Emotion or Technically Perfect?

[adina]

To put it in photographic terms, you may like digital work with no post-processing and that is your right but it is also the right of most buyers or knowledgeable viewers of photography to laugh at your amateurish, limited view and to ignore your work.
Ronnoco

For every buyer and knowledgeable viewer who is going to laugh at my amateurish, limited view and ignore my work, there is another who is going to find value in it. Once again, your statements reflect your limited view, and disregard anyone elses.

Which brings me right back to the fact that posts like the ones you tend to make are hindering, rather than helping, those you see as incompetent.

[Greg McCary]

If you make it subjective then you are really NOT doing photographic critique but on the contrary just expressing your personal likes and dislikes which has nothing whatsoever to do it. The Critique Forum would be much better if everyone stuck to genuine photographic critique and left their personal likes and dislikes out of it, particularly if they cannot express those likes and dislikes in specific photographic technique or composition terms which make a difference to the impact of the shot.

Ronnoco

I have visited other critique forums and I feel that PR offers the best and most constructive critiques. I also feel that most here put their personal likes and dislikes aside and critique the picture for what it is. I feel that all of the images that I have posted have been treated with honest diplomacy and the critiques are most often straight forward and accurate. I am not interested in all types of photography but what critiques I do offer I try and lay personal taste aside as well. If anyone ever critiques my photos on personal taste I ignore them anyway.
I feel that photography is an expressive art form. If you watch what type of pictures one produces it is a window into their mind. Good technical and compositional skills are very important and why I am here. So I can express myself in a better way.
Greg

[Ronnoco]

This is not an Art photography board, but rather a place for those of all skill levels to chat with others with similar interests. another site to learn from.

People aren't going to get better by telling them they suck and shouldn't be on a board. People are going to get better by telling them what they can do to improve in a civil manner, without getting personal.

You are still missing or ignoring the point that I have made several times. Technique and composition are the essential elements of ALL photography and that is what needs to be learned.

I standby what I said about people here, strictly for personal gratification but most people are here to try and learn how to improve their work and get a more objective view. Surely you are aware of the distinction.

Gee, you start off by getting personal and suggesting I told anyone that "they suck" (not true) and then suggest that I get personal.

You know VERY WELL, that I have told numerous posters how to improve in a civil manner without getting personal, and further that I have only REACTED to personal, uncivil remarks about me or my work.

Ronnoco

[payn817]

The attitude you expressed above is one of the reasons lurkers stay lurkers. What are you doing to help those who haven't reached the level you are at? Are you offering helpful critiques in a manner that's not going to offend people to the point where they are afraid to post? Or are you giving them harsh criticism and belittling them until they leave to find another site to learn from.

Honestly, I felt that as well. That is why I no longer post in critique. Instead, I found a photography club nearby, and through friendly group critique, and competition, am slowly learning. As successful as 2006 was photographically for me, I still won't post because it will certainly be ripped, and that will not help acheive anything.

[adina]

You are still missing or ignoring the point that I have made several times. Technique and composition are the essential elements of ALL photography and that is what needs to be learned.

I standby what I said about people here, strictly for personal gratification but most people are here to try and learn how to improve their work and get a more objective view. Surely you are aware of the distinction.

Gee, you start off by getting personal and suggesting I told anyone that "they suck" (not true) and then suggest that I get personal.

You know VERY WELL, that I have told numerous posters how to improve in a civil manner without getting personal, and further that I have only REACTED to personal, uncivil remarks about me or my work.

Ronnoco

I'm not missing that point. I don't disagree with it. I agree that you need to learn the technical skills that make a good photograph. Only when you know them, can you break them by choice. Whether you shoot more by emotion or by going step by step thru these rules is irrelevant. Those who are successful, even though the "rules" may be broken, have most likely learned those rules before breaking them.

Yes, most people want an objective view. But most people also want to know how someone feels about the photo they posted. How often do you see a post titled "what do you think of the use of the rule of thirds here". More often you see "what do you think of this?". I think a good critique has both technical suggestions and a personal response to the work.

Whether or not you actually told someone "you suck" is not the point. Stating that unless someone is at a certain degree of skill, they shouldn't be posting on a photography forum is just as disheartening to those who are learning as telling them flat out they suck.

And really, I was speaking generally about manners of critique, not directing it specifically at you. But the fact is, 9 times out of 10, when someone gets upset and offended about a thread, you've posted numerous times.

And for the record, I have never commented negatively about your work. I haven't seen any, so how could I. The only personal remarks I've made towards you have been regarding the tone you set in the thread. And given you've made similar comments towards me, I fail to see the need for capitol letters.

