Emotion or Technically Perfect?

[EOSThree]

Getting in some debates on the Critique forum led me to start thinking a bit today.
What's more important, having a photo that is technically perfect or one that you or others "like". In other words is striking an emotional chord more important than producing a photo that has all of the correct elements?
I myself look at photos emotionally, I look for beauty, color, and a composition that "looks good". I like emotional things, something that is pleasing to the eye. Technical? I guess I really don't care if it's technically correct, followed the rules, or would win a photo contest judged without emotion. I think emotion is as important or more important than following the rules. "I like it" is a perfectly legitimate reason to hold a photograph in high regard, and will also sell more photos than something that is technically perfect without emotion.
Along the same lines as this subject, does a photo with a WOW subject tend to be liked better than one with less of a subject? Is someone who is shooting in the midwest at a disadvantage to someone that lives in the Rockies?(I am qualified, I may live in the Rockies now, but I grew up and learned in the Midwest). I think a fantastic subject will supplant the need for the photo to have even the barest technical elements at times. I mean Old Faithful poorly photographed will probably get more views than a technically perfect photo of a smokestack billowing a white cloud of smoke.
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.

[walterick]

"What's more important, having a photo that is technically perfect or one that you or others "like."

Importance is relative, of course. Some will say "technically perfect" because that's what's important to them, and some will say "one that you like" because that is what's important to them. Both are correct, you really can't argue preferences.

If what you're asking is "is it okay if my photography isn't technically perfect but my pictures are full of heart?" then the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

"Is someone who is shooting in the midwest at a disadvantage to someone that lives in the Rockies?"

Only if you define "good photography" as pictures of the Rockies

It sounds like you already have your position here staked out. I would encourage you to stick with that stance as long as you can, as long as it serves you to. If you ever feel the need to become more "technical" in your work, then that is okay too.

I think what's important is that photographers follow their own direction. For you, forcing more technical photos out of yourself might kill your spirit and make you lose interest in photography. Likewise, a very technically proficient photographer might feel the need to incorporate more "emotion" into his work and thereby lose his technical prowess and direction. I say, stick to your own soul, listen to what others have to say, and if it makes sense, if you agree with or want something that they have, then strive to incorporate it into your own work. But always stay true to yourself - even as you evolve - and that should keep you happy in your work.

Good luck buddy!
Rick

[another view]

Depends.

I'm the guy that tries to pound the need for learning the technical stuff into everyone's heads in the Help Forum but obviously that's just one aspect of picture taking. In general I'll usually go for the emotion over the technique. Some things that could be thought of as technical faults may actually add to the emotion. Slightly missed focus, unusual crop (part of someone's face cut off, etc) or just about anything else might show the energy in a split-second situation where there has been some unexpected action.

Knowing the technique inside and out means that you don't have to conciously think about it as much and can think more about what you're shooting. That will help in most situations so that's why I get on my soap box about it. But it ain't everything...

[Chunk]

What I try and capture with my photos is how I feel when I initially see a shot. Very often different composition, lighting, dof, pov, etc. can enhance that feel. I will often take a shot as I initially find it and then play with capturing variations as I think of what attracts me to the subject in the first place. So shoot for emotion but use as much technique as possible to heighten the feeling.
I agree with others that 'proper' technique can lessen the feel of a shot in some occasions.

[Charles Hess]

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. :-)

[MJS]

I have a friend who once told me that if it means something to you and you like it, its a good photo. Good technique can help you accomplish that goal.

[megan]

While it is important to learn good technique, sometimes the best photographs are mistakes.
I've got a whole series where the color is off and lurid on purpose to create a dark or creepy feeling. It works for me, may not work for other people.
Sometimes, there just isn't time for a technically proficient shot - and sometimes getting that shot is more important than it being perfectly in the zone system (or whatever technique you subscribe to.)

I would say - always try to continue to hone technique, but don't let it ever stop you from the joy of taking photos. Often, as others have posted, the end result of a mistake may add emotional impact.

Julia Margaret Cameron was an amazing photographer with a very dusty darkroom....

