Technical excellence doesn't make an excellent picture

I've just been doing a bit of a reality check, and thought I'd share my thoughts.

To give you the back story, one of my mum's cats is a very old boy, and with the amount of medication he's on, he probably doesn't have many more years. When I was last visiting my mum, she phoned me beforehand to say "why not bring your camera round, you could try and get some pictures of Lou", which I translated to "I'd love some pictures of him before it's too late".

Now to give you a bit of an idea of Lou; he's not the most photographic of old boys, is very rarely out of his bed, and likes the darkness - all of which make him a nightmare to photograph.

I managed to get one snap of him outside of his bed, and was massively critical of myself. The composition is all wrong, it's noisy as hell from the high ISO, he's only backlit, and the critical focus is off. I was pretty much ready for binning the picture off.

I then poured myself a large whisky, sat back and realised, my mum couldn't give a monkeys about those elements, as it's still a lovely representation of the old boy. I sent the picture over and was absolutely right - regardless of it's many flaws, she absolutely loves it.

Moral of the story - I'm going to make a conscious effort to stop getting so hung up on the technical elements of my pictures, and enjoy them for what they are. I'd much rather a crap picture that gives a wonderful representation, than a technically excellent picture of a brick wall..

Technical excellence doesn't make a great picture, but in my opinion, serious technical flaws do ruin an otherwise good picture.

How many times does it need to be said!

You NEED technical skills to make the best pictures...there's a lot of garbage out on the net.

Mike_PEAT said:

How many times does it need to be said!

You NEED technical skills to make the best pictures...there's a lot of garbage out on the net.

Click to expand...

I'd make the argument that there's potentially more pictures out there that are technically excellent, but boring as hell - they're simply a showcase of a cameras abilities with no imagination or story behind them.

noggin2k1 said:

Mike_PEAT said:

How many times does it need to be said!

You NEED technical skills to make the best pictures...there's a lot of garbage out on the net.

Click to expand...

I'd make the argument that there's potentially more pictures out there that are technically excellent, but boring as hell - they're simply a showcase of a cameras abilities with no imagination or story behind them.

Click to expand...

More than imaginative pictures that are out of focus? Probably true, but so what? You have to have both to have a good picture.

You post a picture which, according to you, is excellent but we all agree that it is poor technically. You present this as an evidence that "Technical excellence doesn't make an excellent picture"? Poor logic. In order to present an evidence of your claim, you have to do exactly the opposite: post a technically excellent photo which is not interesting.

J A C S said:

You post a picture which, according to you, is excellent but we all agree that it is poor technically. You present this as an evidence that "Technical excellence doesn't make an excellent picture"? Poor logic. In order to present an evidence of your claim, you have to do exactly the opposite: post a technically excellent photo which is not interesting.

Click to expand...

I didn't realise I was on trial - I'll promise to improve the quality of my evidence on future court appearances.

I don't agree with you that it's technically poor - yes, there room for improvement, but under the conditions, I believe it's okay, certainly not poor.

I also don't agree that the logic is poor. I was merely sharing my thoughts that many of us seem to be of the mindset that a basic requirement for a picture to be excellent, is excellent technique - and without this, it physically cannot be excellent. I'm challenging this mindset, and believe I've done so appropriately.

If we're being honest, we've all seen plenty of kit reviews with technically excellent pictures that are boring as hell - you know I don't need to post one here to prove this.

It's hard when you subject closes their eyes





--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

bclaff said:

It's hard when you subject closes their eyes

Click to expand...

He's a very old boy I'm afraid the days of being able to capture his lovely blue eyes are long gone, that's as good as I'm able to get these days..

Great shot--very emotive!

It trumps the over-represented staid, yet technically "excellent" genre here and elsewhere--by a wide margin.

noggin2k1 said:

J A C S said:

You post a picture which, according to you, is excellent but we all agree that it is poor technically. You present this as an evidence that "Technical excellence doesn't make an excellent picture"? Poor logic. In order to present an evidence of your claim, you have to do exactly the opposite: post a technically excellent photo which is not interesting.

Click to expand...

I didn't realise I was on trial - I'll promise to improve the quality of my evidence on future court appearances.

Click to expand...

You should be. When you start a thread, your are on trial. Welcome to DPR.

noggin2k1 said:

I don't agree with you that it's technically poor - yes, there room for improvement, but under the conditions, I believe it's okay, certainly not poor.

Click to expand...

From the OP:

I managed to get one snap of him outside of his bed, and was massively critical of myself. The composition is all wrong, it's noisy as hell from the high ISO, he's only backlit, and the critical focus is off. I was pretty much ready for binning the picture off.

noggin2k1 said:

I also don't agree that the logic is poor. I was merely sharing my thoughts that many of us seem to be of the mindset that a basic requirement for a picture to be excellent, is excellent technique - and without this, it physically cannot be excellent. I'm challenging this mindset, and believe I've done so appropriately.

Click to expand...

No, you proclaimed that technical excellence does not make a great photo and you posted a picture which your consider a non-keeper for technical reasons. Your example says nothing about technical excellent pictures because you have not posted one. This is Logic 101.

noggin2k1 said:

If we're being honest, we've all seen plenty of kit reviews with technically excellent pictures that are boring as hell - you know I don't need to post one here to prove this.

Click to expand...

Then you put the wrong title. You could have put the title: it is October now, which would have been correct but not supported by the photo (well, expect for the EXIF).

Slyneider said:

Great shot--very emotive!

It trumps the over-represented staid, yet technically "excellent" genre here and elsewhere--by a wide margin.

Click to expand...

Thanks Slyneider - taking my 'technical' head off, I'm happy that I've caught a proper representation of him.

noggin2k1 said:

I've just been doing a bit of a reality check, and thought I'd share my thoughts.

To give you the back story, one of my mum's cats is a very old boy, and with the amount of medication he's on, he probably doesn't have many more years. When I was last visiting my mum, she phoned me beforehand to say "why not bring your camera round, you could try and get some pictures of Lou", which I translated to "I'd love some pictures of him before it's too late".

Now to give you a bit of an idea of Lou; he's not the most photographic of old boys, is very rarely out of his bed, and likes the darkness - all of which make him a nightmare to photograph.

I managed to get one snap of him outside of his bed, and was massively critical of myself. The composition is all wrong, it's noisy as hell from the high ISO, he's only backlit, and the critical focus is off. I was pretty much ready for binning the picture off.

I then poured myself a large whisky, sat back and realised, my mum couldn't give a monkeys about those elements, as it's still a lovely representation of the old boy. I sent the picture over and was absolutely right - regardless of it's many flaws, she absolutely loves it.

Moral of the story - I'm going to make a conscious effort to stop getting so hung up on the technical elements of my pictures, and enjoy them for what they are. I'd much rather a crap picture that gives a wonderful representation, than a technically excellent picture of a brick wall..

Click to expand...

Being technically competent is the floor, and not the ceiling, of photography.

A good photographer should be able to make technically excellent photograph when appropriate or necessary. It's not appropriate or necessary for every photograph to be technically excellent.

noggin2k1 said:

Slyneider said:

Great shot--very emotive!

It trumps the over-represented staid, yet technically "excellent" genre here and elsewhere--by a wide margin.

Click to expand...

Thanks Slyneider - taking my 'technical' head off, I'm happy that I've caught a proper representation of him.

Click to expand...

You bet!

By analogy, it's no secret that great poetry doesn't have grammatical excellence as a precondition.

However, I fear that such a sentiment is lost on those who've made it their life's mission to pursue technical excellence with messianic zeal.

And the "bokeh" sucks too!






Robert Capa--D Day, 1944



--
Flickr: username "wogears"

noggin2k1 said:

I also don't agree that the logic is poor. I was merely sharing my thoughts that many of us seem to be of the mindset that a basic requirement for a picture to be excellent, is excellent technique - and without this, it physically cannot be excellent.

Click to expand...

It can't.

noggin2k1 said:

I'm challenging this mindset, and believe I've done so appropriately.

Click to expand...

You are wrong if that's what you're saying.

noggin2k1 said:

If we're being honest, we've all seen plenty of kit reviews with technically excellent pictures that are boring as hell - you know I don't need to post one here to prove this.

Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't mean an otherwise good shot with poor technique is a good shot.