[Skyman]

I used to work in an extremely busy photo lab. on a daily basis I would print photos that I thought were boring and often downright terrible, only to have the customer exclaim "these are fantastic thankyou" when they checked the prints. It took me a while to realise that to these people, many of whom have no exposure (excuse the pun) to photographic training or theory, are more interested in the memories or emotions evoked by the images than the quality of the image itself. Me not knowing the people in the shot or the circumstances under which it was taken had no connection to these emotions and therefore judged the photo only on its technical merrits. most people i know if they look through photos of them as a child will happily reminise rather than throw the photos out if they are poorly exposed or composed. this doesn't negate the need for proper technique it just means that we should respect the feelings others might have for an image, even if we can't make the same emotional connections. Years later after having studied photography at uni and knowing a lot more about technique I created a large series that I had mounted and framed as i liked it so much. My boss at the time (with many many years professional experience) looked at the images and started pointing out the flaws to me. I was struck dumb (but agreed with what he said) these photos still hold pride still hold pride of place in my living room, not only because of the emotional content but as a reminder that there is no such thing as technical perfection. one day i will dig up the transparencies scan and post them.

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=adina]Not everyone has the goals of being in a magazine or a gallery. Some people just enjoy photography. Both serious professionals and those just starting out should be able to post photos and contribute to discussions without being told their opinion is wrong.QUOTE]

Let's get back on track and quite changing the topic. You have not said that you disagree with my points about the integration of emotion with technique and composition.

Ronnoco

[yogestee]

Being primarily a street photographer, for me it's all about the moment, and technique be damned. There's always the argument about an image, taken with top quality gear and being technically perfect, can still be a boring, bad shot. Many of the great photos through history have some serious technical issues, but the problems are overlooked because the moment, or emotion captured is so powerful that it doesn't matter that it might be a little soft, or a little under/overexposed. I guess there is no correct answer to your question, as it's all subjective, anyway. :-)

Charles,,,I tend to agree with you on this one..To me an image must have WOW factor before technical perfection...I have seen images that have totally wet my whistle but were technically terrible...Most of these images can be put into the photo-journalistic category,,most were taken on the fly usually as a calculated reaction by the photographer,,almost instictively..One image that springs to mind is the image of Kim Phuc taken by Nick Ut...Technically flawed but with so much emotion and WOW factor it is imprinted into my brain for life..

I won't even look for technical expertise in these situations,,I look for visual impact...IMHO images can stand alone on visual impact without technical perfection..

Jurgen
Australia

[freygr]

Honestly, I felt that as well. That is why I no longer post in critique. Instead, I found a photography club nearby, and through friendly group critique, and competition, am slowly learning. As successful as 2006 was photographically for me, I still won't post because it will certainly be ripped, and that will not help acheive anything.

Yes and Yes, it's suppose to be a critique forum not a flame forum.

You are still missing or ignoring the point that I have made several times. Technique and composition are the essential elements of ALL photography and that is what needs to be learned.

I standby what I said about people here, strictly for personal gratification but most people are here to try and learn how to improve their work and get a more objective view. Surely you are aware of the distinction.

Gee, you start off by getting personal and suggesting I told anyone that "they suck" (not true) and then suggest that I get personal.

You know VERY WELL, that I have told numerous posters how to improve in a civil manner without getting personal, and further that I have only REACTED to personal, uncivil remarks about me or my work.

Ronnoco

"Technique and composition are the essential elements of ALL photography" but framing and other rules are only guides, not rules set in stone. Some B&W Photos would not have the same impact if there were shot in color and the same can be said of color photos. Color and B&W photography has different techniques for outstanding photos.
It all comes to the eye of the photographer and some have the gift others have to work at it.
AND
I hate to see payn817 say he isn't posting because of the negative comments in the critique forum.

[gahspidy]

If you make it subjective then you are really NOT doing photographic critique but on the contrary just expressing your personal likes and dislikes which has nothing whatsoever to do it. The Critique Forum would be much better if everyone stuck to genuine photographic critique and left their personal likes and dislikes out of it, particularly if they cannot express those likes and dislikes in specific photographic technique or composition terms which make a difference to the impact of the shot.

Ronnoco

My comments were based on how I look at a photograph or any work of art for that matter and had nothing to do with my approach to critiquing on the forum. However, I do believe the forum has room for personal opinion that is backed up with what and why, as well as addressing specific technical issues.

[Charles Hess]

I guess I'm jumping back in after the discussion veered away from the original point. I do say that most/all photographers have learned the technical side of photography, and most/all photographers look to make the best possible image using their technical skills and eye for composition (something that cannot be taught). The final result, however, is still an image that will have or not have an impact. A technically perfect shot can really suck, while a blurred or oddly cropped shot can make one say 'wow', as evidenced by all of the works of the masters that have been accepted in the art/photo world as classics.

Has anyone seen the various projects of kids given either disposable cameras or digital p&s's and turned them loose to create? The results are amazing...some really, really boring shots and others that I wish that I had taken. Do these kids know the technical side of photography other than where to point and how to press the shutter? No, of course not. So, again, for me, I will always maintain that the emotional impact of an image is so much more important than whether it was technically perfect or not. And in the real world, photography IS subjective...an art gallery owner gets to decide whether he/she likes a body of work and gets to decide if the body of work will appeal to the masses that will visit...subjective from his/her point of view.

All of this is MY subjective opinion, of course, which means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. :-)

[mjs1973]

Charles,

I'm glad you mentioned the project about the kids. I remember seeing something about that on TV a while back, and this thread made me think of it too.

[adina]

[QUOTE=Ronnoco]

Not everyone has the goals of being in a magazine or a gallery. Some people just enjoy photography. Both serious professionals and those just starting out should be able to post photos and contribute to discussions without being told their opinion is wrong.QUOTE]

Let's get back on track and quite changing the topic. You have not said that you disagree with my points about the integration of emotion with technique and composition.

Ronnoco

I don't disagree. As a general guide, learning the techniques and rules can only help. However, as was stated previously, by many others, sometimes the emotional impact overrides the technical flaws. Sometimes a technically imperfect photo works.

What I don't agree with is the absolute that a photo must be technically perfect to be considered successful. And I don't agree that someone who is very strong technically will always produce masterpieces.

Anyone can learn the rules and techniques. It's all there in books and online. It's the emotion you put into your photographs that sets them apart from someone elses.

And I said that all with no negative remarks directed at any individuals or groups.

[EOSThree]

Wow this has become quite a discussion, as I was hoping it would. Part of the reason I ask the question is I have never looked through my viewfinder and said I am going to place that there to lead the eye...I am going to put that there because it fits the rule of thirds...The placement of that object creates tension there...etc. etc.
I look through my viewfinder trying to capture what my eye sees to communicate the beauty or emotion I see outside of the camera. I am constantly looking around for interesting scenes, then I set up my tripod, zoom a little, pan a little, run 100 yards left or right, grab a smaller focal length, grab a longer focal length, ND grad or not, etc. etc. But all of that is purely just my mind saying that looks good, with no planning outside of that.
That is the same way I look at someone else's photographs too. Do I like what I see? what would make me like this photo? I don't look for design elements, I look for visual impact, what do I like. So far this has served me well, I have always had an artistic background, but thoughts of rules never go beyond whether this looks good or not for me, purely emotional.

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. Ansel Adams

[adina]

Another point...

Anyone can get a happy accident. Luck and chance will only take you so far. If you want to get consistantly good photos, you have to know why you got what you did. You should at the very least, be able to understand the relationship between shutter speed and aperture.

Now, take into consideration the project with giving the kids the cameras, as mentioned above. Yes, they did produce some amazing things, but the key question is, Could they reproduce that same photo? Without understanding why you got that result, the chances of getting it again are 50/50.

On the other hand, bog those kids down with all the rules and technical aspects, they probably wouldn't have gotten the results they got, as EMOTION played a bigger part in the project.

Both emotion and technical know how are equally important sometimes, and both could make or break a photo sometimes. Sometimes one is more important than the other, and easily overcomes any shortness on the other side.

[EOSThree]

Another point...

Anyone can get a happy accident. Luck and chance will only take you so far. If you want to get consistantly good photos, you have to know why you got what you did. You should at the very least, be able to understand the relationship between shutter speed and aperture.

I fully condone the full understanding of the equipment you are using. That's not what I mean about technical. Technical reduces the process to a series of steps or elements, not exactly the way to produce a great photograph, boring really. You have to be able to say WOW, otherwise it's cold and lifeless, if it were as simple as just following the rules, there would be a lot of great photographers out there. There are few greats.

[racingpinarello]

In summary I think a photograph is emotional, technical elements takes a distant back seat. Technical elements in the barest form are always necessary, I mean it should be in in focus, it should have correct WB, etc. But after that rules be D@mned. And when you are able to incorporate most technical elements with a WOW subject, watch out.

I couldn't agree more with the quote above.

