Are “poor” images better than “perfect” images.....

[star camera company]

I find myself much more captivated by what one could call “poor” images rather than perfectly made photos. Fuzz, movement, blur, bad framing...... I don’t know but it’s tge kind of image that “gets” me. Two stand out...one a model in “60s” fashion fully out of focus, color, shapes NO detail. The other, BW, almost an accident shot, part of a face, blurred background hard to describe. I think of shots like that, then of. a perfect image from a perfect camera....usually forgettable. ••••. Yes there are exceptions but do you feel this too?

 

[Original katomi]

A case of each to their own.
My images are so out of the box that the judges did not like what I had done

 

[Designer]

..do you feel this too?

No.

My liking any particular photograph is the same as liking anything while not liking another. If it makes me smile inside, then it is liked. While some less-than-perfect photographs can do that, I find that I am overlooking the mistakes to concentrate on other attributes.

 

[zombiesniper]

What image interests a person is a very personal and subjective thing.
What constitutes a "poor" image again is very subjective. Technically perfect images can still be crap if the subject sucks.

Some images I think are fantastic are near technically perfect. Was that the intention of the photographer? Don't know and don't care. The result it what matters.
Other images I love do not follow all the rules, however are normally taken by a photographer that knows all the rules AND has the experience and talent to know when they can be broken to give a superior image.

In short, I like images I like. Don't care if rules were followed. Don't care if anyone else likes them.

Edit, never did answer the title. In my opinion, no. What I consider poor images are not better.

 

[otherprof]

I find myself much more captivated by what one could call “poor” images rather than perfectly made photos. Fuzz, movement, blur, bad framing...... I don’t know but it’s tge kind of image that “gets” me. Two stand out...one a model in “60s” fashion fully out of focus, color, shapes NO detail. The other, BW, almost an accident shot, part of a face, blurred background hard to describe. I think of shots like that, then of. a perfect image from a perfect camera....usually forgettable. ••••. Yes there are exceptions but do you feel this too?

I’m not sure what counts as a perfect vs poor photo unless we know the intention of the photographer/artist. Is a photo of a waterfall with the water caught at 1/2000 of a second more perfect than one that shows the water blurred? On the other hand, there are photos that are the result of lack of technical ability or faulty equipment - light leaks, e.g. that might be interesting to look at. If precise reproduction is the standard for perfection, then the impressionists produced some very poor paintings. That’s why I think we need to clarify what we mean by “poor” and “perfect” before we assign values to them.

 

[Derrel]

In my experience emotion trumps technical quality, as long as the technical quality is not horrible. However in rare circumstances some technically bad photos are actually great pictures. But generally The phrase "poor photos" is one I reserve for occasions when the photos are really bad.

 

[patrickt]

Edward Weston took an iconic photo of President Orozco of Mexico. He shot all day with a Graflex and late in the afternoon as the light was going he could not stop down more than f/6.3. He was using longer shutter speeds and when he got the shot he wanted there was a slight blur.

He said, '....the definition is not perfect, but practically satisfactory." I was reminded of this quote when I saw the portrait of Orozco in an exhibit. It was an 8x10 contact print where the slight blur was not apparent.

And, I had a dealer looking at some photos for a charity auction he was involved with. I'd selected a dozen or so prints for him to look at and he selected two. Then he went to my work table and picked up a print I'd rejected. It was a shot of a Zapotec man, very short, dressed in costume, and dancing wildly. I proceeded to explain that the focus was a bit off. He laughed and said, "And another photographer might notice but his picture will sell. It took it and it sold well at the auction.

The search for perfection, in all things, is time consuming and futile.

 

[star camera company]

Another thing that brought this question to mind is the video the Beatles made for “day in the life”. Though Cine, watch it and you’ll see a lot of bad great photogrsphy.

 

[texxter]

I find myself much more captivated by what one could call “poor” images rather than perfectly made photos. Fuzz, movement, blur, bad framing...... I don’t know but it’s tge kind of image that “gets” me. Two stand out...one a model in “60s” fashion fully out of focus, color, shapes NO detail. The other, BW, almost an accident shot, part of a face, blurred background hard to describe. I think of shots like that, then of. a perfect image from a perfect camera....usually forgettable. ••••. Yes there are exceptions but do you feel this too?

I can connect with this feeling - technically imperfect images with enough emotion, message, historic or aesthetic value can be more appealing than perfectly exposed, focused and sharp images. I think part of the reason for this is that some of us look beyond (or instead of) the technical correctness for a deeper appeal that has to do with the context of the image. The best example I can think of is Cappa's Normandy photos - Photographer Robert Capa Risked It All to Capture D-Day—then Nearly All His Images Were Lost

 

[Sharpshooterr]

I find myself much more captivated by what one could call “poor” images rather than perfectly made photos. Fuzz, movement, blur, bad framing...... I don’t know but it’s tge kind of image that “gets” me. Two stand out...one a model in “60s” fashion fully out of focus, color, shapes NO detail. The other, BW, almost an accident shot, part of a face, blurred background hard to describe. I think of shots like that, then of. a perfect image from a perfect camera....usually forgettable. ••••. Yes there are exceptions but do you feel this too?

There are two main problems with photography standards. The first problem is mainly that there are standards, the second problem is that few photographers know the standards.
If you have a BFA or other formal training that can teach you the standards, your view of photography is usually quite different than those that don't.
It's not a matter of knowing what we like, it's a matter of knowing what's good!! Yes, there is a difference!
But to answer your question, I'm usually drawn to good photography, regardless of what it looks like, fuzz, blur, technical perfection or not, doesn't much matter.
SS

 

[Soocom1]

Eye of the beholder.

 

[smoke665]

I find myself much more captivated by what one could call “poor” images rather than perfectly made photo

Maybe you need to evaluate the term as it relates to "your vision" of the shot. Ask yourself what was I trying show and did I show it. Technical standards can vary. ICM images can be beautifully blurred but not in focus, stark high contrast images aren't what you might call properly exposed. Don't get so hung up on standards that you lock yourself in a box. Explore what's out there to match your creative style.

 

[jcdeboever]

My images are so bad I have to love them, no one else does....

 

[smithdan]

My images are so bad I have to love them, no one else does....

Gave you a "funny" jc. In truth, "disagree" would be more appropriate but not into rude today..

 

[jcdeboever]

My images are so bad I have to love them, no one else does....

Gave you a "funny" jc. In truth, "disagree" would be more appropriate but not into rude today..

I like disagree, thank you though.