I love moody portraits, but hard to get a good one.

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

Hi Gearóid

I know what you intended with the OP shot, and it's a really great shot.

It has mood, expression, draws attention and all this makes you connected to the image itself.

A good photograph is all about the image content.

I stopped reading on the first 4 or 5 posts, as soon as I read "photographers pay attention to the focus point, or sharpness"...

I gotta say photographers do not pay attention (at least not so blindly) to focus point or sharpness.

Technical obsessed gearheads do. Photographers don't.

Photographers pay attention to the image itself. What it really does for you, and what you take from it.

All this means just one thing: content. That can be achieved through good lighting (that's something to really look out for), good composition, and so on.

But sharpness almost never means anything to a great photograph.

Only in DPreview sharpness is so greatly considered as an important part of the mix, because some gearheads forget to appreciate the image itself, an just look out for pixel level sharpness.

So... do photographers pay attention to sharpness at all?

Yes, they do. But only if everything else is done right. Only then, sharpness will be considered to some level.

Gearóid, your shot is great, because the image itself works. Forget about sharpness comments.

I'm hardly ever so harsh around here on DPreview, but sometimes you gotta be.

I'm not owner of the truth either, but some things are just that way, period.

Sharpness is hardly ever so important.

Maybe 90% of HCB's portfolio should be sent to the trash bin. After all, they're are all soft 35mm old film "snaps"... ;D

Sorry for the harsh tone.

All the best,
Márcio Napoli

Well Márcio, I totally agree with all you say! Of course Brad below wouldn't have a notion of what you're talking about. I can remember about 20 years ago a wedding photo of a bride taken by a professional wedding photographer won professional photo of the year here in Ireland. It was a photo of a bride with a big "marshmallow" of a dress spread all around her on the grass. I noticed that the focus was off and was behind her in the middle of the dress. Gosh, I thought at the time. The focus is wrong. But, when I stood back and stopped looking at the focus, the photo had huge impact and I could see why it was great.

Here's a picture of a friend which is one of my favourites in moody portrait mode.

Done some years ago on an Olympus E1. The lack of pixels here would disturb the peepers of pixels, but I have a monochrome version of it framed on a wall and everytime I look at it I like it.

 

[marcio_napoli]

Hi Gearóid

Exactly! You described a perfect scenario to ilustrate all this talk of image content vs IQ.

Let me confess: I'm also a gearhead (love cameras) and a pixel peeper (love to pixel peep every photo of every camera in the world to measure IQ). That's why I hang around here in DPreview so much.

But above all of that, no matter how much I enjoy pixel peeping (and I really do), it's the image content itself that counts in the end.

The image itself will dictate what it means to me, no matter how grainy, or motion blurred, or out of focus, etc, it can be.

I'd take another step forward and say that all this worry about IQ takes the inspiration away from most technical guys and pixel peepers, and leaves behind only sterile concepts (like the importance of sharpness).

Almost always, a somewhat imperfect image (from an IQ pov), is better accepted by our organic brain, than a clinical, sterile and life-less one, with perfect IQ.

Because most of the time, those imperfections add depth to the image, and contribute directly to the content itself.

For example, a gritty and nostalgic, yet poetic, BW picture would be truly enhanced by lots and lots of grain.

Grain that we, most of the time, try so hard to eliminate.

The picture of your friend, IMHO, is another great example.

Beautiful mood, gorgeous soft light (I guess it's window light), and lovely tones and transitions from light to shadows.

Not the sharpest picture I've ever seen, and I can see lots of noise/grain in the shadows.

But wait! It's truly superb as it is! This grain is adding a visceral depth to the image.

It's a truly wonderful portrait, and it is so, with all its technical "flaws".

Bottom line: content is always the most important part.

Have a nice day!

Cheers!

Márcio Napoli

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

Window light is correct.

Shot in a hotel bar while having coffee and scones on a cycle. In Ballycotton, Co.Cork. I was going for the effect of this lighting. When you get the balance right there's nothing like it!

