In Search of Technical Perfection...Who Cares?

[D-B-J]

Lately I've come to care a bit less about the technical perfection of things in each photo, making small compromises here and there, but have ended up with photo's that I think on the whole are better than they used to be. Let me explain... I used to try and expose each piece of the scene perfectly--no blown highlights, no pure-black shadows, etc. I always worried when highlights were blown. What if I shoot directly into the sun? What if my photo is vignetted from use of filters? What if there's dust on the elements or filters that end up in my photos? What if my exposure is a bit long and things become blurred?

I guess I've come to realize there's a grey area where technical perfection meets good art, and I've started to focus more on the final image rather than achieve "the worlds most perfect histogram."

What are your thoughts?

Best,
Jake

 

[480sparky]

......What are your thoughts........

Whatever floats your boat!

 

[sk66]

A great photo of crap has a lot less "value" than a crappy photo of something great/meaningful.

Maybe you are starting to move beyond the stage of "newbie" and "gear infatuation." We do certainly tend to get way over obsessed with IQ @ 100% magnification, Bokeh, and similar things IMO.

 

[D-B-J]

A great photo of crap has a lot less "value" than a crappy photo of something great/meaningful.

Maybe you are starting to move beyond the stage of "newbie" and "gear infatuation." We do certainly tend to get way over obsessed with IQ @ 100% magnification, Bokeh, and similar things IMO.

I definitely think that is part of it. It's more about the final image than being so pedantic that you never like any of your photos. Technical perfection doesn't correlate (necessarily) to a great image.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PixelRabbit]

As long as a technical shortcoming doesn't distract, draw the eye with no payoff or look like a mistake I say embrace the imperfection and blur and use them with intention

 

[grafxman]

Many of my photos are taken under adverse conditions of lighting, reflections, etc. I said to hell with perfection and perfect exposures a year or two after I started shooting. These days I just try to get the best picture I can under the circumstances I have to deal with and get on to the next one.

 

[BrickHouse]

I feel that with a lot of things (music, art, etc), there is an initial period of time where you HAVE to obsess about the technical details first. You learn the ins and outs of the technical aspect and the creation of art becomes secondary. It is only when you've mastered these technicalities, that you can create the art. You have to know what rules to break and how, what details to tweak, and what can you bring to the table that's new. Perhaps you're just advancing in skill and knowledge to the point that you know how to forget technical perfection and use it to create art.

 

[pgriz]

Having a technically perfect image that doesn't convey a story is like listening to perfectly pitched and phrased speech which uses random words, or to a mechanically played piece of music that lacks the subtle pauses, compressions, and volume variations that convey feeling. Flaws can offer us a point of entry into an otherwise closed piece, a tacit recognition that to err is to be human. If we focus as much effort at getting the picture to speak, as we try to get it to "shine", we'd have much more engaging photography, I'd think.

 

[D-B-J]

Having a technically perfect image that doesn't convey a story is like listening to perfectly pitched and phrased speech which uses random words, or to a mechanically played piece of music that lacks the subtle pauses, compressions, and volume variations that convey feeling. Flaws can offer us a point of entry into an otherwise closed piece, a tacit recognition that to err is to be human. If we focus as much effort at getting the picture to speak, as we try to get it to "shine", we'd have much more engaging photography, I'd think.

Well said.

 

[KmH]

There is no technical perfection.
Or putting it another way, you can never attain technical perfection.

Even if you could, the #1 goal should still be an artistic goal.

Understanding and mastering the technical aspects of doing photography is how you maximize your artistic options.

 

[Gavjenks]

The only definition of "technical perfection" that makes sense to me is "achieving precisely the image you intended or envisioned" In other words, your equipment is not holding you back in any way.

If the image you wanted was out of focus, then an out of focus shot is more technically perfect than an in-focus shot (the latter would represent an operator error).

Thus, you always want greater technical perfection, no matter what.

 

[D-B-J]

The only definition of "technical perfection" that makes sense to me is "achieving precisely the image you intended or envisioned" In other words, your equipment is not holding you back in any way.

If the image you wanted was out of focus, then an out of focus shot is more technically perfect than an in-focus shot (the latter would represent an operator error).

Thus, you always want greater technical perfection, no matter what.

Interesting way of looking at it. I guess I meant technical perfection in the way books/videos/teachers/etc consider technical perfection (perfect exposure, wb, etc).

Jake

 

[AlanKlein]

Could you post some pictures from before and now. From the standpoint of the viewer of your photos, your concept may be flawed or correct. We don't know.

 

[D-B-J]

Could you post some pictures from before and now. From the standpoint of the viewer of your photos, your concept may be flawed or correct. We don't know.

I guess I don't have any old photos where technical aspects were so prevalent it ruined or lessened the impact of the photo. It's more of my recent photos that I've noticed a change in how i approach it. Like the sunset I shot last night--a large area near the sun was completely blown, and there's some loss of detail in the shadows, but I love the overall image.

Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pgriz]

This subject has been debated in our club during some of the competitions, with certain people expressing a lot of indignation that their technically perfect images did not score highly in the competition. In fact, one of the winners had all kinds of issues (blur, DOF, WB) that could have been considered "off", but won because of the emotional impact of the image. There were some that felt that this rewarded, in their words, poor execution and technical mediocrity. However, the majority disagreed with this viewpoint and felt strongly (and loudly) that emotional content trumped technical perfection. Several members who epoused the technical perfection viewpoint, did not renew their memberships and went to other clubs in the city. The rumour mill says they're not too happy there either. Sigh.