A little rant #2

[Frog]

A recent photo in critique showed a father kissing his newborn and people pointed out that his ear was our of focus. Does anyone actually believe that the father, the mother, the grandparents and someday the child will ever notice the ear being out of focus?

[Sushigaijin]

A recent photo in critique showed a father kissing his newborn and people pointed out that his ear was our of focus. Does anyone actually believe that the father, the mother, the grandparents and someday the child will ever notice the ear being out of focus?

If they happen to be photographers, they might.

The audience for a family snapshot is obviously a lot different than the audience for a gallery shot - so the standard changes. Again, the viewer is the most important person in the photographic process. How does that family feel about the photo? How does that guy who might drop $400 on your photo feel about the shot? A photographer (probably) wouldn't display a family snapshot in a formal gallery, because the criteria for "good" is different. Different viewers, different criteria.

As I digress, if a photo can be made better in post processing, why not make it better? Why settle for less?

[Trevor Ash]

As I digress, if a photo can be made better in post processing, why not make it better? Why settle for less?

Oh great, you just brought us right back to pureism (a.k.a. stubborn hippes). I thought we were past that one?

[Didache]

Of course photographs will vary according to their purpose. The most precious photo we have here is a 3 1/2 x 3 1/2 inch print from an old 126 cartridge camera. It shows my wife's granny, her mother, herself, and our first daughter as an infant. Four generations of the female line of one family. The photo is browning with age but it's worth far more to us that any of the "artistic" ones I try to produce, especially now that the two older ones are no longer with us.

On the other hand, I belong to a club which does a lot of competitive stuff. Of course the images put in for that are going to be judged by a very different set of criteria. If I dare to enter the world of competitive photography then I am, by definition, entering into a world where images will be judged by quite strict criteria of technical and compositional excellence.

Does that mean that my family image is "better" than a perfect art photo? Or vice versa?

Of course not. They have different functions and I, for one, am glad that photography has room for both the pursuit of artistic merit AND the storage of precious memories.

Cheers
Mike

[adina]

Are we better off just leaving the cameras in the bag? That way we wouldn't have any photograph to worry about getting a bad critique...

That's what I do. That way I'm not polluting the web with my puny attempts.

This is a lot like the film/digital debate. Never a right answer, only opinions. Always makes for an interesting discussion.

[4XTaco]

I really try to take my images as I want them seen... however there are always small tweaks I do to enhance them. Cropping, color, maybe a small amount of cloning if something really urks me. I try to avoid static items that I don't like in my photos like wires etc. But I really do try to avoid getting into the major reconstruction of an image, I just think that is not what I originally intended it to be personally and it bothers me to do it.

However... my mother did ask me to remove the b/f of my niece in a family photo I went ahead and did it for her.

[another view]

That's what I do. That way I'm not polluting the web with my puny attempts.

And that's what I do sometimes myself. I'm no (insert your favorite photographer here), but if there isn't something about the shot that I think makes it worth showing, then I won't.

The audience for a family snapshot is obviously a lot different than the audience for a gallery shot - so the standard changes.

True, but a snapshot can be very valuable to that limited audience. Without knowing the story behind the shot (the people in it, and why the image is special), the standard is different and the image has to speak for itself. I also agree that Photoshopping is not a bad thing - it's the degree that it is done and the intention of the image. It's just a tool.

[MarcusK]

Well Mike, you opened up the topic and closed it beautifully i believe...

It all truly goes back to an image being posted in the Critique section.... not the viewfinder or any other section, but the place where it is laid out there for the sharks (kind of anyway)... And accordingly it get photographic merit and compliments or criticism (which is being constructive most of the time)... The result of each is a learning experience for some, while it is an eye opener for others...

As to how we should be deal with photography, i agree that this is a never ending question, that raises some very nice discussions. But we still all agree on the same points, such as saying that usually an odd number in the composition is better than an even one... How you achieve this becomes a completely different matter! A debate that will never end....

A quick note here, i don't post all my images here, or even the ones i think are the best... I simply post the ones i believe to be lacking...because i am looking for insight.... so when someone suggest i clone something in or out, when a lot of post is suggested, i gather all the info and make an assesment... i decide what to do with it according to my views of photography and what i consider to be acceptable... If most people on this forum tend to accept post processing more than others then why is that so wrong?? This is not the utmost law in photography, where if you do not follow you are an outcast...

Learning a little humility and accepting other people's opinion is crucial to the evolution of each artist (photographer in this particular case)... If you can't accept the view of people who oppose, boldly, your own, then why post at all? why ask for comments?? So what is the point of receiving comments from people who think like i do... I already know what they think...

It is the people who don't think like i do, who will provide me with the most useful input!

As for the ear being out of focus, no mention would have been said of it, if the photo was posted in a different section. And as i recall, even in the comments of those who referred to the ear, they specified that for what it was, the photo was good! For a memorable image, it was a success... photographically (or technically) the ear is out of focus (which was a little annoying due to color as you mentioned)....

Again, i insist, that it is a matter of directing the critique for what you want it to be!

Marc

[Frog]

Well put, Marc.