Technical Perfection V's Impact - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/30/2009 08:34:41 AM · #1

I know I've not been a member overly long, but I've noticed that pretty much everything on the front page, and generally in the top 10 for that matter are technically perfect, well coloured, well composed photos. I don't want to take anything away from these photos, some of which I find stunning, but I notice that there is never anything up there at the top which scores highly because of the impact of the message it conveys.

Why do you think people here value the perfection over the message, while in general the photos you see and read about as being "the best" are usually those of the photo journalism nature which convey powerful messages?

Five_Seat

Canon EOS-6D

01/30/2009 08:42:02 AM · #2

I think voting time pays a big part in this. To fully comprehend the message conveyed by a photograph, you often have to look and think about it a long time. When people are voting on challenges with 100's of entries, they only devote a few seconds to each image. It is very easy to see that something is technical competent as well as vibrant, thus it is easier for that entry to get a high score from the voters.

Conversely something "powerful" is most likely a little rougher around the edges. Although there may be a few people who appreciate the entry, the masses will most likely pass over it.

GiorgioBaruffi

Apple iPhone 5s

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

01/30/2009 08:50:21 AM · #3

i agree with sjl2116's answer...

For how it is structured DPC I believe it is normal... It would be nice create a contest/challenge or a section to dedicate more to the message that the Form...

(my english is not so good to transmit my thought, sorry)

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

01/30/2009 09:04:24 AM · #4

The "winner" here is a measure of popular appeal. With those technically perfect "wow" shots, almost everyone will agree they are at least good, so they average higher. The ones with deeper messages may get lowballed for various reasons, and though good and impactful, it brings the average down since not everyone agrees. My belief is that after a score of about 5 1/2, the broad appeal or wow factor is a larger issue than the quality of your photography.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/30/2009 09:06:38 AM · #5

I don't think you can generalize the voters as thoughtless people blazing through the entries. This is a learning site for photography, and as such, the voters pay particular attention to the technicals. Though they might appreciate the message, it's easy to make point deductions and
"helpful" suggestions for camera settings, exposure, composition and lighting (I love it, but I have to take something off for the blown highlights, etc.). That said, there have been plenty of ribbons for technically lousy photos that featured a strong concept or emotional impact.

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

01/30/2009 09:18:31 AM · #6

I don't really agree with the OP. When i look at the front page, I see at least two images that are far from technical perfection (one of the photographers even admit that). Both are there because of their impact.

I think the task here is to make technically near perfect photos that still have impact (and follow the challenge description, BTW)

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

01/30/2009 09:44:04 AM · #7

Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:

Look at Obama... he's "pretty" and talks a good (scripted) game. But he's totally lacking substance and experience. But he's our duly elected president -- because "the masses" liked him and they like Brad Pitt, Britney Spears, Oprah and tragedy television.

citymars

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/30/2009 09:51:45 AM · #8

... now with Rant-O-Matic.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

01/30/2009 09:55:35 AM · #9

Originally posted by yospiff:

And that's why we have posthumous' wonderful thread...

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

01/30/2009 10:53:33 AM · #10

These SOOOOOOO stick with me as the impact being so much more than the technicals.

bobnospum

Sony Alpha a99 II

Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens for Sony

01/30/2009 11:37:04 AM · #11

I do a bit of amateur stage magic. One of the truisms of magic is that an audience will enjoy poor performed (technically) magic done with a intersting storyline and funny patter much more than great magic done with a boring story or uninteresting patter. The funny part of this is that as a magicain I was poor on technicals and great on personality, but I fear that as a Photographer, I am the opposite.

As to the OP, I'd say lots of ribbon winners strike at an emotional chord, but have lousey techicals.

Paul

Leica SL

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

01/30/2009 12:42:56 PM · #12

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Well, talking a good talk probably goes a long way when you consider the contrast with the previous holder of that particular high office.

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

01/30/2009 02:04:42 PM · #13

Originally posted by eyewave:

You dont really believe the challenge description has anything to do with what wins or does well do you? There are many shots that are far removed from the topic, except maybe a title and they score well and even win here. How many times have we seen this with a water drop?

Matt

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/30/2009 02:42:07 PM · #14

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

These SOOOOOOO stick with me as the impact being so much more than the technicals.

And I see them as being technically sound images with little or no impact whatsoever.

The point being that not everyone's idea of impact is the same. IOW, what you see as impact others may see as pretentiousness or banality or boring overdone drama.

I doubt that we would even agree on what constitutes technical perfection.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

01/30/2009 04:11:24 PM · #15

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

These SOOOOOOO stick with me as the impact being so much more than the technicals.

Originally posted by Mick:

That *was* my point.....that our opinions differ.

Though I find it hard to understand what you mean by differing on technicals......they're a lot less esoteric and more easily definable.

My point with those three images was that their effect on me was more viscerally based than technically.

I didn't say they were technically lacking.....8>)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/30/2009 04:56:08 PM · #16

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Though I find it hard to understand what you mean by differing on technicals......they're a lot less esoteric and more easily definable.

Maybe definable in the sense of identifying attributes as technical in nature, but not easily definable at all as regards what's good and what's bad. Joe thinks "noise" is always bad and votes it down wherever he finds it, JosÃ© thinks noise can be a positive attribute in some photography, and enjoys viewing images that incorporate the texturality of noise into the overall gestalt.

This was a debate all the way back in film days, where some folks loved the hyper-graininess of pushed Tri-X, and others thought it was ridiculously bad technique.

Same can basically be said about all sorts of technical issues: shallow DOF or blur as positives or negatives, and so forth and so on.

R.

01/30/2009 05:26:37 PM · #17

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Though I find it hard to understand what you mean by differing on technicals......they're a lot less esoteric and more easily definable.

Maybe definable in the sense of identifying attributes as technical in nature, but not easily definable at all as regards what's good and what's bad. Joe thinks "noise" is always bad and votes it down wherever he finds it, JosÃ© thinks noise can be a positive attribute in some photography, and enjoys viewing images that incorporate the texturality of noise into the overall gestalt.

This was a debate all the way back in film days, where some folks loved the hyper-graininess of pushed Tri-X, and others thought it was ridiculously bad technique.

Same can basically be said about all sorts of technical issues: shallow DOF or blur as positives or negatives, and so forth and so on.

R.

Thanks Mr. Music. You took the exact words right out of my mouth. ;D

01/30/2009 05:51:43 PM · #18

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

These SOOOOOOO stick with me as the impact being so much more than the technicals.

Originally posted by Mick:
And I see them as being technically sound images with little or no impact whatsoever.

The point being that not everyone's idea of impact is the same. IOW, what you see as impact others may see as pretentiousness or banality or boring overdone drama.

I doubt that we would even agree on what constitutes technical perfection.

That *was* my point.....that our opinions differ.

Though I find it hard to understand what you mean by differing on technicals......they're a lot less esoteric and more easily definable.

My point with those three images was that their effect on me was more viscerally based than technically.

I didn't say they were technically lacking.....8>)

I was not disagreeing with anything that you said. My reply to your post was an effort to illustrate a point--that the very idea of weighing and comparing technical perfection against visual impact is moot when we cannot even agree on what constitutes visual impact or technical perfection.

The OP thinks that top-ten photos are often technically good but lacking in impact. That may be true for some and not true for others. It all depends on what the viewer considers visual impact and technical perfection. As so often happens here, it all boils down to a matter of opinion.

Covert_Oddity

01/30/2009 06:00:09 PM · #19

I just woke up and saw there was a lot of reaction to this, and I think my point may have been missed slightly.

I didn't mean that the photos don't have impact at all, but that they are largely of the posed or prepared nature where someone takes the time to set-up the shot in their own controlled environment to get it looking as good as possible, or when outdoors waiting for the best lighting / weather conditions etc. This as opposed to capturing a fleeting moment, something noteworthy, the kind of thing that would make you stop and pick up a newspaper because of the front page photo.

Again, I think the photos that do make the front page here and the top 10 / 20 / 50 in general are amazing in their class, what I'm saying is that you rarely if ever see the sort of thing that wins the photo journalism awards year after year.

01/30/2009 06:10:46 PM · #20

Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:

Do you mean why aren't there more photos like this on the front page?

If so, then I'd say it's probably because photos like this are extremely difficult to come up with on a day to day basis.

Covert_Oddity