Perfect or Moving?

[dasmith232]

The (quite understandable) discussions and concern about high-ISO noise reminds me of a past discussion...

Think of your most technically perfect photos, and think of your most "moving" photos (emotionally). Are they the same?

For example, one of my personal favorites was shot (by my wife) with a super-zoom, handheld of me and my daughter from the shore out on a sailboat. No one else would likely consider the photo to be all that great or even good. But for me there's an emotional connection that I cherish. Oh, and the noise? Awful. Sharpness? Contrast? Nope, and nope. Still, it's one of those that I'd grab for a fire-evacuation.

On a related point, I think that a key reason that I "connect" with that picture is because it's printed out. I think that printing is sooo important.

 

[alexis.alvarez]

Technique ≠ emotion or art. And printing is critical.

 

[Derrel]

Personal connection to events, or to people within a photo, tends to color our personal perception of photos. The same is true for most people: people LIKE, or even LOVE, photos in which their friends or family are shown, and special times (birthdays, vacations, honeymoons, anniversaries, graduations, etc) make people just get all emotional, no matter how good or mediocre or even bad the photos are. Technical considerations really do not rank all that high when the photos are shown to people who have an emotional stake or interest in the photos. Same with very novel or very old images; moving photos do not need to be anywhere near perfect. Many are not near pefect

For people who have no personal, emotional, or individual stake in a particular photo--then techical issues tend to become more important.

 

[dasmith232]

So, by that logic...

Even a bad wedding photographer can "get away" with it because there is soooo much emotional connection that the bride will overlook crappy technique, right?

I'm TOTALLY kidding on that!

 

[otherprof]

Personal connection to events, or to people within a photo, tends to color our personal perception of photos. The same is true for most people: people LIKE, or even LOVE, photos in which their friends or family are shown, and special times (birthdays, vacations, honeymoons, anniversaries, graduations, etc) make people just get all emotional, no matter how good or mediocre or even bad the photos are. Technical considerations really do not rank all that high when the photos are shown to people who have an emotional stake or interest in the photos. Same with very novel or very old images; moving photos do not need to be anywhere near perfect. Many are not near pefect

For people who have no personal, emotional, or personal stake in a particular photo--then techical issues tend to become more important.

I agree completely. Sometimes we react to the subject, not the photograph - or painting or etching, etc. E,g., some bird photos are interesting because the subject is hard to spot or rare, and some bird photos are works of art, and some are both. I think some Renaissance art has its appeal because of the religious content, and wonder how someone ignorant of the meaning of the crucifixion or the idea of angels would see them as works of art?

 

[KmH]

Derrel hit the nail on the head - personal connection to the content in a photo, be it people, places, or things.

 

[smoke665]

Interesting that you post this, because I'm currently trying to learn how noise can be used to add to the composition. I personally don't believe the value of an image, from an artistic standpoint, is determined by its lack of noise, sharpness, contrast or any other single technical aspect but rather how they are used as a whole.

 

[dasmith232]

Interesting that you post this, because I'm currently trying to learn how noise can be used to add to the composition. ...

I don't know that I have a strong opinion on the following, but I've heard other opinions that digital noise is not as ... "pretty" ... as the noise in "high" speed film (what, like 800?). So adding digital noise (and nothing else) to a single layer may or may not be everyone's cup of tea.

However, I took a lighting workshop where one of the breakout topics was compositing (as in building up layers of stuff in PS). After getting the various layers of stuff in place, the speaker (Joel Grimes) would put noise on top of everything which added a unifying element to the entire picture making it appear ... "genuine".

So not that the noise was the compositional element, but that it "sold" the composition of the composite.

... I personally don't believe the value of an image, from an artistic standpoint, is determined by its lack of noise, sharpness, contrast or any other single technical aspect but rather how they are used as a whole.

Yup, agreed!

 

[astroNikon]

In doing kids sports, I've found the parents overlook what we consider "technical" issues such as noise, or maybe a bit of blur for the emotional aspect of it.

Noise in an image can add a certain flair to it, check many conversions to B&W due to technical issues.

