The perfection of imperfect photos

peterm1

peterm1

Veteran
Local time
8:52 PM
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
7,685
I was watching the following link today - a new video recently put up on You tube.



The video is titled " Why does photography feel so different now?" but when you drill down, the real thread running through it is why are so many old photos from the relative early days still so impactful when compared with many made using modern photography which have the benefit of modern technology and can often more or less efortlessly produce technically "perfect" images.

This happens to be a bit of a hobby horse of mine as I frequently make imperfect images - either by design or more often in my case, by accident. :p My theory is that the potential impact of such "imperfect" photos is because they force the viewer to "engage" with such images (or not engage at all - which is also an option) and when someone does choose to engage it can produce something of a more emotional bond with the image. In this respects, I liken them a bit to poetry as opposed to ordinary prose. I have never been a huge fan of poetry, funnily enough but I do sometimes stumble on a poem that goes straight to my heart and for that reason such poems are memorable. The point I guess is that for use who are not doing this for a living and who want to make something artistic, many images do not necessarily (despite what the advertisers for cameras and lenses say) have to be technically perfect - they just have to work as art and be capable of triggering a positive emotional reaction in the viewer.

This idea is also embraced in the Japanese philosophy of "Wabi Sabi". The idea that there can be beauty in imperfect, and even broken things. Serendipity sometimes comes into play and by pure chance as I wrote this post the following video popped up in my You tube feed. (I had not even been searching for anything associated with this topic - which is the usual reason for such "coincidences" when online.) So - thank you Carl Jung and synchronicity.



In any event, here is a small sample of technically very imperfect photos some by accident and some by design and some by manipulation which I never the less think work. Can't say they are perfect in any sense but I think they do appeal to a similar aesthetic sense to that referred to by the narrator in the video.

I am sure we all have such images in our portfolio - images we like despite their imperfections. If so, please post them here.

1) Blue Chairs - accidental camera movement.
2) The waiting game - accidental camera movement emphasized in post.
3) Image a little soft and partially obscured by reflections and flare.

DSCN1193a.JPG
 

Attachments

  • 44845257665_c5bf02b1d3_h (1).jpg
    44845257665_c5bf02b1d3_h (1).jpg
    401.3 KB · Views: 29
  • 51095637402_9c12dc7878_o (1).jpg
    51095637402_9c12dc7878_o (1).jpg
    128.9 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
You could take any photo of pretty face, apply overprocessing or take a lousy shot. It will still collect high count of views. Simply because where a lot of viewers attracted to females prettyness.

It took me long time to realize why Bruce Gulden takes photos as he takes...
Once I realized it, it removed some darkness from my soul and I feel more enriched.

To me the magic of imperfections is illustrated in photos taken by Helen Hill. She has the real gift, it is impossible to emulate it.
And another example which is impossible to photoshop (cheap frills, imo, sorry) are photos taken, printed by Anna Bocharova aka Sush. Anya Bocharova (sush). Portfolio. Demons
Those are often hard work, aka lith printing.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
To me the magic of imperfections is illustrated in photos taken by Helen Hill. She has the real gift, it is impossible to emulate it.
Click to expand...
I don't always agree with you on things, but I'm in full agreement here! Helen's photos have such life and poetry to them, I'm always left wishing I'd been the one to take them.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
You could take any photo of pretty face, apply overprocessing or take a lousy shot. It will still collect high count of views. Simply because where a lot of viewers attracted to females prettyness.

It took me long time to realize why Bruce Gulden takes photos as he takes...
Once I realized it, it removed some darkness from my soul and I feel more enriched.

To me the magic of imperfections is illustrated in photos taken by Helen Hill. She has the real gift, it is impossible to emulate it.
And another example which is impossible to photoshop (cheap frills, imo, sorry) are photos taken, printed by Anna Bocharova aka Sush. Anya Bocharova (sush). Portfolio. Demons
Those are often hard work, aka lith printing.
Click to expand...
I think you are entirely missing the point. My post was not about whether you like the examples I posted or my style or methods. The post was about whether people agreed with the proposition about "perfection" being found in the imperfect.
 
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.
 
Muggins said:
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.
Click to expand...
I confess my image was taken in this direction specifically because I found the image to be unsharp. (A frequent occurrence when shooting in a street setting with classic lenses due to the need to focus, compose and shoot quickly. When this happens, I have a choice - abandon the photo entirely or see if I can apply some finessing in post to go in another direction. And as I happen to adore pictorialism, this is the direction in which I went. I am glad that you found it hard to see that it was a modern shot even though I am perfectly content to be honest about it.

Here is another shot in this case of my wife which was a pretty acceptable portrait in which I did something similar simply because I enjoy the images made in this style and are not sharp.

 
I wonder … do you think the interest lies in photos that are compelling despite being imperfect; or in the imperfection itself adding interest that would otherwise be missing?
 
Jonathan R said:
I wonder … do you think the interest lies in photos that are compelling despite being imperfect; or in the imperfection itself adding interest that would otherwise be missing?
Click to expand...
The way I see it, it is as I more or less said above. Photos that are imperfect (in the right way) force the viewer to consider the image more closely (assuming they consider it at all) than they would with a perfect photo that simply lays out the image to look at. The analogy I used was that of reading a poem as opposed to reading prose. Prose can describe a scene very accurately but tends to do little to the reader emotionally. A poem which hits the spot, engages directly with a readers' emotion and if it works, is more impactful.

Or to go back to using an image based analogy it is to me, more like say, one of James Abbot McNeil Whistler's Nocturne paintings.

en.wikipedia.org

Night in paintings (Western art) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

 
Thanks Peter for this interesting thread. I personally like photos, but drawings or painting as well which pose a question instead of giving a simple explanation, therefore my interest (love) for imperfection. Imperfection that does not have to be simply shabbiness. It can be casual or "searched" on purpose and must add something to the image. It must somehow involve the viewer.

I'll add something more later, sorry but I'm short of time in this moment!

U3692I1535203454.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom