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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> The quality of professional photos
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/06/2003 01:59:42 AM · #1
I have spent some time viewing the Life Magazine's The Year in Pictures for 2002 and have some interesting thoughts about the photos. The first thing that struck me as I was studying them was the fact that many of the photos were not the best quality. There were some that were clearly digital because they had the telltale signs of over enlarging and sharpenig, some weren't focused real well, some displayed severe lens distortion, and some had pretty boring compositions. But the amazing thing to me was that nearly all of the photos were powerful in some way. They had a big impact on me and I will probably never forget many of them. I realized that many of the images contained elements that we are trying so hard to avoid. There is no doubt in my mind that the photographers also try very hard to create technically polished photographs but that effort still comes secondary to creating an impactful and memorable image. Sometimes I find myself too consumed with trying to get a technically perfect image that the raw impact of the image suffers.

What do you guys think?

T
 01/06/2003 02:11:53 AM · #2
Well, think of the most famous photographs in history. A few come to mind, such as the flag at Iwo Jima, the execution of the Vietnamese dude, the girl running down the street (also in Vietnam) after being napalmed, Marilyn Monroe on the grating, Jack Ruby shooting Oswald etc. The most powerful bit of film of the past century was shot by a tourist with an 8mm hand-held in Texas...

Nothing truly memorable is created by technical proficiency. However, technical know-how might just have saved a few photos from being total write-offs, as most of them are very 'decisive moment' type shots that required split-second reactions. I also think that the best shots are very deceptive, in that the best make it look easy. Portrayal is the ultimate goal, no?
 01/06/2003 03:01:32 AM · #3
In television news, we have an idiom, "If it bleeds, it leads". Some of the largest broadcast news events that we have covered for the networks and transmitted all over the world have been of horrible, tragic events, or perhaps, once-in-a-lifetime events. Examples of work that we have covered for the world media include 9/11 live from the Pentagon, the crash of Swiss Air 111, the Frozen Baby Story from Alberta, the G-8 Conference, etc. Sometimes, quality is not the focal point. But, the sharing or telling of the “story” is always the most important thing in every circumstance. Just as it is in Life Magazine, it is the story that counts.
 01/06/2003 06:33:22 AM · #4
I don't think that, in general, a photo has to have high technical quality to have high emotional impact. I do believe that Time/Life photographers would only be mediocre on dpchallenge though :)
 01/06/2003 08:35:39 AM · #5
I think it's really dependent on the genre. I.e. catalog, product, fashion, calendar, postcard .. all require some level of technical quality.

Whereas inphotojournalism, those types of considerations are relaxed to some degree because some of these events are once in a lifetime, and it was just amazing that someone was there in the right place, right time, with enough prowess to even get a properly exposed, adequately focused shot. In those cases, content is more important than execution.
 01/06/2003 02:56:20 PM · #6
I haven't seen Life's photos but the same thought came to me the other day.

I had picked up a copy of the Nikon 2003 calendar and went through all of the images with a co-worker pointing out that this one or that would would be marked down in this challenge for - grainy - DOF - horizon tilt - blown out highlights - too close cropping - too dark, too dark, too dark,-- that woman over there has blurred feet -- over exposed -- under exposed -- too purple -- I won't go on but every single photograph is a world class piece of art.

Each and every comment I receive on my photo's pointing out a particular detail makes me a better photographer, technically. But, artistically, I know that if I want soft focus, shallow DOF, grain, they will be looked at as technically flawed yet technically, it's exactly what I set out to accomplish. I'm not complaining because I do exactly the same thing. The photographer might have intened his image to be dark and moody or soft focussed and I will say - too dark or not sharp on the critique.

01/06/2003 03:16:43 PM · #7
Interestingly, I had brunch on Sunday with a friend of mine who has several of my images in her collection. She had that morning purchased a calendar of "zen" images from various temples in Japan. She brought the calendar to brunch to complain to me that my images were better than those in the calendar, and why haven't I published a celendar of "good pictures" for her to buy!

I looked through the calendar and, exactly as joanns has described, I took apart each and every image, finding substantive "faults" in each one.

It certainly did make me think about my work compared to stuff that gets sold widely.

