The perfection of imperfect photos

[peterm1]

Imperfection can be induced to emphasize a point - this point here, being the verticality of this small copse of thin trees. The photo uses I.C.M. in that plane to emphasize the fact.

Verticality by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

 

[peterm1]

So, do you think we should aim for imperfection, or just embrace it when it happens? I suspect, given your taste for pictirialism, you will say the former?

Sorry I think I may have missed this post before. mea culpa. I think imperfection is just one way to interpret an image but I do sometimes look at an image before me on the street and think "Hey I think this would look better as an image if done "this" way". So I have to confess I do sometimes deliberately induce imperfections. Which means you are right! 😛

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Imperfection can be induced to emphasize a point - this point here, being the verticality of this small copse of thin trees. The photo uses I.C.M. in that plane to emphasize the fact.

Verticality by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

I'm a big fan of I.C.M

I'm always looking for opportunities to practice the ICM style of photography. I'm still in the "hit & miss" phase with more misses than hits but when I get it right I'm thrilled. I thought of starting a W/NW ICM thread but I didn't think it would get much participation so I discarded that idea and mostly post my ICM images in the abstract thread.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Archiver]

I have LOADS of imperfect photos. Many where I have messed up; some where circumstances were such that the photo couldn't be anything but imperfect. In every case, the things I was trying to capture is lost because of the imperfections. So I'm wondering ... how far off perfect does an imperfect photo have to be in order to be a good photo? And does the imperfection have to be planned?

I'm arguing against the OP's case - not at all - but it is quite a puzzler, isn't it?

The examples in this thread share a number of common characteristics, including being out of focus, containing subject blur from slow shutter speed or camera movement, or having a lot of grain/noise. But all are artistic and impressionistic in their own way. None seem to be of the actually BAD photography that comes from inexperience. Everything here has aesthetic merit that stands aside from perfectly focused, perfectly exposed, perfectly composed images. There are countless images which are just plain bad, and they don't make the cut of imperfect perfection. These images convey a scene, a feeling, an impression which a random snapshot of blurry feet or grandpa's back (for example) can't convey. Bad photography is like pornography, you can't really define it, but you know it when you see it.

 

[peterm1]

I'm a big fan of I.C.M

I'm always looking for opportunities to practice the ICM style of photography. I'm still in the "hit & miss" phase with more misses than hits but when I get it right I'm thrilled. I thought of starting a W/NW ICM thread but I didn't think it would get much participation so I discarded that idea and mostly post my ICM images in the abstract thread.

All the best,
Mike

I like it too Mike but have not tried it enough to really run with it. Occasionally it has happened by error but very few of these have worked out well. But I still have hopes and now and then will actively see an image that in advance I am able to identify a shot that I think will work well with ICM as is the case with this shot. I really should try it more often though.

 

[Leon C]

Completely random shot but turned out kinda nicely surreal, not intentional of course and the Cat sat on a plant stand in the picture is actually Black & White, the lamp is in a different room.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

View attachment 4858393

Completely random shot but turned out kinda nicely surreal, not intentional of course and the Cat sat on a plant stand in the picture is actually Black & White, the lamp is in a different room.

Minimalist, yes. Surrealist, yes.

Perfect? Not sure.

Imperfect I'm okay with. In my image-making world, it's as close to perfect as I will ever get.

But then in the rest of my world, t'ain't no such thing as perfection anyway. Intentional is, to a Sagittarian, a nonexistent term.

Almost? Well...

PS I forgot to say, most excellent image. Indeed. I would happily have a print of this in my collection, and to me that is the ultimate test. Passed with honours.

 

[Leon C]

DownUnder, thank you for your kind comments, as someone who doesn't take pictures for praise or recognition it means a lot, perfection is subjective for me, technically doable, yes....maybe, but I don't pay particular attention to that aspect of photography anymore, not conciously anyway.

 

[Velorum]

An accidental shot in my study last week. Taken on one of my Vito B's whilst I was packing it my rucksack. Kodak Gold 200, F8, 60s. Negative scanned and manipulated with Microsoft picture editor.

 

[x-ray]

Imperfections are part of the beauty.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

How's this for imperfect? Low-light shot of the Golden Gate Bridge, taken in 2009 with my iPhone 3G.

 

[daveoo]

From a Fuji camera, using monochrome and color styles. I simply adjusted exposure since I underexposed and desaturated some for unified look. Intentional is obvious here. The facial expression in the first affects me. Shot in 2016 and was told elsewhere this was a rabbit hole. Thanks for the opportunity.

 

[Brambling]

From a Fuji camera, using monochrome and color styles. I simply adjusted exposure since I underexposed and desaturated some for unified look. Intentional is obvious here. The facial expression in the first affects me. Shot in 2016 and was told elsewhere this was a rabbit hole. Thanks for the opportunity.

View attachment 4858954

View attachment 4858955



View attachment 4858957

Very artistic, but not for the monitor, but for hands, eyes and the wall!
I think so.

 

[Brambling]

Imperfection can be induced to emphasize a point - this point here, being the verticality of this small copse of thin trees. The photo uses I.C.M. in that plane to emphasize the fact.

Verticality by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

well, the effect is very on topic, it emphasizes what needs to be emphasized.

 

[daveoo]

Leica M6 Zeiss M 35mm 1.4, film forgotten. River Late Autumn. Don't know how this happened, but I think I had to bring down the exposure. My idea was to show leafless tree reflections.

 

[lynnb]

A grainy grab shot with the XA that I think fits this thread.
Sydney, 2013. #760
Olympus XA TX400 D76

 

[lynnb]

Another taken nearby, same day.
Apartment building entrance, Elizabeth St Sydney, 2013. #750
Olympus XA TX400 D76

 

[Brambling]

they started eating me from below)))
orgy of fish children near my feet on a sunny day

Zorkiy 3m, JUPITER-8 50MM F2, KN 1 from 1972, exposed august 2020

 

[peterm1]

I note that the front page of the video has a Julia Margaret Cameron image - and that Peter's example could pass for one of hers had she been fonder of profile views. I take it that was deliberate once you realised it wasn't quite perfect, or was there some plan? I can see no obvious tells that the photo was taken in the 21st century, which makes me curious.

It was a bit of both, Muggins. 🙂 I set out to take an ordinary candid shot (with a very early Asahi Takumar 105mm f2.8) but somehow missed focus a little. But I liked the photo and realized that it would lend itself to a new interpretation - something in the nature of the Cameron image you mentioned (or others of that school). Being a fan of that early stye of photography I had done this with a few others of my images and knew how to give effect to it with some post processing. Not all photos turn out so convincing though as the subject must be right.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Another shot from my iPhone 3GS, this one from 2010.