exclusively. There you will find hundreds of perfectly exposed, pin sharp really, really, ugly and boring photos. :^) A good artistic image is one that moves you in some way hopefully positively. I am minded that the same goes in painting and other areas of art. Adolph Hitler was actually a technically OK painter but his images are all dead somehow, lacking in emotion and empty of humanity. The earlier English painter, Turner on the other hand, made images that often were nothing much more than smears of paint on canvas but are wonderfully evocative in capturing a moment. More examples I think of this phenomenon.

My last article (part 3 of 3) which touches on this and highlights how someone committed to the art of photography can leave this attitude behind by studying the masters like Saul Leiter (my favorite).

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/...-mood-in-photography-part-3-by-peter-maynard/

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Try taking a technically brilliant, sharp focussed portrait of a close young lady and see what she says. And remember, the customer is always right.

Regards, David

 

[Tim Murphy]

I think we agree

I think we agree

"Can a technically flawed photograph still be a good one? Is a technically perfect photograph automatically a good one?"

Yes to the first part of this question but it depends partly on social expectations. Technically imperfect photos were accepted more I think back in film days because of limitations of film and camera technology (especially pre-war). But I think we are being conditioned to believe that photos must be perfect. This in part has to do with the nature of the business model for camera and lens technology where the makers have to keep innovating to keep us buying or they die. So they have over time developed lenses that are ultra sharp using wonderful optical technology designed by super computers and they have developed sensors that shoot in the dark almost and have focusing and anti shake technology so everything is pin sharp. And so it goes. We now expect that and regard it as not only normal but to some extent necessary.

I am not into reportage and documentary photography being more moved by the artistic aspects of photography but I think my comments apply in both realms. I have written articles over at Steve Huff's site extolling the virtues of "imperfect" photos for artistic purposes. I believe that good image making is more than just having a technically perfect image - a meme that too many fall for these days. If you doubt this go to some of the sites that really focus on "gear" more or less exclusively. There you will find hundreds of perfectly exposed, pin sharp really, really, ugly and boring photos. :^) A good artistic image is one that moves you in some way hopefully positively. I am minded that the same goes in painting and other areas of art. Adolph Hitler was actually a technically OK painter but his images are all dead somehow, lacking in emotion and empty of humanity. The earlier English painter, Turner on the other hand, made images that often were nothing much more than smears of paint on canvas but are wonderfully evocative in capturing a moment. More examples I think of this phenomenon.

My last article (part 3 of 3) which touches on this and highlights how someone committed to the art of photography can leave this attitude behind by studying the masters like Saul Leiter (my favorite).

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/...-mood-in-photography-part-3-by-peter-maynard/

Dear Peter,

I'm more of the person that lets the mind's eye make the decision on perfection.

I agree that we were more accepting in the film era but then again I'm older and came of age in that era, hence my question.

I still think of photography in its literal sense, i.e. light writing. I know my opinion is not commonly held or accepted but so be it.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA

 

[ellisson]

IMO, more important then technical perfection are content, subject, emotion, a way of seeing that stirs others: you cannot program these into a camera or lens, or even a technically skilled camera user. These require perspective, feeling, and being consciously aware and present. Throw in some time and good luck. Stir well.

Last year, a young photographer offered on RFF some B&W photos for comment and opinion on which to submit for a competition. One photo in particular stood out: A young boy watching a group of other youngsters walking down railroad tracks. He was behind at a track that crossed another with two directions to choose from: one along which was the group and the other with no one. The photo was technically fine. But the content was special. For me, that was a moving photo. That was a winner.

 

[lynnb]

My question revolves around why today so much emphasis seems to be placed on technical perfection? Perfect focus, perfect highlights and shadows, etc.

This is camera industry marketing, and amateurs who confuse industry marketing and media talk, and modern digital camera capabilities, with meaningful image making.

Technical advances like autofocus, higher dynamic range of modern digital sensors and much improved low light capability have made it possible to make a technically good photo in almost any conditions. Cell phones included.

Making meaningful/beautiful/emotional pictures has very little to do with technical perfection unless talking about scientific photography. David's comment was spot on. Take that same young lady's portrait with good lighting and FP3000B or a vintage triplet. I'm fairly confident the customer would prefer either to a 50Mp clinically sharp rendition, skin pore by skin pore.

All depictions of three dimensional space on a two dimensional medium are interpretive, whether paint on canvas or a digital image on an iPad. In either case technical perfection can be more a hindrance to the creator's interpretation than an advantage. I don't think you're alone in thinking this.

In the limited-view world of camera clubs and some internet forums, talk like this is considered heresy 🙂.

 

[Tim Murphy]

Dear Board,

To those who have responded, thank you.

I take pictures of birds and wildlife and nature because they make me forget that I sit in a cubicle for 10 hours a day.

Mr Ellisson hit on what a good photograph means to me. It has to grab me and make me think or respond in a visceral manner. I've seen pictures posted on this forum of kids playing in a courtyard, or someone waiting for a subway train that elicited that gut response.

Having seen them I didn't care one whit if they were perfect. They had already done their job.

And Lynn, you'll get no argument from me that a lot of this is marketing and hype. All my digital cameras are rather old in digital years. I view a lot of nature and wildlife photos on message boards and I have seen absolutely breathtaking photos taken by better skilled photographers than myself that I hope one day to equal.

And all of those pictures were taken by people that are still active and now they use even newer and therefore better gear. And they still record awesome pictures but I can't help but think that they didn't need a new $ 5000.00 camera to make them for they had an eye and the way already?

Please keep the comments coming. I'm enjoying having started a discussion on the internet instead of my usual argument!

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[kb244]

😛 Some mistakes are beautiful mistakes.

But what's funny, such as the picture shown above, some people will claim that mistake was on purpose.

 

[tunalegs]

Dear Board,

I like to take photographs to document people and places, in short things that I have seen. To me they are a visual memory link.

Having said that I have seen photographs taken by others that have both impressed and inspired me. A couple examples are Cassius Clay standing over Sonny Liston, the Vietnamese children running naked from a napalm attack, and the poor soul confronting tanks in Tiananmen Square.

Maybe some of what I wonder about is due to the digital photography world?

My question revolves around why today so much emphasis seems to be placed on technical perfection? Perfect focus, perfect highlights and shadows, etc.

Can a technically flawed photograph still be a good one? Is a technically perfect photograph automatically a good one?

There are no right or wrong answer here. I'm just curious to hear what people have to say.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂

The only thing all good photographs have in common is that they're interesting. Technical perfection can be boring. But a sloppy photo of something interesting (think of the photos of the sinking Vestris or the Pulitzer winning photo of the semi truck dangling off a bridge while its driver is rescued with a rope) can be quite good. Ideally though, those same photos would have been technically perfect - but they weren't. That doesn't stop them from being good though.

 

[lynnb]

I can understand someone into birding having the very latest and greatest tool with predictive AF and lightning-fast focus acquisition and no lag...

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

Search if you get a chance, and maybe you have already, the story of Robert Capa's time on Normandy's beach. He shot 3 rolls before he figured he was on the 8th of his 9 lives, and then darkroom error left him just 10 or 11 images from the beach. We are fortunate to have any photo record at all.

I make a lot of mistakes on film, but so far none of my images are of a world changing event.

😛 Some mistakes are beautiful mistakes.

But what's funny, such as the picture shown above, some people will claim that mistake was on purpose.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

My question revolves around why today so much emphasis seems to be placed on technical perfection? Perfect focus, perfect highlights and shadows, etc.

Can't prove it of course, but my personal experience leads me to believe that mindset is rather limited to amature photographers, and companies selling mega pixels.

 

[peterm1]

I agree that there is a place for technical perfection in certain types of photography. It all depends I suppose on the type of photography and its purpose, the subjects, the intended audience etc. For example not many newly weds would be happy with wedding photos that are blurry or otherwise imperfect. Same for advertisers and other commercial projects.

But I do find that art photos that leave room for interpretation more interesting for the reason that they engage me, the viewer, in the process of interpreting the image in terms of my own frame of reference and experience. That draws me in.
I often think of (some) good art photography as being something like a poem (rather than descriptive prose). A poem, by its nature, requires the audience to think and interpret. Much the same goes for many forms of photography in my view. And I think that imperfect photos are often better at this - more spontaneous perhaps, than technically perfect ones.

 

[kb244]

Search if you get a chance, and maybe you have already, the story of Robert Capa's time on Normandy's beach. He shot 3 rolls before he figured he was on the 8th of his 9 lives, and then darkroom error left him just 10 or 11 images from the beach. We are fortunate to have any photo record at all.

I make a lot of mistakes on film, but so far none of my images are of a world changing event.

Though in the world of photojournalism, while photographers may strive to technical perfection, having the shot is better than no shot at all.

 

[back alley]

i think that today there are more images made then ever before...and not to be nasty cause this includes me, but most amateur images these days are not really very good...few have the soul and spirit of an artist and i believe that if your not born with it then your not going to learn/practice/gain it along the way.
but...we can work on/learn/practise how to be technically proficient.
so we begin to obsess about gear, lenses, chemicals, sensors sd cards etc.

 

[kb244]

i think that today there are more images made then ever before...and not to be nasty cause this includes me, but most amateur images these days are not really very good...few have the soul and spirit of an artist and i believe that if your not born with it then your not going to learn/practice/gain it along the way.
but...we can work on/learn/practise how to be technically proficient.
so we begin to obsess about gear, lenses, chemicals, sensors sd cards etc.

I think gear obsession isn't anything new btw. Been around in photography for the last 100 years.

 

[back alley]

I think gear obsession isn't anything new btw. Been around in photography for the last 100 years.

don't think i said that...

 

[lynnb]

Search if you get a chance, and maybe you have already, the story of Robert Capa's time on Normandy's beach. He shot 3 rolls before he figured he was on the 8th of his 9 lives, and then darkroom error left him just 10 or 11 images from the beach. We are fortunate to have any photo record at all.

I make a lot of mistakes on film, but so far none of my images are of a world changing event.

A bit off topic, but for a most interesting discussion of the story of Capa's D-Day photos and the ruined negs, read this.

 

[kb244]

don't think i said that...

And we probably didn't see all the crappy pics back then cuz they weren't so easily shared, or didn't' survive.