Perception vs reality

[jim0266]

Chris

** Sorry, Lynn,. I didn't see you posted the same link! **

Fascinating look at Capa on D-Day and the myth behind those images.

The Robert Capa D-Day Project received the 2014 Society of Professional Journalists Sigma Delta Chi (SDX) Award for Research About Journalism.

http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/major-stories/major-series-2014/robert-capa-on-d-day/

 

[David Hughes]

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

Hi,

I couldn't agree more and that's one of the reasons I have more than one camera and more than one lens. It's just a question of the right tool for the job and we can all make our own decisions based on our own priorities.

Regards, David

 

[user237428934]

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.

Especially in wildlife and nature/landscape a good photo requires good content PLUS very good technical image quality.

Other genres are more forgiving regarding technical image quality.

 

[robert blu]

I spent years learning how to make the technically "perfect" photo. But than I realized many of them were lacking the most important (IMO) ingredient: emotion.

Technical perfection with no soul.

Than it was for me time to learn, trying too learn (again learning!) how to use the technological knowledge to convey emotion.

Less attention or better said different use of the technical aspect, the use of "alternative technology" like the Impossible instant films or expired films are the road I'm following now .

robert

 

[airfrogusmc]

Especially in wildlife and nature/landscape a good photo requires good content PLUS very good technical image quality.

Other genres are more forgiving regarding technical image quality.

Here is a great photo dealing with the movement and feel more than so called technical perfection.
Paul Caponigro
http://www.photographywest.com/pages/images/RWD.jpg

 

[Dogman]

If you're concentrating on bird and wildlife photography, you are really involved in a pursuit that is dependent on technology as well as skill. A higher emphasis is placed on technical quality in this type of photography than journalistic and documentary photography or "art" photography, for want of a better description. While you might see a few photos of birds or wildlife with panning motion, the norm is a tack sharp photo. In other types of photography, technical quality is secondary to telling a story, presenting a viewpoint, connecting to an emotional response in the viewer.

I've been a Walker Evans follower for years. In one of the many books I have about the man, a former lab assistant recalled Evans cajoling him to stop trying to make a perfect print. To Evans, technical perfection was secondary to content.

Today, we have better photography equipment than at any time in history. Because of this, the uninitiated, uneducated and the uninspired photographer mistakenly believes that only the technically perfect is a good photograph. There are so many other elements involved, technical quality is only a small part of the equation.

 

[Bill Clark]

I figured I was getting better as a photographer when I started to make photographs of my wife that she likes!

To be blunt, it doesn't concern me what other folks think of my photographs except for two.

When I had my business I was lucky and fortunate to run across a great fellow professional photographer who helped me along with my photography journey. He evaluated my work and always suggested ideas to improve. He also would always point out a feature or two he liked.

The second were folks who hired me to tell the story of a beautiful day with photography or make other people photographs such as business headshots and other situations.

The best advice I could give, find someone who could be your coach and mentor. After all, even each great athlete has someone who is their coach.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Dogman I think that sometimes many get caught up in capturing the noun or as Weston called it the obvious. Sometimes that makes for very crisp clear renditions of say a bird. But does that image go beyond the noun or as Weston said, the obvious? Does it capture what the creator feels about what he is photographing n a deep sense?

I to am a huge fan of Evans as well as many of the other FSA photographers of that time. I think it should always be about if the image and the technique matching the vision. I think it was Haas that said and I am paraphrasing; I would rather make bad photographs that look like mine than beautiful photographs that look like everyone else's.

I also do not believe that single photographs tell stories. Bodies of work and documentary projects and series of images very well can. Winogrand said it far better than I could ever say it in this clip about 1:27 in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

Thats my 2 cents....

 

[user237428934]

Here is a great photo dealing with the movement and feel more than so called technical perfection.
Paul Caponigro
http://www.photographywest.com/pages/images/RWD.jpg

I looked up this guy and the thing with the moving animals seems to be his favorite topic.

If the image you posted was a one time lucky shot of someone, then there was probably not much to criticize. As a concept-photo it doesn't work for me. The trees are mushy and unsharp and the foreground is so dark. You just can't differentiate the layers. Just the movement of the animals is not enough for me.

The guy has another photo that has a similar idea with moving dogs in the foreground, a bride and a stormy cloudy sky. That is really good and technically brilliant because everything is super sharp, it has a nice landscape layering, only the running (unsharp) dogs add this special extra with their movement. I like this one very much.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Photography is broad. it's quite alright that you don't like it but the image is more about the movement and gracefulness of the deer and I think it goes beyond the obvious, which in my opinion, is a very good thing.
Some more of his work.
http://www.photographywest.com/pages/caponigro_photos.html

BTW the if you read the article the bride photo was not Caponigro but inspired by his deer photo.

I believe the bride photo is a composite unlike the Caponigro image and made by a photographer by the name of William Bay or something like that.