Message edited by author 2003-01-06 15:16:53.
 01/06/2003 03:31:20 PM · #8
Originally posted by Jak:
...
It certainly did make me think about my work compared to stuff that gets sold widely.



But what did it make you think ? Does it make you think that maybe many people on this site are hung-up on the wrong things ? Or does it make you think that you could do better than a lot of these picturese ? I oscillate between these two positions. Certainly a lot of 'tourist' calendars/ postcard shots etc are pretty bad from what I've seen. But part of the secret is that the photographers are consistantly 'above average' I.e., they can deliver average to good pictures every time, not just once or twice a year/month/every 10th attempt or something.

I do think that many of the comments/ complaints about pictures I've seen on here, particularly about pretty normal camera techniques like selective focus or over/under exposure stem from maybe a lack of understanding of what a more flexible camera can allow you to do (as most 'prosumer' cameras don't really let you do much with focus/ DoF etc, compared to a SLR type optical system) but that doesn't always mean that shallow DoF is automatically 'correct' even if the photographer meant to use it.

Another thing I think that comes in to play is that people are being asked to vote/score a picture. To do this in any sane sort of way many people start by finding faults, or scoring 'negatively' rather than saying or commenting what they like about it - because people are also trying to be helpful in their comments. If the flaws are pointed out, then it gives something to work on, lots of praise might be nice but it doesn't help a whole lot.

So who's right - these professionals with the 'poorly' executed shots, or us with our persnickety voting practices ?

Message edited by author 2003-01-06 15:32:27.
 01/06/2003 03:40:30 PM · #9
I agree with the points you make, Gordon, and I suspect the truth lies between the two.

What it made ME think was that I need to curry favour with my local calendar distributor, and issue at least one or two calendars for sale next fall.

01/06/2003 04:37:04 PM · #10
I agree with most of the comments but my main point was not to say I thought the particular photos in the Life magazine were worse then I could do but that even though many were technically flawed in some way they excelled in their visual impact, to me, anyways. It's like when I am showing my family photos to members of my family, inevitably, they love the ones that just happen to be slightly out of focus or cropped wrong because those photos had a strong impact on them. They captured the expressions just right or something else. Quite often that kind of shot happens so quickly that you are lucky to be able to get the camera to your eye and fire off a shot or two. I have been real hesitant to show those 'flawed' photos because I cringed at the idea of someone forever looking at one of my photos that I felt was inferior. The reality is that they are actually superior because the perfect moment was captured and the flaws become forgotten. With PS you can always take those wonderful, flawed photos (say that 10 times fast) and add a watercolor filter or some other artsy filter to it and really make it fun to look at.

T
01/06/2003 04:44:51 PM · #11
Photography is a form of communication. I think we get hung up on how things are being said, rather than what is being said here.

It is the message, not the medium we should focus on for 'great' pictures.


However, this place is a photography contest, so people will spend a lot of time focusing on 'how things are communicated' rather than on what is being communicated - because it is easier perhaps to discriminate between pictures based on technical issues.

Also it could be a lot of us haven't really found out what we are trying to say yet.
 01/06/2003 04:58:56 PM · #12
Tim, I think I know what you mean. The impact of most photos has very little to do with technical quality.

Seems that the only folks really hung on the technical aspects of a photograph are the photographers themselves. Its the emotive quality of photos that appeal to people. Most of the time folks won't even notice the technical flaws unless you point them out, beacuse they are looking at them from a totally different perspective.

I think this is a point that we, as photographers, tend to overlook far too often.

My photo for the 'Childhood Without Children' Challenge, I think, is an excellent example. Technically it stinks (I honestly had reservations about even submitting it--the wife set me straight on that real quick :) The shot seemed to have an emotional impact on many of the voters here at DPC, and I have no doubt that this is what allowed it to win. It was a tough challenge, voters here are a tough crowd, and it still trips me out that the photo won. Emotional impact is the only way I can explain it.
 01/06/2003 06:25:27 PM · #13
Originally posted by Gordon:
Photography is a form of communication. I think we get hung up on how things are being said, rather than what is being said here.

It is the message, not the medium we should focus on for 'great' pictures.


However, this place is a photography contest, so people will spend a lot of time focusing on 'how things are communicated' rather than on what is being communicated - because it is easier perhaps to discriminate between pictures based on technical issues.

