DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Technically Imperfect
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 49, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/09/2009 09:03:11 AM · #1
Vu agency has lots of cool photo stories and photojournalism.
I ran across the following set of images in this site that I think fit well in this thread. Normally we associate Macro photos with sharpness and being 'technically' executed bringing out fascinating detail and color. What you'll see is a series of non-'technical'(note the quotation marks) macro photos which I think also look great. There is some lens flare there too!

//www.agencevu.com/stories/index.php?id=649&p=129

EDIT to include link... : P

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 09:05:07.
04/09/2009 07:59:12 AM · #2
Originally posted by posthumous:

the "technicals" are those things that make the shot look the way it does. Every shot has an equal amount of "technicals."


Yes, very true.

Besides an innate sense of framing and individual perspective, knowing your camera (or the 'technicals')helps bring to life what you 'saw'... If you over exposed...you over exposed... (and yes sometimes magic can come of mistakes...)

I think I need work on this. I've gotten a bit comfortable shooting in Program or shutter and then let it ride. Maybe cause I usually walk around and if something happens I just snap. Often I check later and realise I should've done this or that....

Oh, and a flare...
04/08/2009 09:34:04 PM · #3
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I find it amusing how often images that get slammed here do very well in the "Real" world.


Originally posted by Nuzzer:

Any idea how I get admitted to that world?

I used an alias......8>)
04/08/2009 09:04:11 PM · #4
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I find it amusing how often images that get slammed here do very well in the "Real" world.


Any idea how I get admitted to that world?
04/08/2009 06:39:12 PM · #5
LOL steefmcbeef! That's why I love camera phones! All sorts of interesting distortions. To whit:

04/08/2009 03:07:48 PM · #6
i love lens flair and technically imperfect images. that's why i like to shoot some film with these plastic toy cameras, although my stupid holga is light tight... doesn't it know it's suppose to suck?

flare is essentially unavoidable on a sunny day with a lomo fisheye
03/29/2009 10:10:24 PM · #7
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If I enter a shot in the not to distant future with lens flare, I want all you all to be backing me up with some 10s! ;)

I vote on lens flare as I do the merits of any image.....if it enhances the image, I vote it up.

I happen to be someone who thinks that technical flaws often make an image better.

Like Steve said, though, it's been a growth and learning process to even be able to see how it does that.......8>)
03/29/2009 10:06:23 PM · #8
If I enter a shot in the not to distant future with lens flare, I want all you all to be backing me up with some 10s! ;)
03/29/2009 08:48:50 PM · #9
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I shot this a couple weeks ago; a year ago I would have just trashed it. Now....I like it and can see value in it.....


I guess that may be part of ones natural evolution. When you first get serious about the pasttime, you are working on improving your use of the camera and PP skills. Eventually you reach a point where you start learning to appreciate other genres that may not have the same broad appeal. I am starting to have more of a liking for abstract and street photography lately. Both of which don't normally produce ribbon shots.
03/29/2009 08:16:25 PM · #10
Going down another avenue with technically imperfect is motion blur/OOF/shadow imagery.

I used to hate the stuff, but I feel like I'm now able to see things that I never used to, and it's enlightening.

I think this is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen!



I shot this a couple weeks ago; a year ago I would have just trashed it. Now....I like it and can see value in it.....


03/29/2009 07:29:27 PM · #11
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:


As the DPC originator of the Dryer Lint Conjecture ... I certify we have evidence this might make an interesting challenge. Langdon, over to you as a challenge suggestion!


much better than batteries and pencils
03/28/2009 08:27:21 PM · #12
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:



Agreed, which is why I posted it as an example in this thread. I kind of like the way the face is cut off at an odd point. It gives the glass some context, but does not take away from the glass of mead as the subject. I may redo the shot with some changes in white balance. Posthumous left me a very rare comment about the technicals of my shot.


WB is important, so they keep saying, teaching, etc. But if you look at many images (weddings mostly, seniors to a large degree as well) WB is out the window. Whether it was there in the first place I don't know, but with all the actions and PP effects it's not there in the end - skin tones are all over the place.

How much of that is "reality" I don't know. Trends come in go in photography just like everything else (food, fashion, TV shows, music, etc) so it's hard to say what we're seeing as 'in' when we look at magazines, ads, books, the internet, etc.

So much depends on the audience. Fine Art can be whatever you think it should be. But I do photography for a living so showing mom her 2 week old with green or yellow skin is not going to be a sale - skin tone, therefore WB, must be dead on. There's more room to play in wedding, but a white dress should be white, not gray or pink or blue or change from shot to shot, although I think some photogs try to call that a style whereas it's really just bad photography. One can try edgy stuff with seniors, but I've not found a PP look that sells to all of them, but straight photography will sell every time.

One person's perfection is another's nightmare. I shoot wedding wide open, and tend to shoot everything at F4 or wider. The class I took last week they shoot at 4 only if they have no choice - 5.6 is about as wide as they go. They sell large wall portraits often, and you need sharp images to pull that off, so they say. They do $1.1 million in sales and I do not...perhaps I need to stop down one or two notches for profitability reasons, if not artistic ones.

But does that speak to style, practicality (too many complaints about OOF), fear of changing to ports shot at 1.2 (don't mess with success), or is their feeling that 2.8 is too 'technically imperfect' too often?
03/28/2009 05:31:03 PM · #13
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I have a feeling that there are a small number of photographers here that COULD make a photo of drier lint incredibly interesting in a DPC context.

Searching for "dryer lint" on Flickr actually turned up some interesting (though weird) stuff

Lint art:

Lint collections:

Gumby fashions:

Museum pieces:

Lint Eastwood (my fave):


As the DPC originator of the Dryer Lint Conjecture ... I certify we have evidence this might make an interesting challenge. Langdon, over to you as a challenge suggestion!
03/28/2009 05:20:52 PM · #14
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

what I see there is an off color, poorly composed shot that cuts off the head in a very odd place and shows a glass of wine...


Agreed, which is why I posted it as an example in this thread. I kind of like the way the face is cut off at an odd point. It gives the glass some context, but does not take away from the glass of mead as the subject. I may redo the shot with some changes in white balance. Posthumous left me a very rare comment about the technicals of my shot.
03/28/2009 04:49:53 PM · #15
But you can't ask the subject or photographer to be the judge of a good/great photo, or a photo's appeal.

Every mother loves every picture of their child. Photographers are unnaturally attached to their images.

Yo-Spiff- Your image means nothing to me as I'm not the subject nor photographer, so I'm judging based on no emotional connection to the image, subject or you and what I see there is an off color, poorly composed shot that cuts off the head in a very odd place and shows a glass of wine...

Does that make it a bad photograph? Bad how? It has meaning to the bride so she certainly thinks of it as having value, and if valuable, how can it be bad?
03/28/2009 01:38:35 PM · #16
I shot this at my stepdaughter's wedding/handfasting last week. This shot stood out to me for some reason. It's not quit pin sharp, but I really liked it and it has gotten some positive comments, including the bride thinking it is a great shot of a significant item in the ceremony, so that is what counts.
03/26/2009 10:58:06 PM · #17
Originally posted by ubique:

Originally posted by posthumous:

the "technicals" are those things that make the shot look the way it does. Every shot has an equal amount of "technicals." The question is always only "does the shot look the way I want it to look?" If it does, then it is technically perfect, like the OP's shot.
It's amazing how few people understand this. I even find myself misusing the term just so I can communicate here.


Stop that! You make too much sense, and what's worse it's not the first time. Nobody respects that kind of serial veracity.


You're right. The first time your head hits the wall, it feels great, but each time after that...
03/26/2009 07:56:33 PM · #18
I live for flare....
03/26/2009 07:17:28 PM · #19
Originally posted by posthumous:

the "technicals" are those things that make the shot look the way it does. Every shot has an equal amount of "technicals." The question is always only "does the shot look the way I want it to look?" If it does, then it is technically perfect, like the OP's shot.
It's amazing how few people understand this. I even find myself misusing the term just so I can communicate here.


Stop that! You make too much sense, and what's worse it's not the first time. Nobody respects that kind of serial veracity.
03/26/2009 06:09:51 PM · #20
Hey Prof_Fate, That's a good point. Maybe what we are talking about here is "technically incorrect" rather than technical imperfection. Hmm. Not sure if that's right either. Maybe all we mean is "not appealing to the masses"?

Obviously we are not referring to just plain sloppy or careless work- though sometimes that can create an appealing photo, or at least appealing to someone. I'm a bit confused now. (I'm being serious.) I do think that a certain amount of artistic talent and photographic skill and experience are usually necessary to create edgy (?) photos on a consistent basis.
03/26/2009 05:59:50 PM · #21
the "technicals" are those things that make the shot look the way it does. Every shot has an equal amount of "technicals." The question is always only "does the shot look the way I want it to look?" If it does, then it is technically perfect, like the OP's shot.

It's amazing how few people understand this. I even find myself misusing the term just so I can communicate here.
03/26/2009 05:42:00 PM · #22
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:





Post yours if you got em!


Define perfect please. What is perfect exposure for example? Perfect color? Skin may look better if it's a tad warmer than 'perfect color' says it should be.

Your shot above i've seen many times, done on purpose (i assume) by high end wedding photogs. It's a salable image, so as one of my instructors once told me, it's a good picture cause some will pay for it.

Now if you want to enter it into a PPA print competition it's very far from perfect. So, um, one needs to define perfect.
03/26/2009 01:12:37 PM · #23
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I have a feeling that there are a small number of photographers here that COULD make a photo of drier lint incredibly interesting in a DPC context.

Searching for "dryer lint" on Flickr actually turned up some interesting (though weird) stuff

Lint art:

Lint collections:

Gumby fashions:

Museum pieces:

Lint Eastwood (my fave):
03/25/2009 10:27:58 PM · #24
Originally posted by tph1:

I correct them, and tell them when they have a very good understanding of our language they will then have the license to modify it for their purposes. So maybe breaking the rules is really what puts our soul into our work.

Funny, I just said that very same thing to a young man at work today....I used the non-word "gooder" rather than "better" for effect.

When he scornfully said "Gooder????"

I said "Yep! Only once you have a good command of the English language can you butcher it thusly.".

I thought he was going to hurt himself laughing.

Originally posted by tph1:

Now for me and my photography, I haven't put in the time over the years, I don't really know my equipment like I should, and I wouldn't call artistic expression one of my key traits. I chuckle when I think my fascination with pinholes, zone plates, lensbabies, fisheyes, Holgas and Polaroids are an easy way to cover up my lack of ability and experience. It probably is, but it sure is fun. And once in awhile I end up with a cool picture!

I think having the knowledge of as much as one can about something they're passionate about helps to establish the strengths, and work with the weaknesses inherent witrh the person involved.

I know that there are certain things I cannot do, and things that I can do now that I couldn't two years ago, and I think that both of these points have been brought out to me as part of my learning so much more since I've been here.

What I really like is that I've discovered many things about the photog that is me that I didn't know then.

And that's what really pleases me so much about this place.
03/25/2009 08:24:37 PM · #25
Ah, technically imperfect. I've been called worse. Anyway, I think the really good photographers (my favorites anyway) have a combination of plenty of experience, a thorough understanding of their equipment, a certain amount of innate talent, an understanding and knowledge of light and color, and perhaps an ability to see 'two-dimensionally". They can be technically perfect if they want to be. (I have none of these traits, but that's OK with me.) With this, and an open mind, this group can consistently push the boundaries of our art beyond technically perfect images. It's no different than many other 'art' forms... William Faulkner's prose is technically imperfect and quite beautiful. I am assuming he had a good knowledge of the basics of composition, and a big helping of talent. How about Brett Favre? Technically imperfect mechanics as a NFL quarterback, but one of the best ever. No doubt he understands and practiced the basics at one time. Or Frank Lloyd Wright? Certainly a student of architecture and the designer/builder of masterpieces, but many of his roofs leaked. Colloquialisms can provide comfort and character but they are not a "technically" perfect use of the English language. When my kids use poor language, I correct them, and tell them when they have a very good understanding of our language they will then have the license to modify it for their purposes. So maybe breaking the rules is really what puts our soul into our work.

Now for me and my photography, I haven't put in the time over the years, I don't really know my equipment like I should, and I wouldn't call artistic expression one of my key traits. I chuckle when I think my fascination with pinholes, zone plates, lensbabies, fisheyes, Holgas and Polaroids are an easy way to cover up my lack of ability and experience. It probably is, but it sure is fun. And once in awhile I end up with a cool picture! I think my time here makes me better in other areas outside of photography.

So, I've started to ramble, but it seems to me that usually when I see an inspiring, technically imperfect image here, I can go back into that photographer's portfolio and quickly notice a great deal of talent and expertise.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:16:53 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:16:53 AM EDT.