[Rivman]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - technically correct or not,
but having a knowledge of technique will help you to create beauty. :thumbsup:

[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

[gahspidy]

I agree with Charles when he says, "there is no correct answer, it's all subjective anyway" However, I do tend to feel a photo works if it keeps me looking and entertained or stirs up some emotion even if it has it's technical issues. If the moment, or emotion is there, then it can certainly over ride some technical issues it may have. Some times the technical issues can add to the shot ironically
It is all in the eye of the beholder. Some people are only keen on looking at the sharpness, noise, details in shadow areas, color rendition, and perhaps do not even care what the photo subject is anyway.
I think I fall in with you in that I tend to find the subject matter, moment captured, emotion, spirit and soul of the image to be more important than the technical issues.

[Ronnoco]

I agree with Charles when he says, "there is no correct answer, it's all subjective anyway" However, I do tend to feel a photo works if it keeps me looking and entertained or stirs up some emotion even if it has it's technical issues. If the moment, or emotion is there, then it can certainly over ride some technical issues it may have. Some times the technical issues can add to the shot ironically
It is all in the eye of the beholder. Some people are only keen on looking at the sharpness, noise, details in shadow areas, color rendition, and perhaps do not even care what the photo subject is anyway.
I think I fall in with you in that I tend to find the subject matter, moment captured, emotion, spirit and soul of the image to be more important than the technical issues.

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

[Ronnoco]

What you have above is the wrong question. Photography is never emotion OR technical perfection. It is both and both are necessary.

A top photo uses excellence in technique and composition to lead the eye into the image toward the centre of interest to grab the attention and perhaps the emotion of the viewer.

The centre of interest must have some sort of universal impact. In the concept of impact there is a technique and photographic component, an experience component and an emotional component.

A guy or girl in an appartment who has paid attention to relatively few sunsets and not seen very many photos of sunsets might see one with a bit of colour and personally think it is gorgeous. That is a personal view but NOT photographic critique despite the emotional component.

A photographer who lives in lake or mountain country facing west and has both watched numerous sunsets, seen and judged them in contests and taken sunset shots himself or herself, seeing the same photo as the one mentioned above might say that it is just a snapshot with no impact with photographic reasons. This is a photographic critique because it is being based on a comparison of the photo he_she has seen, with sunsets experienced and photos seen and can express that opinion in terms of technique, composition and impact.

Ronnoco

[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

[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. :-)

[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.

[Ronnoco]

I agree with Charles when he says, "there is no correct answer, it's all subjective anyway" However, I do tend to feel a photo works if it keeps me looking and entertained or stirs up some emotion even if it has it's technical issues. If the moment, or emotion is there, then it can certainly over ride some technical issues it may have. Some times the technical issues can add to the shot ironically
It is all in the eye of the beholder. Some people are only keen on looking at the sharpness, noise, details in shadow areas, color rendition, and perhaps do not even care what the photo subject is anyway.
I think I fall in with you in that I tend to find the subject matter, moment captured, emotion, spirit and soul of the image to be more important than the technical issues.

Either you are way off on the philosophy or you did not quite express it correctly, Gary.
Look at great art, for example, how you draw or paint the image or express your point of view determines whether it is art or not. The content of what you drew or painted is totally irrelevant.

To put it in photographic terms, what you took a photo of is irrelevant, it is your means of expression or photographic method or how you expressed your point of view through using your photographic skills and experience that determines the quality and artistic merit of the work.

Still to put it even another way, a badly captured moment or spirit through poor artistic or photographic skill degrades the impact or emotional effect.

Ronnoco

[racingpinarello]

In order to get an emotional photo, there has be to some technical skill involved. If you have a blown out sky you will not get the same type of emotion out of the photo. So, IMO, an well done emotional photo should be at an acceptable level, technically speaking.

If you concentrate on rules and technical skills all of the time, it will affect your ability to capture photos on an emotional level because you are too concerned about fundamentals.

Loren

[Ronnoco]

In order to get an emotional photo, there has be to some technical skill involved. If you have a blown out sky you will not get the same type of emotion out of the photo. So, IMO, an well done emotional photo should be at an acceptable level, technically speaking.

If you concentrate on rules and technical skills all of the time, it will affect your ability to capture photos on an emotional level because you are too concerned about fundamentals.