I use this photo a lot for this type of argument because it incorporates a lot of technical skill, and many people like this photo. Although some will point out the flaws. With a fast moving subject and a slow N80 and Velvia I didn't have many options.

Crowded background, fast moving dancers, only a popup flash. I panned, used two rolls of film and let it roll. This was picture number 37 out of a 36 exposure roll of film, and the second roll to boot. I couldn't worry about the rules, nor do I believe that the rules need to be followed.

This photo; it's emotional, it's passionate, and it's 100% argentinian. This is what they are all about, passion. Does it matter that her foot is out of the frame, no, because their passion is in their hearts and that is what I wanted to capture.

Loren

[another view]

I use this photo a lot for this type of argument because it incorporates a lot of technical skill, and many people like this photo. Although some will point out the flaws. With a fast moving subject and a slow N80 and Velvia I didn't have many options.

I remember this shot and I love it! The thing that helped you here is that you knew what your options were with only a pop-up flash, not the fastest AF system (believe me, I know...) and very slow speed film. You knew (I'm very sure, knowing you) that you had almost no possibility of stopping action unless you got really lucky if they held their pose for a split second. The slow-sync flash would give just a little detail and make the image pop. Foot out of the frame? It only adds to the energy and being caught up in the passion, I'd say.

If you didn't know all this stuff, you wouldn't have gotten a shot like this unless you were lottery-ticket lucky. Having met you and watched you work, all the technique stuff was probably going around in the back of your mind but all the concious thought was on the couple.

Another lesson - it isn't always the gear that gets the shot, it's knowing how to get the most out of the equipment you have. I don't think you could have ended up with a better shot with any equipment.

[adina]

That's one of my favorite photos!

[yogestee]

In summary I think a photograph is emotional, technical elements takes a distant back seat. Technical elements in the barest form are always necessary, I mean it should be in in focus, it should have correct WB, etc. But after that rules be D@mned. And when you are able to incorporate most technical elements with a WOW subject, watch out.

I couldn't agree more with the quote above.

I use this photo a lot for this type of argument because it incorporates a lot of technical skill, and many people like this photo. Although some will point out the flaws. With a fast moving subject and a slow N80 and Velvia I didn't have many options.

Crowded background, fast moving dancers, only a popup flash. I panned, used two rolls of film and let it roll. This was picture number 37 out of a 36 exposure roll of film, and the second roll to boot. I couldn't worry about the rules, nor do I believe that the rules need to be followed.

This photo; it's emotional, it's passionate, and it's 100% argentinian. This is what they are all about, passion. Does it matter that her foot is out of the frame, no, because their passion is in their hearts and that is what I wanted to capture.

Loren

Loren,,,This is one of those images that has WOW factor...Technically not perfect but keeps the viewer focussed...Sometimes we have to look past technical issues but put ourselves in the role as the photographer..What is he or she thinking,,what is the relationship between photographer and subject,,what is the desired effect..These are all emotional issues...
Also we must look at technical issues too and one of the most important one is how difficult was the capture and was the capture executed with technique and skill..Sometimes we must look past the emotional..

Jurgen

[Charles Hess]

Loren, that great shot of yours is the perfect example of raw, pure emotion, and a shot that makes the viewer say 'wow'. It also took someone with technical skills to be able to envision an end result like this, knowing full well that he would be breaking any number of technical 'rules'. It further strengthens my feelings that the emotional impact is what a photo is all about, and whether it is technically perfect or not, is secondary. Good thread.

[masdog]

Has anyone seen the various projects of kids given either disposable cameras or digital p&s's and turned them loose to create? The results are amazing...some really, really boring shots and others that I wish that I had taken. Do these kids know the technical side of photography other than where to point and how to press the shutter? No, of course not. So, again, for me, I will always maintain that the emotional impact of an image is so much more important than whether it was technically perfect or not. And in the real world, photography IS subjective...an art gallery owner gets to decide whether he/she likes a body of work and gets to decide if the body of work will appeal to the masses that will visit...subjective from his/her point of view.

Charles,

That's exactly how I got my start in photography, except it was my Yearbook adviser handing me a beat up SLR that had no way manually controlling anything. I wasn't overburdened with information on how to take technically correct photos, I was just told to go shoot (which is something that bothered the students who focused on art classes).

If I had been instructed by my adviser to take technically correct photographs, I probably would have given up after a week. It wouldn't have been fun, and I would have been more concerned with making sure I followed the rules.

It wasn't until I found that photography had been fun (and the advent of digital...hey..film's expensive when you're in high school) that I started to learn more about "the rules" and really experimenting with them.

[walterick]

I think everyone should go out and take pictures!