- This topic is empty.
Technical perfection vs emotional buy-in
-
I made a comment earlier today in critiquing a JMac-2006 image which think warrants a broader discussion.
How important is it for an image to be technically perfect compared to it’s ability to elicit emotion in it’s viewer? I am sure that we have all seen images that initially make us say wow, but given our tendency to critique on the technical side we then see imperfections (lens flare, blown highlights etc.) Does the image then lose it’s wow factor? Do these imperfections matter as much if the image has done it’s job in getting emotional buy-in?
For me I think that whilst we should definately strive for a technically perfect image, emotional buy-in is probably more important of the two. However I guess it can easlily be argued that in general an image that elicits an emotional response would be a better overall image if technical imperfections were eradicated?
I have linked to Jason’s image https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=14344 here to put things into context. However I’d prefer to keep the conversation generic.
Sorry if I’ve gone all philosophical or touchy-feely on you. I’m sure its a passing phase. I’m guessing this is one of those ‘there is no right answer’ question’s but I’d be interested in seeing others views.
Gary
I’d be very much in the camp that technical perfection pales in importance in comparison to significant importance (or interest) in the content of the picture itself. I would use the example that some of the most famous images around have not been taken by “real” (and I use that term very loosely, the meaning of which is a completely different debate) photographers. Historically important images, often aren’t very perfect technically but they are still so much more intersting to observe than an image of a seascape that has been perfectly (and of course beautifully) executed.
I know you’re probably not talking about histrically important images when you made this point but thats the side that I see it from anyways. Also this brings up the debate about judging images. One mans Gold is another mans yellow stones (or whatever the hell that phrase is… :roll:) and all that. Some people will like certain pictures more because of the emotional response that they elicit whereas other people who don’t have the same feelings for the content will not like the image because they are judging it on a completely different set of values.
Damn it. I tried to type all this fast because I wanted to get whatever was in my head onto this thread but I’m getting mixed up now.
Basically (I think what I’m trying to say is) content in photos is always going to have different responses from different people but I think that a phoographer should be aiming for content in the photo, and trying to replicate the emotional response of the scene that the are photographing than trying to solely take a picture that ticks a certain number of boxes.
Christ I’m bad at explaining myself…..
Sorry
BrianLets have more of these kind of discussions, we used to once…. so lets start again :)
For me also, its the emotion, mood, captured moment an image communicates which is important.
I think when people start with photography there is an emphasis for them on getting it technically right.
Technically for me meaning, sharpness, blown highlights etc…. But I think with time you then come
to feel the image you about to take more and the technical concerns reduce somewhat. (Maybe because some
of those technical areas become more and more second nature)
I think that this might be truer of documentary/photojournalism/street type photography where the captured
moment is often much more important than the blown highlight etc… HCB would have many a shot which isn’t
technically perfect but sure does reach out to the viewer.In the landscape world (which I favour) perhaps the technical aspects are a bit more important.
I don’t think that an Ansel Adams would be have as good if the exposure wasn’t correct…Just some quickish thoughts on it :)
I’d like to reference a quote that Rob once left on an image that I had posted which I think sums this up perfectly:
Sometimes a great picture is just that – a great picture, and any flaws
only serve to enhance the individuality of the image. Perfection is vastly
overrated, and personally I believe it’s just a myth…Mark has a good point – it depends on the subject.
I dont think anyone would object if a war photographer had a shot that delivered a great story, but was a little blurred or not lit to perfection.
On the other hand, a studio portrait should be an example of perfect lighting and sharpness, irrespective of the model.
I think it’s the balance of the artistic side (what the photographer “sees” in a scene to take the picture of), and the technical side – how well he does it, that makes a great photographer. To be able to do both is about as good as it gets.
Merv.
a studio portrait should be an example of perfect lighting and sharpness, irrespective of the model.
Would that be your criteria of what constitutes perfect lighting and sharpness?
Not having a go at you, Merv, I agree with most of what you’re saying.‘Perfection’ is pretty much an abstract concept though and any attempt to use ‘perfection’ as a basis for discussion on any human endeavour is not going to be conclusive. All human beings are perfect embodiments of themselves / all human beings are imperfect creatures. Similarly all photographs are a perfect representation of exactly what occured when the shutter was released / all photographs are imperfect two dimensional representations of a three dimensional world.
Given that perfection is merely an abstraction the next best thing is to categorise things and make value judgements on how well something does against any perceived criteria. Even that won’t guarantee conclusive agreement: which is why a comment like “I never liked Ansel Adams’ work” is just as acceptable as “Ansel Adams was a master photographer”. Every viewer of an image has their own bias on how they judge work: I admire the technical craftsmanship of Adams yet find his work emotionally cold, I can feel the emotional punch of a Capa D-Day shot but could criticise the shakey camerawork. I like both photographers but, obviously, for very different reasons.
Context is the most important thing: what was the photographer attempting to convey when they created the image? If you can’t relate to the context of the image no amount of technical expertise or emotional button pushing is going to make the image appeal; personally, macro photography leaves me cold, but that doesn’t mean it lacks technical or emotional oomph to those who enjoy it. Too much reliance on technical ability can kill an image’s emotional content, inept emotional button pushing can kill a technically adept shot with an overdose of sickly tweeness, likewise, a technical shot can succeed with little or no emotional pull and an emotive shot can succeed with little or no technical merit.
