Get it right in the camera!

[Vtec44]

Then let me be blunt and clearly define "right in camera" since I don't see it in this thread. "Right in camera" means whatever the intention of the photographer for the image to be. To be honest, I don't think some of you could clearly define it until I brought it up. It's that simple, no need to be long winded and vague.

You're welcome!

 

[zombiesniper]

People get so obsessed and hung up with a photo being sharp and perfectly exposed that we get an endless flow of perfectly shot boredom.

Someones been on my flickr again.

 

[chuasam]

People get so obsessed and hung up with a photo being sharp and perfectly exposed that we get an endless flow of perfectly shot boredom.

Technical proficiency must come before artistic development can be fully realised.

Give it 20 years and some of those "boring" photographers will have honed their skills and be producing some outstanding photography. And sometimes its being produced right now; only the vast volumes we are exposed to daily - hourly - by the moment - overwhelms us.

I would rather see artistic skill than technical proficiency.

 

[Overread]

People get so obsessed and hung up with a photo being sharp and perfectly exposed that we get an endless flow of perfectly shot boredom.

Technical proficiency must come before artistic development can be fully realised.

Give it 20 years and some of those "boring" photographers will have honed their skills and be producing some outstanding photography. And sometimes its being produced right now; only the vast volumes we are exposed to daily - hourly - by the moment - overwhelms us.

I would rather see artistic skill than technical proficiency.

I see very few quality artists who are not proficient technically.

This doesn't mean they can all name every aperture value in 1/3rd increments up to f32 nor can they outline the physics behind how a lens works - it means they can control the camera and use it to achieve their end result.

An artist cannot create if they do not have the tools to create with nor the proficiency to control and use those tools

 

[Vtec44]

An artist cannot create if they do not have the tools to create with nor the proficiency to control and use those tools

I totally agree.

However, most people emphasize WAY too much on the tools, and the knowledge of the tools, rather than how to apply that knowledge creatively. Creatively is the key IMHO. Sure I can be a walking encyclopedia of cameras and lenses, but my pictures can still be bland and boring. This is most often when you hear someone talk a lot of about the technical aspect of photography, then to see such a dated and boring portfolio.

 

[Overread]

That is a weakness of the internet; many of us are more technical than artistically inspired and photography sites have a huge problem encouraging and promoting artistic discussion. Partly we are limited by the literature too; much of the common material only speaks over "rule of 3rds" and little else if perhaps a few about lines or eye direction.

in short there's a black hole.


On This forum its also promoted by the fact that we get a lot of newbies who are very new to the hobby ; these people who are in the most need of getting their basics in technical control over the camera before they can even become discover their artist within

 

[Gary A.]

I'd rather see a photo that is creatively/artistically captured and technically perfect than one which is creative but lacks in photographic proficiency.

 

[Vtec44]

I'd rather see a photo that is creatively/artistically captured and technically perfect than one which is creative but lacks in photographic proficiency.

IMHO, every photograph is flawed in someway. I'd rather have an emotionally beautiful but technically imperfect photo than a technically perfect but boring photo, if I have to pick one.

 

[chuasam]

I'd rather see a photo that is creatively/artistically captured and technically perfect than one which is creative but lacks in photographic proficiency.

IMHO, every photograph is flawed in someway. I'd rather have an emotionally beautiful but technically imperfect photo than a technically perfect but boring photo, if I have to pick one.

I'd rather look at blurry photos from Robert Cape than sharp clear images from Bern and Hilda Becher. Stuff by Ellen von Unwerth over whoever shoots Sears catalogues.

People hire photographers for their visual skills and ability to communicate in a image. People don't hire the photographer with the most in focus image.

 

[table1349]

New Craigs list ad: Wanted Photographer with outstanding one in a million artistic vision. Ability to focus camera not necessary. Please send sample photos, in focus or not to...........

I can soften the focus of an image in post processing to make it how I like it. You just can't take an out of focus image and sharpen it.

Call me a traditionalist, but this just doesn't cut it for me.

 

[Gary A.]

I shoot for both. Granted, 'perfect' wasn't the best choice of words for the internet, as many would rather argue semantics than concept. So, for the internet's sake, I prefer an artistic/creative vision combined with superior, (better than average), photographic technical proficiency.

That is what I strive for, combining creative vision with ph0tographic skill. If/when I fail on either count, my failure becomes fuel for me to try harder next time.

I have nothing against unsharp or overly dark or overly light images ... If that was the intent of the photog prior to releasing the shutter. Getting lucky, may work for the hobbyist but not for the pro.

 

[Vtec44]

For Internet sake, if I have to pick one technical or creative I would pick creative. It took me 1 day to nail perfect focus of a motorcycle going 150mph. It will take me a life time to create a style, a unique vision. The digital age has reduced the learning curve drastically. A lot of times, the difference is in the creativity.

 

[Gary A.]

For Internet sake, Why pick one ... go for both. (They are not mutually exclusive.)

 

[dennybeall]

Interesting discussion. Camera hobbyists vs photographic artists vs I'm not sure who. Some good points made by all.

 

[DanOstergren]

I generally try to get it "right" during the exposure because retouching puts me to sleep. You can use your lighting or makeup to "dodge and burn" and sculpt your subject in certain ways and even out skin tones, saving you time in post, and you can spend a tiny bit of extra time grooming your location and making sure the details are right and distractions are eliminated, and a tiny bit of extra time to make sure your exposure is the way you want it, and then when it comes to post you can get through more photos a lot faster because each photo doesn't take so long to edit.

Unfortunately I've only ever taken a handful of shots that I felt needed zero post-editing, but as I get more experienced I hope this number increases, because I'm way too tired of a person to be retouching all the time. Perhaps one day I'll just be able to hire a retoucher, and then I'll be able to say that I don't retouch a single one of my photos.

Of course, this applies mainly to portrait photographers, or photographers who have a little bit of time to consider the details before creating the photo.