Also it could be a lot of us haven't really found out what we are trying to say yet.


Gordon, are we hearing a little bit of Marshall McLuhan in your words?

When I attended the University of Toronto a few years ago, I studied, “Media and New Technology Management” and Marshall McLuhan, once referred to, as the "Oracle of the Electronic Age" was a big chunk of our learning. They have the world-renowned “McLuhan Program for Culture and Technology” at the University of Toronto; here is a link to it, just in case you are interested.

McLuhan He was another great Canadian who had impact around the world.
 01/06/2003 06:32:21 PM · #14
Most of my "favorites" from dpc all scored in the lower side of the challenges. We lok at and buy what we find appealling. And appeal is a very personal thing. Two people sitting side by side looking at the same picture will see it totally different. It all comes from who we are. I also score not only on technical things, but a good bit of it is "does it have appeal. And that score will never be the same from any two people. And the appeal is what spends the money. That's why they pay so much to people to do their advertisements. They want to appeal to the biggest number of people they can. And basically so do we, but we take the photos and adjust them to our likes. So we can't get upset when someone else doesn't like it, really. Just thought I'd interject that 2 cents worth.

01/06/2003 06:51:07 PM · #15
Originally posted by Morgan:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Photography is a form of communication. I think we get hung up on how things are being said, rather than what is being said here.

It is the message, not the medium we should focus on for 'great' pictures.


However, this place is a photography contest, so people will spend a lot of time focusing on 'how things are communicated' rather than on what is being communicated - because it is easier perhaps to discriminate between pictures based on technical issues.

Also it could be a lot of us haven't really found out what we are trying to say yet.


Gordon, are we hearing a little bit of Marshall McLuhan in your words?

When I attended the University of Toronto a few years ago, I studied, “Media and New Technology Management” and Marshall McLuhan, once referred to, as the "Oracle of the Electronic Age" was a big chunk of our learning. They have the world-renowned “McLuhan Program for Culture and Technology” at the University of Toronto; here is a link to it, just in case you are interested.

McLuhan He was another great Canadian who had impact around the world.


Never heard of him, but thanks for the link, I'll be sure and look. I did study a lot of Claude Shannon at University though, the father of information theory :)

Message edited by author 2003-01-06 18:52:43.
 01/06/2003 06:54:19 PM · #16
Originally posted by Gordon:
Never heard of him, but thanks for the link, I'll be sure and look.


Given that we know Gordon is an intelligent guy, this MUST be an age thing. McLuhan invented the terms "the medium is the message" and "the global village," amongst many other significant contributions to semiotics. Much of his work, read directly from his colourful and typographically chaotic books, now seems dated, but ONLY because his ideas have so thoroughly taken over modern culture and communications.

Message edited by author 2003-01-06 18:55:26.
 01/06/2003 07:22:08 PM · #17
Sorry, Gordon, I thought that because you quoted McLuhan, that you new of him. And as was already stated, we know you to be a pretty smart guy. But, perhaps Jak and I are just too old and that may explain it. Although, I sort of hate that idea as a suitable excuse. Come to think of it, I believe that McLuhan has been dead since about 1980? You would have been about 10 years old then Gordon, and were likely as smart as our friend, Ben, is today. Boy, do I feel old, right Jak.....

You should really click on the link provided for McLuhan and learn more about him. McLuhan was an amazing human, much the same as Nicholas Negroponte of the MIT Media Lab fame is thought of today. Negroponte’s book, “Being Digital” is a great read that he wrote just a few years ago. It is a compilation of his many articles from his “Wired” Magazine, so it is a quick and easy read, but loaded with intriguing ideas and foresight.

Nicholas Negroponte
 01/06/2003 08:10:49 PM · #18
Originally posted by Morgan:
Sorry, Gordon, I thought that because you quoted McLuhan, that you new of him. And as was already stated, we know you to be a pretty smart guy. But, perhaps Jak and I are just too old and that may explain it. Although, I sort of hate that idea as a suitable excuse. Come to think of it, I believe that McLuhan has been dead since about 1980? You would have been about 10 years old then Gordon, and were likely as smart as our friend, Ben, is today. Boy, do I feel old, right Jak.....

