Objectivity in Digital Photography

I dunno, maybe I read it wrong.
Although I don't think a comparison with film is off topic, after all the same thing was happening 20 years ago pre digital, the all manual 35's would be having the same discussions with the metered af'd 35's, would that make a film v high tech film thread.......with a film undertone.
As far as I can see, its about looking a bit deeper, if shooting film is more conducive to that (and I'm not saying it is), why wouldn't it get a mention.
 
I'm not saying it shouldn't get a mention. I mentioned it! :p I mentioned that film was less about the technicalities because you took a shot and someone else did the technical stuff. What you got back was a print that you accepted to be the best you could do. At the time you weren't concerned about levels, sharpness, a histogram, hdr, raw and such. But now its so accessible which is why forums are filled with people wanting to know how to get the best out of their photos. Its opened photography up to everyone and forums are saturated with people wanting to get the best out their photo so it probably seems like there are less people being arty trying to convey meaning. I honestly don't think that the majority of TP, or most forums are looking to do that. They just want to take good photos.
 
I absolutely agree.

Its just another angle to consider.
I was thinking, not for shooting with that intention, but for critique.
Perhaps when one of those technically nothing shots is posted, peeps could find something positive to say on an emotional level, though to do this they would have to be aware that it exists, outside Sharp&techperfect land.
Mostly they just get the carp treatment.
 
Having followed this thread with interest I think I can see both sides of the arguement, personally I always try to include some emotional context into my images as well as trying to make them technically right. Although I would drop the technical stuff first to get what I would consider a good image.

This rally shot is technically bad, the cars cut outta the frame, not sharp and it was shot into the sun through a tree. It's still my favourite rally shot i've ever taken!


I think it is a very hard thing to quantify though. As Pete mentioned earlier it's very easy for somebody to critique technical details as it's easy to see when an image is soft, underexposed, not composed that well. It is a lot harder to say why you see an image that's technically sub par yet for some reason it's really endearing and you just cant take your eyes off it. I've seen lots of shots that I love of other peoples that technically aren't that great.

I do think there is too much of a technical emphasis but at the same point I think there is a lot of photographers out there who aren't that good as artists so take technically good shots but would struggle to add emotion to those shots. If you where to try and write an article on including emotion in shots I think it would be a very very hard article to write, I certainly couldn't explain how to do it.
 
As another motorsport tog I'd agree with Mole2k on that. Something I have picked up along the way is that a shot with lots of "je ne sais quoi" does not have to be technically perfect. To discard a picture like the one he has shown above would be foolish... and although we could all tear it apart, it doesn't need it, its just great the way it is.

We'd all love to take technically perfect pictures, but when you are dealing with a live action subject you can't go back and change the way things happened. Perhaps with a static subject (studio portrait, still life, landscape or even static car shoots) there are fewer excuses, but for anything "real time" (eg birds,wildlife or motorsport) is very much reportage and you have to go with the flow. Maybe the most dramatic shot with the most impact isn't the technically best one.

In the past I've discarded technical failures whilst thumping the desk shouting "Why didn't THIS one come out right!!!!" but now... nope, I'll take those if the content is good enough.

BTW its not a film vs digital thing, except that in the days of film we couldn't review what we were doing as we went along and correct mistakes in the field AND we probably couldn't shoot a million shots to get one usable one. A good thing or a bad thing?
 
That's a great post from Mole. Motorsport is probably one of the most technically demanding disciplines in photography and it usually leaves me utterly cold. Yes I can appreciate it from a technical POV but would I want it on my wall? One shot of a car on a track is pretty much the same as the next to me.

But transfer what Mole was saying to people and now I'm into it! Some of my favourite pics are technically flawed. But so long as they get what the photographer wanted then who's to say it's flawed? I went to a meeting recently where pro togs were poring over an image that was breathtaking, looking to see if the eyes were sharp. She was looking at the ceiling! Who cares! It was a stunning piece of art, sharp or not (It was actually) But that was irrelevant in the context of the image.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in introducing movement or softness into an image so long as it works. (Joe McNally calls technically unplanned shots that just work as happy accidents) If it's good enough for Mr McNally to have happy accidents then I'll live with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top