cz23
-
Robert Frank and Daido Moriyama come to mind.
I can't think of single photograph that has moved me that relies on technical execution for its effectiveness. But I think it takes a strong and distinctive vision to turn technically "poor" images into something expressive and meaningful. That's very different from our mistakes.
John
I can't think of single photograph that has moved me that relies on technical execution for its effectiveness. But I think it takes a strong and distinctive vision to turn technically "poor" images into something expressive and meaningful. That's very different from our mistakes.
John
L Collins
Well-known
You've obviously never had a discussion with a logic professor.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Can you prove that assertion, logically?
defconfunk
n00b
I do not believe the want for technically perfect images, and the associated discussions, is new. I've got a stack of photo magazines from the early 80s, and they are basically talking about the exact same things we do today; but the subjects are prime vs zoom and this brand of colour negative vs that slide.
I've recently been going through some photo books of photographers I admire. My favourite portraitist was Yousuf Karsh - I love his lighting and his timing. In his books, each photo is accompanied by a story about the shoot (one of my favourite things about photo books are the written stories). He never mentions the technology used. I don't even know what format he shot. I know he liked constant lighting (something he picked up from theatre), but I have no idea how many or which of his shots were strobe, constant light, or natural light.
Interestingly, looking closely at many of his portraits, the focus isn't perfect. Some shot have a softness to them where nothing is truely in focus (I've always felt out of focus eyes are a cardinal sin in my own photograhpy). I am able to spot 'technical' imperfections in a number of his shots. but I still love those shots.
Another photographer who's work I've been enjoying recently is Jeff Bridges (the actor). He does all his work with a Widelux. Talk about lomo! And yet, so many of his shots just grab me and hold me.
I am trying to learn this and remember it when going through my own shots. With film I am more forgiving, but I need to bring that level of forgiveness and awareness to my digital work.
I've recently been going through some photo books of photographers I admire. My favourite portraitist was Yousuf Karsh - I love his lighting and his timing. In his books, each photo is accompanied by a story about the shoot (one of my favourite things about photo books are the written stories). He never mentions the technology used. I don't even know what format he shot. I know he liked constant lighting (something he picked up from theatre), but I have no idea how many or which of his shots were strobe, constant light, or natural light.
Interestingly, looking closely at many of his portraits, the focus isn't perfect. Some shot have a softness to them where nothing is truely in focus (I've always felt out of focus eyes are a cardinal sin in my own photograhpy). I am able to spot 'technical' imperfections in a number of his shots. but I still love those shots.
Another photographer who's work I've been enjoying recently is Jeff Bridges (the actor). He does all his work with a Widelux. Talk about lomo! And yet, so many of his shots just grab me and hold me.
I am trying to learn this and remember it when going through my own shots. With film I am more forgiving, but I need to bring that level of forgiveness and awareness to my digital work.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
hepcat
Former PH, USN
This is an ages-old debate that goes back to the first two photographers who had a discussion. The f64 club was established as a backlash against mainstream impressionist photography of the day. And that's really what the question is about... is photography about exquisitely sharp detail, or is it about conveying emotion and feeling? The answer, of course, that both are valuable... in context.
Mcary
Well-known
Depends on the situation, if there's just an instant or a few brief seconds to snap the shot then I'm willing to give up a bit of image/technical quality. On the other hand if time isn't an issue why not take the time to get both!
While yes a lot of people shooting digital do seem to believe that technical things like sharpness and low noise can turn a poorly composed shot into something interesting. A lot of people that use film seem to believe using film some how turns a poorly composed shot into something interesting.
While yes a lot of people shooting digital do seem to believe that technical things like sharpness and low noise can turn a poorly composed shot into something interesting. A lot of people that use film seem to believe using film some how turns a poorly composed shot into something interesting.
froyd
Veteran
OP, you preseme a fee things iI don't agree with:
1) blurry = low quality. Why? blur is often created intentionally to enhanche an image. Some photographers go as far as adding blur in in post production to achieve a certain effect.
2) The old greats cared more about content than quality. well, maybe. Maybe they used the best equipment that suited their needs and was available to them. Who knows whether they would use FLE multi-couated lenses if those guys were starting photography now. At the very least, I don't think they went out of their way to create lo-fi images.