You should really click on the link provided for McLuhan and learn more about him. McLuhan was an amazing human, much the same as Nicholas Negroponte of the MIT Media Lab fame is thought of today. Negroponte’s book, “Being Digital” is a great read that he wrote just a few years ago. It is a compilation of his many articles from his “Wired” Magazine, so it is a quick and easy read, but loaded with intriguing ideas and foresight.

Nicholas Negroponte


I'd have been 8. Now Negroponte I have heard of and I subscribe to Wired :) Although if the statement is 'the medium is the message' then I'd have been disputing that above, as I think we get hung up too much on the medium to the detriment of the message. Though modern life is also like that in a lot of ways. It isn't how you say it, it _is_ what you say that should be important. Obviously being able to communicate clearly is important, but it isn't more important than what you are trying to communicate.

Message edited by author 2003-01-06 20:13:18.
 01/06/2003 09:31:32 PM · #19
Gordon, I could probably point you to 40 years of academic and popular literature proving that the medium is at least as important as the message.

Just a single example: Let us say the US Government puts out a terrorist warning. In one scenario, they put out the message by publishing it in a few local newspapers. In another scenario, the exact same message is broadcast on the major TV networks and CNN. Do you think that would make any difference?

A more Mcluhanesque example: the US Government puts out a terrorist warning. In one scenario, they get Dick Cheney to tape a radio broadcast (what McLuhan described as a "cool" medium). In another scenario, the whole White House team appears on network news (what McLuhan called a "hot" medium). The message, we propose, in both cases is exactly the same. Do you think the effect will be the same?
 01/06/2003 10:18:56 PM · #20
Originally posted by Jak:
Gordon, I could probably point you to 40 years of academic and popular literature proving that the medium is at least as important as the message.

Just a single example: Let us say the US Government puts out a terrorist warning. In one scenario, they put out the message by publishing it in a few local newspapers. In another scenario, the exact same message is broadcast on the major TV networks and CNN. Do you think that would make any difference?

A more Mcluhanesque example: the US Government puts out a terrorist warning. In one scenario, they get Dick Cheney to tape a radio broadcast (what McLuhan described as a "cool" medium). In another scenario, the whole White House team appears on network news (what McLuhan called a "hot" medium). The message, we propose, in both cases is exactly the same. Do you think the effect will be the same?


I most certainly agree with your points about the impact of the medium providing a particular weight to the message, that varies with the method of delivery.

But in both cases, wouldn't you say that the message also had a certain weight ? If in both cases they were wishing everyone Merry Christmas, it would have less impact. Information content is important too. (Harking back to my many years of studying communication theory I guess). I didn't dismiss the medium, I just suggested that we perhaps place too much emphasis on commenting on the technicalities of the medium at the expense of not paying much attention to what people are trying to say in their photographs.

Once again this is why I would often prefer to be able to include in the details field the motivation for a particular photograph. I'm sure if I was an accomplished photographer, presenting my perfectly constructed photographs to an equally accomplished and visually literate audience, I wouldn't require to explain what I was trying to say. However, I am not an accomplished photographer and a majority of the voters are not particularly visually sophisticated, so we are left picking at the technical issues with the medium of communication, due to a lack of understanding of what was trying to be communicated.

Having the photographer bolster or enhance the message they are trying to convey visually, with accompanying text at the time of voting might help people get the message and move on from the medium. Yes both are important, I think maybe our balance on DPC is often too far in the simpler to comprehend direction of technical craft or medium and further from the more difficult to grasp artistic message.

I feel that often what I would like to say in my pictures is lost and certainly on here, people pick on small technical flaws and then ignore what the picture was actually about. Either that or spend so much time trying to find these flaws that they miss the big picture (sic) context of what the camera was pointing at in the first place. Some times I'd like to think people saw in the scene what I saw in the scene, rather than telling me the obvious mistakes I made in trying to commit it to a 640x480 box.

Message edited by author 2003-01-06 22:23:41.
 01/07/2003 10:55:30 AM · #21
Great discussion and wonderful points.

As I understand it to be, the basic mechanics of communication make use three variables. The sender, the medium, and the receiver.

