| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2007 11:10:21 AM · #1 |
Do you think that experienced photographers at times get hung up on the "technical" aspects of a photograph instead of looking at the "beauty" of the work? Beauty can come in many varied forms.
In fact tell me what you think.
A. Does a photo "have" to validate the artist's technical abilities?
B. Does a photo have to illustrate the traits of technical perfection in order to be acceptable, average, above average or outstanding?
C. If beauty (meant in a wide frame of mind) is restricted to technical parameters are not we missing the boat?
D. Cannot beauty be beauty for beauties sake?
..........just an average joe's comments.....
[thumb]Cypress Point Pond.jpg[/thumb]
Message edited by author 2007-12-09 15:04:42. |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 11:23:23 AM · #2 |
Well, I guess the technical aspects are easier to define than the artistic aspects, so many comments are directed at the technical side. If an image has technical flaws, they are easy to define and to comment on. The beauty of an image is harder to define exactly what to constructively criticise, so less is often said on this side.
I think a beautiful image can certainly be let down by technical faults, whether it's out of focus, or colour casts, or any number of other things. The technical side of things must be right before the beauty of the image can be portrayed to it's best potential.
You are right that beauty is not just technicals, because a technically perfect photo can be let down by being boring, just as a photo of a beautiful subject can be let down by technical flaws.
For a great image, you've gotta have everything. :)
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 11:37:15 AM · #3 |
I'm actually a very experienced photographer and "technical" issues are really one of the last things I consider. Often when voting here I never notice the "flaws" many others get hung up on. That being said, being technically proficient is not a bad thing...just getting hung up on it is, in my ever so humble opinion. Seriously, DPC is full of shots that are technical perfection but are as dull as hell.
And you cannot truly teach someone to "see"...you can lead them, give them a set of rules to go by and they can make their way in this wide and varied world of photography, but they will never be a true artist or master. Obsession with rules and technical hang ups go against experimentation...without experimentation there is no growth, only stagnation and eventual boredom on the photographers and the audiences part.
As far as beauty goes, we all have are definitions of that but I do agree it's hard to realize if all someone is concerned about is ultimate sharpness and lack of noise...or what have you...sad really. Their loss. |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 12:16:27 PM · #4 |
I tend to include compositional skills as a subset of technical mastery. That said, my position is that to be a "great" photographer you simply have to master the technical aspects of your craft. And these can be taught. The "eye" cannot be taught, past a certain point.
When I comment critically, it is almost always on the technical aspects of the image. I consider these to be reasonably objective criteria that can be directly addressed in critique. And I'm very aware that critique based on my emotional or aesthetic responses to the image are intensely personal, and hence of limited validity.
I do understand that such responses can be (or ought to be) useful to a photographer, because they help define how viewers are "connecting" to the image, but I tend to stick to what I do well, which is address the technical makeup of the work. Others, such as  posthumous, take the other tack and their critiques are often incredibly insightful.
When VOTING, however, my high scores tend to go to those images that DO involve me at an emotional level. I will score a compelling-but-flawed image higher than a technically-perfect-but-plastic image.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 12:35:18 PM · #5 |
Rules are made to be broken. I feel some of the best unique shots are the ones that are flawed in some way.
It's also up to the artist to say what is 'right' with his/her shot. Granted the public may not accept it as a great image, but thats not the point. Maybe 100 yrs after your dead, someone will say 'wow, thats a great shot!' LOL You just never know.
just my unschooled opinion.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 12:39:48 PM · #6 |
While I believe technical aspect play a major role there is something to be said about subject matter and the photographers ability to convey a message or capture the moment. If you look at the one of the most famous photos from June 6th, 1944 (D-Day) taken by Robert Capa there is nothing technically sound about it, but to me it speaks more than most photos I've ever seen.
In fact,if you look through Robert Capa's photos from that day most are technically unsound, but they are amazing photos that speak so much about one of the darkest yet greatest days in the worlds history. Like surfdabbler said, you can have a technically perfect photo that is boring and then you can have ones like I have stated that will blow you away emotionally that are technically unsound. Just my 2 cents, here is a link to some more of Robert Capa's photos, you should take a look at,imo, so of the greatest shots ever taken.
D-Day photos by Robert Capa
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 12:50:39 PM · #7 |
| Great images. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any technically sound images from the beaches of Normandy on D-Day! |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 12:58:09 PM · #8 |
The technical aspect is always the most important aspect of the shot.
You're forgetting that the lack of technical work can be just as important as succesful technical work, depending on the subject matter.
In the "D-Day" photograph above, the technicals (grainy, out of focus, camera shake) is what gives the shot so much mood and atmosphere. While they may not be what most photographers aspire to capture ((minimal grain, high visual acuity) they are still considered "technicals", and, in the context of this example photograph, they are good technicals.
A better question is whether or not DPChallenge entries match their technicals to the subject matter. In the case of low scoring entries due to faulty technical work, the low score can be attributed to the technicals not matching the subject or context. |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 01:31:08 PM · #9 |
I'm a believer in the "You have to learn the rules to learn how to break them" school. Great art consistently does break the rules, but "artistry" is not an excuse for not knowing how to control your image. Rather, artistry is knowing how to make the technicals 'perfect' but choosing not to in one aspect or another to create a certain impact and defy the viewers expectations.