 

[smoke665]

I've heard other opinions that digital noise is not as ... "pretty" ... as the noise in "high" speed film (what, like 800?). So adding digital noise (and nothing else) to a single layer may or may not be everyone's cup of tea.

Don't want to duplicate what's already been discussed in another thread I started on the new Mega High ISO cameras, but I'm not referring to the noise added post. The new models have raised the bar significantly on ISO while decreasing the color noise so the option of utilizing that aspect in a composition interests me.

 

[Derrel]

I've heard other opinions that digital noise is not as ... "pretty" ... as the noise in "high" speed film (what, like 800?). So adding digital noise (and nothing else) to a single layer may or may not be everyone's cup of tea.

Don't want to duplicate what's already been discussed in another thread I started on the new Mega High ISO cameras, but I'm not referring to the noise added post. The new models have raised the bar significantly on ISO while decreasing the color noise so the option of utilizing that aspect in a composition interests me.

I recall Fujicolor 1600 color print film in 1986....looks about like the Fro Knows Photo.com video on YouTube, the one of the Nikon D500 print that was shot at ISO 25,000..big, visible "noise" with a slightly-reduced color saturation and slightly-substandard color richness...and yet...VERY decent.

I cannot for the life of me figure out what so many 20- and 30-something aged people obsess over the slightest bit of digital noise...it's an obsession that seems unthinkable to me. I would most of the time rather see more detail and a little bit of noise than the modern-era opposite: NO noise whatsoever, and smeary, detail-LEAN images where heavy noise reduction has watercolor-effected the hell out of shots.

 

[Overread]

So, by that logic...

Even a bad wedding photographer can "get away" with it because there is soooo much emotional connection that the bride will overlook crappy technique, right?

I'm TOTALLY kidding on that!

But its also true - up to a point.
However just as an emotional connection colours ones impression of a photo; so too does a financial connection. Indeed a financial connection can work the opposite way and even very good photography can be rendered lesser because "OMG it cost HOW MUCH?!!".

It's something we have to consider in that people don't view photos purely from a technical nor from a purely artistic angle nor a combination of just the two. They have a huge range of emotions and connections which vary photo to photo. I would argue that photography experiences this more than some other art forms because photography captures moments and people not just artwork. As a result emotional connections can run far higher and political or other elements can also raise the importance of a photo. There are a lot of (often war time) journalist photos which are very popular but which on art or technical grounds are really little more than snapshots.

Art and photography are complex like this and its something we have to learn to deal with in our lives; to learn how to interpret other peoples impressions of our work and to also learn how to deal with the variations in opinions.



I think a big part of it also comes down to confidence. Many (most?) of us (whether we admit to it or not) gain a degree of confidence by the appreciation of others of our endeavours. However most can only gain real confidence if we feel that the comments/compliments made are genuine. That they are real comments made on the skill and quality not just because we know the person and they are being a friend.
As a result when we see the same person who just complimented our photo gushing over a blurry nasty out of focus badly framed snapshot of a baby - it knocks ones confidence in that person as a valid "assessor" of our work.

I think this latter part is why this point of commenting and critique can become emotionally charged for the creator of a work; especially if they are not the most confident in their own skills; or if they are most skilled with their own critique (its typical for ones critical ability to develop faster than ones technical and artistic ability - indeed one would argue that that's the proper course to result in improvement). Such a situation can undermine ones own personal self confidence and thus when combined with the above comment on confidence gained through others one can see that there's potential to develop those people who "lash out at criticism".

 

[smoke665]

@Derrel I watched that video a few days ago. I've tried to find an example of the "look" that I envision in my head as to how noise, lack of contrast, and lack of sharpness could be used to create a "moving" photo without the emotional connection referred to by the OP, but haven't found it yet.

NO noise whatsoever, and smeary, detail-LEAN images

There are examples of this posted on TPF every day, usually portraits where the model's skin is devoid of any blemish, pore, wrinkle - nothing but cream. Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking them, but you also lose a huge chunk of detail about who that person is. Lines, wrinkles, etc., tell the story of that persons life.

 

[Overread]

That's not just TPF its modelling in general today. It's "what people want" as inspired by the big beauty labels. It is having a bit of a backlash against it now; but its still very well engrained. And I suspect that going too far is easier than going just far enough;