 

[anolphart]

I have been guilty of being blind to inferior images at times because I was emotionally involved with the subject, especially when taken of an important event or a person that I loved. So I can understand that you love the photo of your daughter because you are emotionally involved with it and will overlook any flaws it might have.

I doubt that you would accept the same flaws in a photograph that you were commissioned to take by a client. As previously mentioned, it was a grab shot and I doubt that most of us would have done any better under the same circumstances, so treasure it and remember the moment.

 

[JackM]

I don't agree at all Phil. The focus is more than acceptable on her nearest eye. The lens is spot on for focus as it's been adjusted. The DOF at this aperture/distance is about 2 inches.

I'd say the focus is acceptable for a 4x6" print, maybe 5x7". Beyond that, the viewer is going to notice the focus is clearly on the visor.

Anyway, this is my daughter and she was quite unaware of my shot as she was surprised afterwards that I had taken any shot.

There is far too much obsessing about sharpness on this and all photo fora and not enough about the "image"!

Agreed, but I don't think this image works at all due to several other factors - her eyes are shadowed and barely visible, horrible white balance, bad light in general, and an uninteresting, almost unflattering facial expression.

You can't view it objectively because it's your daughter. And if that brings value to the photo for you, that's great. If it was my daughter I'd delete it. Just don't expect anyone else to compliment it if you hang it up in your home.

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

You can't view it objectively because it's your daughter.

This is just not true. I've thousands of photos of my children, who are not actually adults. This is a not particularly flattering photo of Lizzie who at her best is pretty photogenic. It doesn't matter to me who it is.

And if that brings value to the photo for you, that's great. If it was my daughter I'd delete it.

My only comment on that is that if you did, you have no photographic eye. You can have all the equipment in the world but still not have a photographic eye. That's not your fault, if you don't.

--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

 

[AOKH]

So you are saying that anyone that does not like your snapshot have no photographic eye? That is a pretty strong statement, I think!

My only comment on that is that if you did, you have no photographic eye. You can have all the equipment in the world but still not have a photographic eye. That's not your fault, if you don't.

 

[JackM]

And if that brings value to the photo for you, that's great. If it was my daughter I'd delete it.

My only comment on that is that if you did, you have no photographic eye. You can have all the equipment in the world but still not have a photographic eye. That's not your fault, if you don't.

I literally laughed out loud. Look, it's a terrible photograph for many reasons, and not just the misfocus. Dozens of people here are telling you that. Just because one other guy agrees with you doesn't mean I have no photographic eye. What a ridiculous statement.

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

I literally laughed out loud. Look, it's a terrible photograph for many reasons, and not just the misfocus. Dozens of people here are telling you that. Just because one other guy agrees with you doesn't mean I have no photographic eye. What a ridiculous statement.

It's not at all ridiculous. You are of a tribe who assess everything in terms of technical quality and ignore composition, lighting etc. You haven't learnt to see properly. So many photos that are posted on these fora lack a spark.

I can post something like this which is sharp, properly exposed etc., but to me it's a nothing photo..

 

[JackM]

I literally laughed out loud. Look, it's a terrible photograph for many reasons, and not just the misfocus. Dozens of people here are telling you that. Just because one other guy agrees with you doesn't mean I have no photographic eye. What a ridiculous statement.

It's not at all ridiculous. You are of a tribe who assess everything in terms of technical quality and ignore composition, lighting etc. You haven't learnt to see properly.

Wow you know all about me! Listen, I already agreed with you that sharpness or focus does not always matter. But the photo in your original post is extremely poorly lit. Even converted to b&w it doesn't work - it is underexposed and there is a heavy shadow passing right through her eye!! Furthermore her expression is utterly boring and unflattering, and the composition is uninteresting. She is a more attractive woman than this. You must spend a lot on hard drives if you never delete shyte like this.

 

[Vernon D Rainwater]

I shot this tonight and love it. Badly floodlit athletic track, 1/400 f2.8 Sigma 300mm 1Div, monopod, 6400 iso -1 exp comp.

I read all the "chatter" especially regarding focus, pixel peeping, and opinions of the Photo.

I am truly amazed considering the limited lighting (and type of lighting) along with the required use of rather high ISO that the resulting image is much better than I could have imagined.

The color balance naturally would be "swayed" toward the Incandescent type lighting temperature of perhaps around 3000 to 3400 kelvin. If desired, the color balance could be very easily adjusted especially that the Cap has the white area.

Also, I re-reviewed the image several times and actually like it (as is). It is truly a natural (non posed) instant in time that we seldom have such opportunity to expose such images.
--
Vernon...

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

Wow you know all about me! Listen, I already agreed with you that sharpness or focus does not always matter. But the photo in your original post is extremely poorly lit. Even converted to b&w it doesn't work - it is underexposed and there is a heavy shadow passing right through her eye!! Furthermore her expression is utterly boring and unflattering, and the composition is uninteresting. She is a more attractive woman than this. You must spend a lot on hard drives if you never delete shyte like this.

Your problem is that you are looking at elements of an image. That's not how to look at an image. You look at all of it at the same time. That's when you see.

You see a beautiful woman. Your brain says, she's beautiful. That's it.

It is the same with an image if you have developed a photographic eye. It just works.

Now look at this one on facebook. One of the most regular posters on this forum told me that it was a really bad photo, for the kinds of reasons you articulate.

I don't agree with him. It's like my one above, an instant snapshot. The child's mother, who's my daughter adores it.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2099086846681&set=a.1261892357342.2039810.1530691227&type=1&theater

 

[Victor Engel]

For some reason it reminds me of this picture I took of a local musician, taking a rest during his music while another musician plays. Maybe it's the palette of colors. I don't know. Anyway, I think this picture has the sort of moodiness you're referring to. I probably reacted viscerally to this picture like you did to yours.



--

 

[dswcamera]

Its not just the technical criticisms that have been leveled, but maybe the comp as well. With this being a head shot, naturally the focus is going to more of an issue.

But more to the point. You posted a shot, telling us that you liked it.
I expect you wanted some comment.
When many offered critique, you seemed to take it too personal, almost offended.
If you are going to post images you have to be more thick skinned about it.

I have plenty of images, particularly landscapes, that appeal to me in a way that isn't communicated to other viewers. I have accepted that and don't try to give them more than they deserved. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Dan
--
'A bad idea in search of a good cause is..
just a bad idea' ... me

 

[JackM]

Wow you know all about me! Listen, I already agreed with you that sharpness or focus does not always matter. But the photo in your original post is extremely poorly lit. Even converted to b&w it doesn't work - it is underexposed and there is a heavy shadow passing right through her eye!! Furthermore her expression is utterly boring and unflattering, and the composition is uninteresting. She is a more attractive woman than this. You must spend a lot on hard drives if you never delete shyte like this.

Your problem is that you are looking at elements of an image. That's not how to look at an image. You look at all of it at the same time. That's when you see.

I am looking at the whole image, and the whole image stinks . What can I do to express this but to enumerate the various elements which contribute to the stench?

I am looking at it for artistic merit, not technical quality, and I see neither.

You see a beautiful woman. Your brain says, she's beautiful. That's it.

I see your daughter and I can tell that in spite of this terribly unflattering and poorly executed snapshot, she is probably attractive in real life and when photographed competently.

Now look at this one on facebook. One of the most regular posters on this forum told me that it was a really bad photo, for the kinds of reasons you articulate.

I don't agree with him. It's like my one above, an instant snapshot. The child's mother, who's my daughter adores it.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2099086846681&set=a.1261892357342.2039810.1530691227&type=1&theater

That is a beautiful photo. The fact that you equate this photo with the garbage in the OP says A LOT.

 

[Victor Engel]

I just viewed the picture on my calibrated monitor. Before, I looked at it on an uncalibrated monitor with glaring ambient light. The look of the picture is much different. I actually like the way it looks on the uncalibrated monitor better. The main difference, I think, is that the shadows were not visible, giving the picture more of a low key look.
--