One shot from the latest FS that I think did this well:
 |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 01:39:15 PM · #10 |
i think technical excellence is often what makes you stop and stare longer at a shot. Look what happens when your casual\vacation photographer accidentally gets all those rules right, thats always the one that stands out and they take it to everyone "look at this shot i took!"
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 01:39:37 PM · #11 |
| Thank you all for your insightful replies. |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 01:44:11 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
The technical aspect is always the most important aspect of the shot.
You're forgetting that the lack of technical work can be just as important as succesful technical work, depending on the subject matter.
In the "D-Day" photograph above, the technicals (grainy, out of focus, camera shake) is what gives the shot so much mood and atmosphere. While they may not be what most photographers aspire to capture ((minimal grain, high visual acuity) they are still considered "technicals", and, in the context of this example photograph, they are good technicals.
A better question is whether or not DPChallenge entries match their technicals to the subject matter. In the case of low scoring entries due to faulty technical work, the low score can be attributed to the technicals not matching the subject or context. |
Well stated and I have to agree, I didn't quite think of it that way but it makes perfect sense. More or less brings you to the statement of knowing the rules and then knowing when to break them. |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 01:50:22 PM · #13 |
I'd agree 100% that "technique" that breaks the "rules", to the extent that it informs the soul of the image, IS an example of effective use of technique. Absolutely.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2007 02:45:42 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by louisp:
Do you think that experienced photographers at times get hung up on the "technical" aspects of a photograph instead of looking at the "beauty" of the work?...
A. Does a photo "have" to validate the artist's technical abilities?
B. Does a photo have to illustrate the traits of technical perfection in order to be acceptable, average, above average or outstanding?
C. If beauty (meant in a wide frame of mind) is restricted to technical parameters are not we missing the boat?
D. Cannot beauty be beauty for beauties sake?... |
What is beauty? -Aptness to purpose.
A. It is my understanding here that we wish to look at a photo and not speculate about its author's attributes, intents, abilities or good looks. I'd say, let's leave the author alone, so we may examine the image for what it is. -Instead (and again) I'd ask for the purpose of any given technical attributes in the photo and for how these contribute to or charge its whole essence, effect or unique signature.
B. Again, let's look at the facts of the photo, inclusively, and without falling into the habit of extracting only that which is all too easy and measurable with a broken stick, so we may extract only what suits some idea or concept not otherwise connected by the image in the first place. Wouldn't it be better to ask, if the bloody thing works, if it has legs to stand on and if that which it is made of is solid enough to withstand a little inquiry? Isolating technicals from their specific purpose in a specific image does not make any sense to me.
C. Yes, this boat is missed so regularly, it might as well be a private charter.
D. No. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
Message edited by author 2007-12-09 14:56:57. |
|
|
|
12/09/2007 03:28:38 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by louisp:
Do you think that experienced photographers at times get hung up on the "technical" aspects of a photograph instead of looking at the "beauty" of the work? Beauty can come in many varied forms.
In fact tell me what you think.
A. Does a photo "have" to validate the artist's technical abilities?
B. Does a photo have to illustrate the traits of technical perfection in order to be acceptable, average, above average or outstanding?
C. If beauty (meant in a wide frame of mind) is restricted to technical parameters are not we missing the boat?
D. Cannot beauty be beauty for beauties sake?
..........just an average joe's comments.....
[thumb]Cypress Point Pond.jpg[/thumb] |
Yes they do...
A. No
B. No
C. Yes
D. Yes
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 09:33:11 PM · #16 |
Hello Again!
As the OP I have certainly appreciated soo much input. Your remarks have helped me, and I am sure, many other amateurs as we work to improve our artwork.
With that said, it is interesting that one or two individuals chose to PM me since each implied that I created my post due to being "hung up" on my own technical deficiencies thus it was surmised that I was seeking a way to skirt the need for photographic proficiency.
Being a person afflicted with a life altering illness, I sometimes view life from a different angle. With my professional career cut short I have turned to the gifts given to me by God, namely gardening, pond keeping, photography and art. By combining these pastimes I have been blessed with great joy and personal satisfaction. The point of all of my rambling is this.
"It is not necessary to always strive for perfection in order to find peace of mind and therapeutic comfort. I find the journey provides as much, or to be honest, more enjoyment than does the outcome. What is perfection to me may very be marginal to others. And you know, that is just fine by me."
Merry Christmas & Season's Greeting To You All!
With Sincere Respect,
lpatrick
Message edited by author 2007-12-10 21:33:36. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 09:47:26 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by louisp:
"What is perfection to me may very be marginal to others. And you know, that is just fine by me." |
That sums it up pretty well. :) I think many replies to the thread are given in the context of this site, where images are rated based on the requirements of wide-audience appeal, whether from the perspective of fine-art or commercial art. But certain images will hold special appeal for one person, regardless of technical details, and regardless of what anyone else thinks. Just don't try to get others to agree with you, because the whole point is that it's regardless of what anyone else thinks. :)
My wife keeps bugging me by putting technically imperfect shots of our kids into the photo album, when there is a 'better' option available. But certain photos speak more about the person in the photo, and she picks on that basis, ignoring out of focus, or bad composition, or anything else. It just has to capture the right smile, or a particular memory. She doesn't care so much if it's a 'good photo', although she does complain that I'm taking too many irresistable photos these days, as I learn more about photography. :)
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:11:16 PM · #18 |
| I wrote a tutorial that talks about at least some of these issues. I'm still waiting and hoping for DPC to put it up... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 02:30:13 AM EDT.