1) blurry = low quality. Why? blur is often created intentionally to enhanche an image. Some photographers go as far as adding blur in in post production to achieve a certain effect.
2) The old greats cared more about content than quality. well, maybe. Maybe they used the best equipment that suited their needs and was available to them. Who knows whether they would use FLE multi-couated lenses if those guys were starting photography now. At the very least, I don't think they went out of their way to create lo-fi images.
daveleo
what?
The quality of the content . . . . as long as poor "technical quality" doesn't detract from it. For me, "content" is the whole point of making pictures.
Margu
Established
this issue was always there, the only difference is that thanks to the internet, those voices that were unheard before, namely the amateurs, are the only voices that is heard today
hobby photographers are happy with everything gear and gear performance because its not easy to be some sort of artist photographer who's only after quality, and not to mention knows what is quality
so the hobby photographers really don't have to maintain to some imaginary standard of artist photographers, those of them who do are simply delusional
hobby photographers are happy with everything gear and gear performance because its not easy to be some sort of artist photographer who's only after quality, and not to mention knows what is quality
so the hobby photographers really don't have to maintain to some imaginary standard of artist photographers, those of them who do are simply delusional
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Sparrow
Veteran
Can you prove that assertion, logically?
... can he even define define?
farlymac
PF McFarland
It's threads like this that make me glad I never went to college.
PF
PF
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
So many of these discussions seem to veer towards suggesting one or the other. Surely anyone wanting to take 'quality' images will have the technical side down pat allowing the photographers attention to be on the potential image. The two should go together and when a situation develops that means the technical side is slightly lost then the individual image will decide whether people see merit in it.
I would assume this is why the 'greats' talk less about gear and more about vision, content and/or subject. Though I still bet theres technical/gear related discussions between them when theres an issue of interest.
I would assume this is why the 'greats' talk less about gear and more about vision, content and/or subject. Though I still bet theres technical/gear related discussions between them when theres an issue of interest.
bobbyrab
Well-known
RichC
Well-known
Worth repeating!
alistair.o
Well-known
Yes, yes and yes - rocket science it ain't.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Two people agreeing with something I said! My God, perhaps I'm finally making some sense at last?!
williams473
Well-known
Both images are a good moment to make a photograph - I tend towards the second because of the gesture of the female. Her lean towards the male indicates a closer relationship and warms the scene.
I expected a lot more blur actually - this is hardly noticeable and not a big deal. My two cents on this topic would be that we should think of "the quality" of an image rather than quality versus lack of quality. Take quality as more of a "distinguishing attribute" (Webster's dictionary) rather than making quality synonymous with such subjective notions as "good" or "properly" focused or what have you. The "quality" of the photograph may include blur, out of focus areas, light leaks. If we trust that a photographer is presenting us with finished work, fully conveying their vision for the photograph, then it is what it is. Take it or leave it, like it or not, but remember that the photographer who appears to have lost control of an image may actually be simply allowing some other aspect of chance, Providence or whim to influence his or her work, all of which inform us about the artist. Look at Picaso's representative drawings from his youth - he is clearly a highly skilled artist. It took command of the conventional drawing skill to then expand into his later cubist work, but many a layman has looked at "Guernica" and remarked that it looks like the artist has the skill of a child!
I expected a lot more blur actually - this is hardly noticeable and not a big deal. My two cents on this topic would be that we should think of "the quality" of an image rather than quality versus lack of quality. Take quality as more of a "distinguishing attribute" (Webster's dictionary) rather than making quality synonymous with such subjective notions as "good" or "properly" focused or what have you. The "quality" of the photograph may include blur, out of focus areas, light leaks. If we trust that a photographer is presenting us with finished work, fully conveying their vision for the photograph, then it is what it is. Take it or leave it, like it or not, but remember that the photographer who appears to have lost control of an image may actually be simply allowing some other aspect of chance, Providence or whim to influence his or her work, all of which inform us about the artist. Look at Picaso's representative drawings from his youth - he is clearly a highly skilled artist. It took command of the conventional drawing skill to then expand into his later cubist work, but many a layman has looked at "Guernica" and remarked that it looks like the artist has the skill of a child!
RichC
Well-known
Possibly. Keep taking the tablets!
Two people agreeing with something I said! My God, perhaps I'm finally making some sense at last?!