What those photographers I like most do have though is a unique style, something that goes far beyond mere technical ability or emotive tweeking. They tend to express a vision of the world as they’ve interpreted it in a way that has made them stand out from the crowd. At times I think far too much attention is given to chasing technical ‘perfection’ at the expense of ‘seeing’ things in an individual way.
I was having a few email exchanges with another member only this week on a similar vein.
SWPP and/or “Society scoring” of photographs. They need a methodology of scoring to try and make them objective with an allowance for the “X-Factor”. Or do they. They are scored, amongst other things” on “Impact”. We noticed that the highest scoring pictures were all HIgh contrast, heavily burnt and vignetted, “Standard” compositional structure etc. So you can create an image that will score well by knowing the scoring criteria but…….Now for me, pictures (as art rather than a recording), are about emotional impact, rapport with the viewer, illiciting some sort of response etc. So a subtle expression in a bland picture (Mona Lisa for example), would not score at all well but that doesn’t make it a bad picture by any means. My “Subjective” scoring method would be:
1 – Do I wish I’d taken it
2 – Do I still want to look at it again 20 minutes later
3 – Do I want to look at it again the next day
4 – Do I see different things on the second viewing.
5 – Does it somehow hold my attention and make me think/feel
6 – Is it technically good enough so that I’m not distracted (big lumps of white/blown etc)Now, if you put 6 judges in a room, opinions will vary widely on the above criteria, but, This works for me.
Si
Below, a low scoring competition picture, but I love it.
…tend to express a vision of the world as they’ve interpreted it in a way that has made them stand out from the crowd. At times I think far too much attention is given to chasing technical ‘perfection’ at the expense of ‘seeing’ things in an individual way.
And there lies the summary…well done Mick.
I’d tend to agree with Garys initial query as being one that needs debate. However it does frustrate me no end when images that technically and compositionally don’t work and with poor content gets the “I like your picture. Well done” response. I’d rather not respond if that is what the response is.
Have a look at the winner of the Photojournalist of the Year awards – an exhausted soldier. Technically poor, blurred and poor lighting but it does tell a story. Another winner in the awards is the death of Benazier Bhutto – a blur with a piece of orange. Without the description you’d press delete if it were in your catalogue.
Photography is subjective – we know that. But remember this site does invite C&C so technical flaws will be highlighted as will reasons why an image gets the “wow” factor. Both are required but should be taken as a learning rather than a ego trip/criticism.
Alan.
..And it’s fairly easy to “see” the technical improvements that can be made in a shot, whilst saying to someone, “My word, that’s boring”, can sometimes offend :)
Si
Very good question Gary. I certainly enjoy this sort of discussion much more than the usual “Canon versus Nikon” debate.
I think emotional content is far more important than technical perfection. Photography is about communication first and foremost and if it doesn’t communicate something (mood, feeling or just simply a “message”) then it has failed, no matter how technically perfect it is.
However, the problem is interpretation. Everyone can identify technical perfection but not everyone will emotionally respond the same way to a photo or get the “message” and as a result there will be very mixed critique. I think people sometimes take the easy way out by focusing purely on technical which is far easier for them to comment on. It’s actually very hard to explain why a photo doesn’t emotionally engage you and such comments can be frought with misunderstanding. A simple “it’s boring” will often offend too.
And my final controversial point, a lot of camera/computer users, such as the type found here, tend to be technically minded males like myself. They are not really interested in the debating or commenting on feeling/soul and are more interested in cameras/HDR tonemapping. I think we should all try and reach towards our more emotional side and change the way we critique.
Andy
I think we should all try and reach towards our more emotional side and change the way we critique.
I’ll drink to that!
Alan.
more interested in cameras/HDR tonemapping
Andy.. this is the second occassion in recent times that you’ve had a little knock on people interested in HDR tonemapping. Not sure what you’re beef is. If people want to go in a particular direction with something then please leave them to it. I enjoy HDR tonemapping and you obviously don’t. What does this tell us… nothing. This is totally irrelevant to the topic IMO.
I think that people are entitled to look at an image whatever way they so choose. Simply, technically, emotionally, educated, un-educated… and so on. It’s what makes us individuals. To suggest that we should all sway in a certain direction is to suggest that we loose our individuality.
The comments that people pass on the site in relation to images, good, bad or indifferent boil down to a number of things… experience, knowledge, level of interest, the desire to contribute and sometimes to boost their post count. I don’t see a problem here. There are varying degrees of knowledge here which is what makes the site interesting. People who are interested enough will make strides in the right direction over time to be able to analyze an image in a variety of different ways.
I have to say I couldn’t agree more with these 6 areas of judging… they invoke the human element and I think that any person with little or no experience could judge an image based on these criteria (barr maybe #6)
1 – Do I wish I’d taken it
2 – Do I still want to look at it again 20 minutes later
3 – Do I want to look at it again the next day
4 – Do I see different things on the second viewing.
5 – Does it somehow hold my attention and make me think/feel
6 – Is it technically good enough so that I’m not distracted (big lumps of white/blown etc)You misunderstand nfl,
My recent cave project was all HDR. I am a big fan.
I used that as an example because it is a very technical aspect of photography which is often discussed at length to the detriment of softer critique.
Andy
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
