Another interesting post on Mike Johnston’s TOP concerning the obsession with technical progress as opposed to photographic content.
This snippet sums it up nicely. It also gave an interesting pause for thought.
“I call the look "CAF"—clinical analytical forensic. It's when you see the crusty mascara on a model's eyelashes instead of a girl with thick eyelashes.”
I am having a moment of personal re-evaluation regarding my camera equipment, so this article was even more interesting to me.
It is also a nice antidote against the exasperating technicisms that often obsessively dog this forum.
Enjoy.
...who actually believes that more resolution, more DR, less noise, "feathered bokeh", etc., etc., etc.,
by themselves make for a better photo? Or is it more a matter that more resolution, more DR, less noise, better bokeh, etc., etc., etc.,
can make for a better photo and it is better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them?
The simple fact of the matter is that I've seen any number of uninteresting photos that wouldn't have been any better in my eyes no matter how technically perfect they were. But another simple fact is that I've seen a great number of photos that were less in my eyes due to technical failings as a result of limitation of the equipment.
This
current challenge winner is a great example of the point I'm trying to make. It's a fantastic photo. But the lack of fine details in the plane really do detract from the photo for me -- it looks like noise filtering was used at the max setting and then the noise filtering was applied at max setting again. The noise in
this current challenge winner also detracts from the photo for me. This is not to say either photo was ruined; rather, I would have liked them more had they "higher IQ". And yet, they're challenge winners either way, so one can rightfully argue that my opinion is an [extreme] minority opinion.
Of course, it's difficult for me to throw a stick and not have it land on a photo where all the IQ in the world wouldn't make it any better. The reason for this is twofold: either the photo is uninteresting so IQ doesn't even really matter or the IQ of the photo is past my "quality threshold" where even more IQ won't really improve it more in my eyes (the boundary of said threshold depending, of course, on the viewing size and viewing distance, among any number of other factors).
So, for sure, step one is to take a photo "interesting enough" to where "more IQ" would even matter. Step two is to realize that the equipment you own may already give you all the IQ you would ever need and that not all photos depend strongly on IQ.
But when a photo is "interesting enough" and it's "success" is a function of its IQ, then it's nice to have that IQ on tap, even if it's useful only for a small proportion of your photos. 'Cause, quite honestly, it really sucks when the one interesting photo you took that day depended on "high IQ" and it didn't have it.
Well...I'm going to say some things some people won't like...
First, this isn't really the best site for even broaching the subject of what makes for "good" photos in the broader sense that not only the average person, but a lot of people at the professional level use as criteria. This is a gear site, and the most outspoken people here are often fanboys of a particular line of gear (even if they don't realize it, as I admit to my own occasional fanboy-like reactions to some posts LOL). Which leads to the second unpopular opinion I'll offer, which is...
A lot of people here really don't dive deep enough into what makes a good, much less outstanding photo, beyond some rather standard aesthetics and concentration on technical aspects (because the technical aspects are a chief determinant of whether the gear used is "good").
The shortcoming a large group of photographers fall into is that they don't use the same criteria that the "pros" often use to determine not only if a photo is "good", but whether to produce an image at all.
First of all, at a professional level, a photo must be "salable" more than anything else. Good technique, the appropriate gear and aesthetics are all driven by that priority.
Such considerations are genre, subject matter, purpose of the photo and "the moment" are all tied into an image being salable.
Yet, being salable itself depends on the market and usage of the photo. Technical flaws that are forgiven in news or sports photography would be reason for rejection in fashion most commercial photography situations. Conversely, creative liberties that are part and parcel of commercial photography are strictly taboo in photojournalism, editorial or scientific photography.
The marketing people who imply "pro quality" images are easily obtained with the cameras they want you to buy know all this, but it doesn't make for good ad copy. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that ad copy is meant to educate people about what the best images should look like.
Ergo, we have people who will admire a dull, even stereotypical image because of it's technical quality, and criticize a remarkable image because of it's technical flaws, Matters get worse when people, whether due to lack of knowledge or intransigence, make it all an "either/or" argument, when it's much more complex.
Bottom line, as I see it as a working photography with 40+ years experience, is that most people don't even realize that their own ability to assess the quality of photos is far below the level they think it is.
Then we get here to DPR where the gear is as important, or even more important, then the images and matters can take a bizarre turn. People become defensive about what gear they use far more than they become concerned about whether they are using that gear to the utmost effect, or that their images may be lackluster when it comes to even the basics of aesthetics.
GB has a good point. In the world outside of DPR forums, people assess images based on a lot more than either aesthetics or "the moment" or technical merit. They way them altogether. Personally, I don't take the average person's assessment of my photos very seriously. I mean, I appreciate it when someone tells me my concert photos are "amazing", but I know they really aren't, at least not by the standards I operate within.
Every year in my work, I shoot between 50 and 100 shows and events, capturing as little as 200 images to as many as 5000 images a show. Each year, I can personally think of
maybe a dozen images that I would submit in a portfolio to a magazine or agency in hopes of landing a job. Yet at the same time, I will sell many more images than that, because the artists aren't thinking of the same criteria I am, they just like the images and are impressed as much by my personal style as they are my technical level.
All of this business about what makes for a good photo is
objectively irrelevant if income doesn't depend on the images. Even then, there is still a degree of personal subjectivity involved in salable images (for instance, one manager bought an image that was the technically weakest of a set because the he felt the noise levels and motion blur added to the "gritty nature" of the show. So did I, which is why I included it, when the conventional wisdom of "low noise, sharp image" would have led to deleting it, not featuring it in the final gallery.
As I see it, the best message for all of us is "lighten up" when it comes to gear choice and technical standards. It may be your personal choice to be uber-serious about the technical results of a given piece of gear, but that's your choice, and you don't have much mileage available attempting to impose that standard on others, unless you are paying them to produce photos for you.
nigelvoak.blogspot.it
momenti-indecisivi.blogspot.it