You need two things for a great shot:

1. Great subject matter
2. Great technique

If you are missing either one, your shot is less than it could be, and possibly worth nothing at all. As you point out, great technique + poor subject matter = nothing. But I also would argue that great subject matter + poor technique = nothing also. Others disagree with that and post old classic pictures from "the greats" with lousy technique as evidence. I universally find them to be worthless.

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

I don't agree with you that it's technically poor - yes, there room for improvement, but under the conditions, I believe it's okay, certainly not poor.

Click to expand...

From the OP:

I managed to get one snap of him outside of his bed, and was massively critical of myself. The composition is all wrong, it's noisy as hell from the high ISO, he's only backlit, and the critical focus is off. I was pretty much ready for binning the picture off.

Click to expand...

That's merely a reflection of my personal standards. If I would consider a picture to be technically poor, it wouldn't even make the import to LR. Any picture I would consider to be 'okay' would make the import, and then likely get binned. The picture was in this category until I had a change of heart.

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

I also don't agree that the logic is poor. I was merely sharing my thoughts that many of us seem to be of the mindset that a basic requirement for a picture to be excellent, is excellent technique - and without this, it physically cannot be excellent. I'm challenging this mindset, and believe I've done so appropriately.

Click to expand...

No, you proclaimed that technical excellence does not make a great photo and you posted a picture which your consider a non-keeper for technical reasons. Your example says nothing about technical excellent pictures because you have not posted one. This is Logic 101.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. Below is one of KR's finest 'technically excellent' pictures. Sharp, well exposed, good lighting - would you class that as an excellent picture?

J A C S said:

J A C S said:

If we're being honest, we've all seen plenty of kit reviews with technically excellent pictures that are boring as hell - you know I don't need to post one here to prove this.

Click to expand...

Then you put the wrong title. You could have put the title: it is October now, which would have been correct but not supported by the photo (well, expect for the EXIF).

Click to expand...

I'm not going to split hairs over title wording - I was under the impression this a forum to discuss photography.

Lee Jay said:

f you are missing either one, your shot is less than it could be, and possibly worth nothing at all. As you point out, great technique + poor subject matter = nothing. But I also would argue that great subject matter + poor technique = nothing also. Others disagree with that and post old classic pictures from "the greats" with lousy technique as evidence. I universally find them to be worthless.

Click to expand...

Interesting to hear your opinion there. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the below:


That's Time's 100 best pictures of 2016 (only last year). A quick scout and I can see the majority have some technical issues. Would you therefore argue they don't deserve to make the grade?

That's not me being condescending - I am actually interested in your opinion on this (we're all entitled to one, and I'm always interested to hear others differing views when they're open to reasonable debate).

noggin2k1 said:

I'd much rather a crap picture that gives a wonderful representation, than a technically excellent picture of a brick wall.

Click to expand...

Why limit yourself to those two choices?

noggin2k1 said:

I've just been doing a bit of a reality check, and thought I'd share my thoughts.

To give you the back story, one of my mum's cats is a very old boy, and with the amount of medication he's on, he probably doesn't have many more years. When I was last visiting my mum, she phoned me beforehand to say "why not bring your camera round, you could try and get some pictures of Lou", which I translated to "I'd love some pictures of him before it's too late".

Now to give you a bit of an idea of Lou; he's not the most photographic of old boys, is very rarely out of his bed, and likes the darkness - all of which make him a nightmare to photograph.

I managed to get one snap of him outside of his bed, and was massively critical of myself. The composition is all wrong, it's noisy as hell from the high ISO, he's only backlit, and the critical focus is off. I was pretty much ready for binning the picture off.

I then poured myself a large whisky, sat back and realised, my mum couldn't give a monkeys about those elements, as it's still a lovely representation of the old boy. I sent the picture over and was absolutely right - regardless of it's many flaws, she absolutely loves it.

Moral of the story - I'm going to make a conscious effort to stop getting so hung up on the technical elements of my pictures, and enjoy them for what they are. I'd much rather a crap picture that gives a wonderful representation, than a technically excellent picture of a brick wall..

Click to expand...

Most of the world doesn't have your mother's emotional attachment to this particular subject; and do you think she'd have been less fond of a better photo of her cat that actually showed what he looks like?