It is clear that the sender (photographer) may have a vivid view of what he / she is trying to communicate in a specific image. The medium does colour the message in many ways, and what I think you are saying is, "Can we better "condition" the medium?" With a goal of ultimately better communicating the message from the sender to the viewer with less influence by the medium. Even, if we were able to improve the condition of the communication channel (DPC), we would still be left with one uncontrolled variable, the receiver (DPC membership).
 01/07/2003 12:41:34 PM · #22
Originally posted by Morgan:
Great discussion and wonderful points.

As I understand it to be, the basic mechanics of communication make use three variables. The sender, the medium, and the receiver.

It is clear that the sender (photographer) may have a vivid view of what he / she is trying to communicate in a specific image. The medium does colour the message in many ways, and what I think you are saying is, "Can we better "condition" the medium?" With a goal of ultimately better communicating the message from the sender to the viewer with less influence by the medium. Even, if we were able to improve the condition of the communication channel (DPC), we would still be left with one uncontrolled variable, the receiver (DPC membership).


I like the way you describe it - we have the sender - the photographer, who is still learning about what they are trying to say. I know that when I look at a scene, if I really take the time to think about what makes me want to take a picture of it, before I click the shutter, then I tend to make much better pictures. I see something, and it stops me enough to make me want to take a picture. Then I have to step back and work out what about it I want to capture. This is the 'vision' part of taking the picture and we all no doubt need to get better at that. Then the next problem is the medium, or the 'craft' part of taking the picture. How do we get that 'vision' on film? What camera settings to use, what techniques to exploit in the medium to make a good representation of what I saw in the scene in the first place to make me take the picture. In the digital darkroom, what choices to make to further enhance that vision through the photographic medium.

Then it comes to voting. My point here is I think that because we have probably muddled visions, and probably less than perfect craft, we confuse the message and make mistakes in the medium. The fact that the viewer will probably not have perfect visual comprehension doesn't enhance this process.

As a result of all this though, I feel I just get comments on my use of the medium, but I'd rather often get comments on the message. Most of the comments I see are picking out the obvious flaws in the use of the medium. Too much sharpening. Too contrasty. Too dark. Very occasionally do I get comments about the message: lovely scene, enchanting, moves me to tears etc.

I think perhaps using the details field, during voting, would allow us to verbally enhance the message and get more interesting feedback.

I would agree that in the perfect world when we are all expert at crafting a perfect photograph of our perfectly clearly concieved message, then this would be superfluous. But my vision isn't that good and my craft isn't up to it either.
 01/07/2003 01:42:34 PM · #23
Gordon, the biggest issue I have is that the medium (DPC - the Web – the users own computers) is so far removed from being defined as a perfect, or even as a near-perfect, venue to display and then to critically judge photography that it is almost laughable.

No, please do not get me wrong, I do not mean any disregard to the DPC web site or its creators. What I find fascinating is how can anyone really judge any image based upon most of the technically accepted standards, subjective or objective. Every monitor is different from each other, video display cards offer diverse gamma settings, luminance and chrominance are never calibrated, resolution is brutally impacted, dynamic range is unpredictable and inconsistent, etc.

So, in my view, all that might be judged objectively are just a few basic photography attributes such as composition, maybe depth of field, etc. In virtually every challenge to date, I have received numerous conflicting comments about my image being too dark, too light; colour is off, etc. But, how can they really tell? What they see is not what I see, nor is what you see. Unless we are in a fixed common environment, such as a gallery, we can never be sure that the judging is being done on what was submitted. So, many comments need to be filtered out as being issues of the medium and not issues of the image. The medium completely distorts the original vision!

Finally, the creative aspect is all that we can objectively judge. The unique perspective that each person brings to the task will always slant their scrutiny of the image as well, but at least they should be able to recognize the value of a cute picture, a funny picture, a beautiful picture, or, a poor picture, etc. In the end, it is this communication that is really being judged. Seriously judging exposure and other technical aspects over this medium is simply laughable. Cheers, Michael

Message edited by author 2003-01-07 13:58:12.
 01/07/2003 03:05:32 PM · #24
I think you are correct, which is why I wish most of the comments on my pictures focused on the content rather than so much on the presentation.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 01:25:12 PM

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: 04/19/2024 01:25:12 PM EDT.