Loren

I don't quite completely agree. It is not a well-done emotional photo unless technique and composition are above the merely "acceptable level". Remember technique and composition contribute to the impact and emotional content.

Second part is not quite true either. You need to concentrate on technique and composition in order to communicate the emotional content of the image to the viewer.

Ronnoco

[racingpinarello]

You need to concentrate on technique and comp emoosition in order to communicate the emotional content of the image to the viewer.

The concentration needs to happen before, and not during the photograph.

For those who have real skill, maybe we don't have to worry about the technical aspects while we are taking photographs because they are second nature. I worry about capturing an image that matches my desire, and then do what I have to do to capture it beforehand. I feel that I am extremely good with exposure, why? Because I shoot with Velvia and there is no room for error. Do I worry about exposure when I take photos, no because there is no time. I make sure to have all of my ducks in a row before, and then let my heart do the rest.

I spent a lot of time and film to get my skills so I don't have to worry about them today. You are so caught up on the academic point of view for photography that the only thing you have to talk about are little nitpicks on other photos.

Until you start posting your quality photographs, you are only a little man behind a computer and not a photographer.

Loren

[Ronnoco]

You need to concentrate on technique and comp emoosition in order to communicate the emotional content of the image to the viewer.

The concentration needs to happen before, and not during the photograph.

For those who have real skill, maybe we don't have to worry about the technical aspects while we are taking photographs because they are second nature. I worry about capturing an image that matches my desire, and then do what I have to do to capture it beforehand. I feel that I am extremely good with exposure, why? Because I shoot with Velvia and there is no room for error. Do I worry about exposure when I take photos, no because there is no time. I make sure to have all of my ducks in a row before, and then let my heart do the rest.

I spent a lot of time and film to get my skills so I don't have to worry about them today. You are so caught up on the academic point of view for photography that the only thing you have to talk about are little nitpicks on other photos.

Until you start posting your quality photographs, you are only a little man behind a computer and not a photographer.

Loren

You are getting emotional and personal when you should be sticking to contradicting the points in my posting in a logical manner if you don't agree with them. That is what any discussion is all about. People reading may want to learn something from our views, whether they agree with them or not.

Ronnoco

[another view]

I spent a lot of time and film to get my skills so I don't have to worry about them today.

I think this is along the lines of what I was saying - learn and practice the stuff so that when something great happens you only have to think about the shot you're taking. Technical aspects are second nature at this point; almost a reflex. There's no time to think about how to set the camera because that beautiful light, crazy stunt or whatever will be gone in an instant. Agreed on the Velvia - if you're good with that stuff, then you know what you're doing!

[payn817]

Doesn't it really depend on where you want to go and what you want to accomplish? That has yet to be mentioned here. Is it a photo for personal gratification, regular clients, galleries, competition, or publications?

I've seen some "pros" with technically crappy photos, and the clients are extremely happy, if it's just for you, if you like it, fine. Competition, p&r companies, and publications want extremely high quality photos.

So, I think the first question should be what do you want to do?

[Ronnoco]

Doesn't it really depend on where you want to go and what you want to accomplish? That has yet to be mentioned here. Is it a photo for personal gratification, regular clients, galleries, competition, or publications?

I've seen some "pros" with technically crappy photos, and the clients are extremely happy, if it's just for you, if you like it, fine. Competition, p&r companies, and publications want extremely high quality photos.

So, I think the first question should be what do you want to do?

You really have to have a clear understanding of what photography is all about, irrespective of where you want to go.

I have done a lot of journalistic photography which is not quite the same as artistic work, but it is interesting that even non-photographers recognize a great journalistic photo and they are often unconsciously using the same basic concepts of technique and composition in their evaluation. So you still need to know how to take a great journalistic photo and make and take the opportunities whenever possible.

Public relations, publications, graphics and television work have different requirements as well but technique and composition are still important.

If it is strictly for personal gratification, then you should not be in a photo forum because you are really not ready to progress beyond that limited level and like some, not ready to recognize that you need to improve your eye, your knowledge, or your techniques.

Ronnoco

[payn817]

perhaps I wasn't elaborate enough?

LOL Adina