Also a little background on Paul Caponigro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Caponigro

 

[gns]

I don't really see the point of the question. We've all seen great photographs that are blurred, out of focus, "Under exposed", etc. And we've all seen technically impressive photos that are completely dull.

Couldn't we just throw out the term, technical perfection? What's the point of it? There is no such thing as far as I can see. How a picture looks (its qualities, not quality) should be appropriate to that picture, but there is no accepted set of qualities that can be applied to all photographs to determine success.

 

[airfrogusmc]

GNS I totally agree...

 

[Out to Lunch]

Robert Capa on the beach at D-Day: I've read three interpretations of his blurry shot: 1. he was shaking; 2. film emulsion sliding or melting, and 3. the sprocket problem with his Contax and Kodak film. In the end, it doesn't matter at all.

 

[Dan]

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.

This is such a fascinating read because it explodes the wild myths surrounding Capa, especially in a PBS documentary: http://www.pbs.org/ktca/americanphotography/

 

[Tim Murphy]

I agree with you too

I agree with you too

I don't really see the point of the question. We've all seen great photographs that are blurred, out of focus, "Under exposed", etc. And we've all seen technically impressive photos that are completely dull.

Couldn't we just throw out the term, technical perfection? What's the point of it? There is no such thing as far as I can see. How a picture looks (its qualities, not quality) should be appropriate to that picture, but there is no accepted set of qualities that can be applied to all photographs to determine success.

Dear gns,

Actually your answer closely parallels my thoughts. Maybe I have a simplistic and uneducated viewpoint, but unless a photograph makes me feel something, or at least pause and think about it, then no matter how perfectly executed it is I can just move on and look at the next one.

I did notice a few answers that referred to the possible need for better gear given my interests in nature and wildlife photography. While I can certainly agree that in most instances everyone has an option or two to improve their gear in some way I personally don't have the financial resources to own a 1DXmk11 and Canon 600mmf4 lens, so I strive to do my best with the gear that I own.

However, I'd be interested in hearing if their is any merit in doing the best job you possibly can with the gear you have? And, how should those efforts be judged?

For example. can a photograph that is well executed and interesting but taken with gear that is not the latest and greatest still be a good photograph, or will it always be judged by the what if factor and whether it would have been a better photograph if a better lens or camera body was used?

Again, my only interest here is getting some conversation going and hearing the viewpoints of others.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[airfrogusmc]

Best job, in my opinion, would be figuring out how you see, what your subject means to you and what is the best way to capture that. Taking photographs that get beyond the obvious. Beyond what the thing is but what you see it as. Nouns are easy. Obvious is easy. Look around and you see a ton of those. It's the ones that get beyond that that are rare. And I think yu are arriving when someone looks at one of your images and before they look at the signature or who took it they know it is one of yours.

I think gear is important but in terms of finding what works of for the way you see and work. Whatever that may be. New, latest/greatest, old, whatever. I think having gear that has become second nature so you are not thinking for one split moment about technique and you are just responding to what you are seeing is the key.

 

[Dogman]

Dogman I think that sometimes many get caught up in capturing the noun or as Weston called it the obvious. Sometimes that makes for very crisp clear renditions of say a bird. But does that image go beyond the noun or as Weston said, the obvious? Does it capture what the creator feels about what he is photographing n a deep sense?

I to am a huge fan of Evans as well as many of the other FSA photographers of that time. I think it should always be about if the image and the technique matching the vision. I think it was Haas that said and I am paraphrasing; I would rather make bad photographs that look like mine than beautiful photographs that look like everyone else's.

I also do not believe that single photographs tell stories. Bodies of work and documentary projects and series of images very well can. Winogrand said it far better than I could ever say it in this clip about 1:27 in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

Thats my 2 cents....

I certainly cannot disagree with this.

I tried my hand at bird photography over a decade ago and I found it frustrating, mainly because it felt so confining. Looking at wildlife and nature photography websites, almost everything was just so technically perfect the photos began to look the same with a few exceptions.

Weston had some great quotes. I especially like "If it's more than a hundred feet from the car, it's not photogenic."

One of my favorite photo quotes is from William Eggleston (especially appropriate here)--"I am at war with the obvious."

 

[user237428934]

Thanks for the links. Some interesting photos.

Photography is broad. it's quite alright that you don't like it but the image is more about the movement and gracefulness of the deer and I think it goes beyond the obvious, which in my opinion, is a very good thing.
Some more of his work.
http://www.photographywest.com/pages/caponigro_photos.html

BTW the if you read the article the bride photo was not Caponigro but inspired by his deer photo.

I believe the bride photo is a composite unlike the Caponigro image and made by a photographer by the name of William Bay or something like that.

Also a little background on Paul Caponigro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Caponigro

 

[David Hughes]

FWIW, most of the time I use my camera like a notebook...

Regards, David

 

[aizan]

technical perfection is a concern of commercial photography, the artists whose work descends from the "fine printing" tradition, and amateurs who like geeking out over it.

...and people who haven't figured out where their priorities lie. 😀