noggin2k1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,129
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 4,209
Because there's endless technical/artistic combinations - I've just plucked those two out to give a representation.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Technical excellence doesn't make an excellent picture
- Thread starter noggin2k1
- Start date
noggin2k1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,129
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 4,209
Totally understand you on the 'rest of the world thoughts' - but dare I say, they aren't my target audience with this picture. I want it to appeal to a few, not the masses.
And I'm not too sure on the latter part - when I finally snuff it, do I want people to remember me from my police mugshot that shows how I look, or one that shows less of me, but gives a better interpretation of me as a person..
Moti
Veteran Member
Because apparently these are the two extremities of what we can call successful photo. Of course, there can be lots of other combinations but one thing is sure, a successful photo, depending on it's purpose, isn't necessarily the one that is technically perfect.
Moti
Sony greens. Not exactly my idea of technical excellence.
Sharp, well exposed, good lighting - would you class that as an excellent picture?
Last edited:
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
The combination I strive for, however, is a technically excellent photo with a wonderful representation. It seems disingenuous to pit technical excellence and wonderful representation as being mutually exclusive.
That said, I would agree that the aesthetic typically matters more than the technical. Consider this challenge winner. It's a lovely photo that won first place, but the low resolution of the photo literally ruins it for me (I fully admit that I may well be in the minority, here).
On the other hand, I've seen wonderful photos that suffered from any number of technical failings that I still thought were outstanding. Ironically, some of those photos would have actually been *less* successful had they been technically perfect.
But far more often than aesthetic masterpieces that would have been less had they been technically perfect are photos that fail as a result of their technical imperfections. At least for me. And, again, I want to make it clear that I am in no way saying I am representative of the majority.
Bringing it back to your photography, do you feel that, in general, your photos would be more "successful", less "successful", or not any different if they were technically "better"? For sure, there will be the occasional photo that bucks the trend (some of my favorite photos that I've taken are technical disasters), but, overall, what do you say?
- Messages
- 15,232
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 7,705
In some cases a police mugshot is a very good interpretation indeed of what that person really is...
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
No argument there. However, in my experience, both with the photos I've taken and the photos I've seen, it is far more common that technical failings detract from an otherwise "successful" photo than have no effect or even make it more "successful".
Moti
Veteran Member
Too much generalisation. Of course, there are many photography types where rechnical excellency is very important. Others such as art photography, technique has a complete different meaning.
For me, a good photo is a photo that sells and believe me, ive sold much more photos with technical flaws because they were interesting than perfectly technical and sharp ones that had nothing to say.
Moti
I think that's probably a very healthy mindset for people pursuing any activity, but certainly photography. I just read a fantastic article about David Hurn, the famous Magnum photographer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/david_hurn_photographer_swaps_magnum
In it, he says:
"But what is necessary for the authorship to come through is an impeccable command of the technical side. The best photographers might say 'Oh, the technical side is unimportant'. Well, the technical side is staggeringly important but it has got to the point with them that they don't have to think about it. That only comes through hard work and incessant practice."
I think most of us would agree that any arbitrary picture isn't "good" just because it's sharp. If you want to beat that dead horse, go ahead, but it's stronger if you don't suggest a tradeoff.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
The biggest thing, I think, is that you immediately reduce the potential audience - the number of people who might find the photo interesting to look at. I have to imagine there are millions of bad photos (OOF, poorly exposed, badly composed) that are well loved, but well loved only by a handful of people for whom the photo has sentimental value.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Tuloom
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,141
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 7,164
Don't fret, OP. At least this isn't another thread on:
- My Iphonz, My Iphonz, it takz great pictuze and it's the game changer i have on me which is the bezt cameraz becuz on me!
- Equivalency.
- I'm too stupid to understand ordering from B&H.
Last edited:
Moti
Veteran Member
Yes, it all depends on the photo and each case should be judged separately. Sometimes technical failing will detract, but sometimes it will add a value that will make the photo more interesting and more successful.
here is an example:
I shot this one during a wedding years ago. Technically it is an aweful photo. The subjects are blurred and it that wasn't enough, the bride head is chopped off. And yet, this was the most expensive wedding photo I ever sold. I can assure you that if they were well sharp and the head wasn't chopped, no one would have given this image a second look.
Cheers
Moti
--
TERJUN4D : Akses Link Situs Toto Slot 4d Dan Agen Slot Gacor Gampang Menang
TERJUN4d adalah situs toto slot 4d dan agen slot gacor gampang menang yang menyediakan permainan slot terbaik dengan rtp tinggi. Daftar sekarang dan dapatkan kemenangan maksimal hari ini.
www.musicalpix.com
Tuloom
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,141
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 7,164
This is very good! But it looks like she's leaving him after she found out he banged a bride's maid.
I shot this one during a wedding years ago.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Indeed -- I have taken similar photos (that is, I've taken photos that were technical disasters that ended up being favorites). However, as a *general* rule, do you think technical "failings" make the photo more "successful", less "successful", or that the technical is typically neither here nor there?Yes, it all depends on the photo and each case should be judged separately. Sometimes technical failing will detract, but sometimes it will add a value that will make the photo more interesting and more successful.
here is an example:
I shot this one during a wedding years ago. Technically it is an aweful photo. The subjects are blurred and it that wasn't enough, the bride head is chopped off. And yet, this was the most expensive wedding photo I ever sold. I can assure you that if they were well sharp and the head wasn't chopped, no one would have given this image a second look.
Last edited:
Maybe that's why it was purportedly so popular: it's a metaphor for divorce epidemic.This is very good! But it looks like she's leaving him after she found out he banged a bride's maid.
I shot this one during a wedding years ago.
No it doesn't.
www.cbsnews.com
A $1 million potato photograph
Potatoes, killing machines and Malala are among those photographed by visual artist Kevin Abosch
www.cbsnews.com
Agree 100% - in fact, "technical excellence" has no bearing whatsoever on whether a photograph is excellent or not. Technical excellence is likely only obtainable with the best most expensive equipment in the world. But absolutely fantastic photographs have been produced by the lowest priced equipment for ever. To the average person who is not active on dpr forums it makes absolutely no difference how technically excellent an image is when deciding if it is a fantastic photograph.
You should tell that to the people running art galleries in touristic places like Sedona, etc. That would save them a lot of money.
I think that is partly the Op's point which is that there is a tendency (especially for DPR members) for some photographers to place too much emphasis on the technical side while for most of our audience I suspect technical considerations are 'very secondary' to the 'interest' of the photo itself.
I mean for all the talk here of say the 'quality of the bokeh' and 'sharpness corner to corner' if someone actually looked at one of photos and said 'nice bokeh' or it 'looks very sharp in the corners' we wouldnt take it as much of a compliment of the photo.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
This is fair to say. In the words of Ansel Adams, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
The flip side sucks, too. As I noted about the challenge winner in the link above, it sucks when an otherwise lovely photo is held back by technical failings. That said, I can say without hesitation that the vast majority of photos I see are simply uninteresting to the degree that IQ doesn't matter in the least.
However, and this is the huge proviso, just because I find them uninteresting doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't find them interesting -- I mean, who cares what I think, right? And for those that would find them interesting, IQ will likely play some form of role. How much of a role, well, that will vary considerably from photo to photo and person to person, of course. But I should think that most photos would benefit to one degree or another with "higher" IQ for those that find the photo interesting, though not necessarily so.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum