Sharp-schmarp :)

Messages
189
Edit My Images
No
Just to say, perhaps we have a slightly narrow view of the world........I always aim for perfect sharpness and exposure.....today I had two clients literally burst into tears of joy:

One, a pic hideously under-exposed to the point of FUBAR, rescued with radical cuvres and monochroming,

Two, a portrait on Japanese paper.....gamut, what's gamut? D-max? Is that a car?

Random plug for https://purelypaper.co.uk/ for the Awagami paper, becasue they are very nice guys! And the paper is truly lovely.

PS Ok both pics were kinda sharp, but would give pixel peepers a cardiac.
 
I'd suggest a picture should be sharp unless you intend it not to be - otherwise you're not making the decisions about how your image will look. Sharp, unsharp: the choice is yours.

Neither deserve any particular merit unless created in difficult circumstances, and perhaps not even then.
 
That wasn't quite the point. I guess I was trying to say two things: cock-ups can still produce worthwhile results if one thinks a bit laterally, and more importantly, non-photographers often respond to images through a non-technical lens, if that makes sense.
 
That wasn't quite the point. I guess I was trying to say two things: cock-ups can still produce worthwhile results if one thinks a bit laterally, and more importantly, non-photographers often respond to images through a non-technical lens, if that makes sense.

Exactly this :)

Many years ago I attended a workshop with a Hollywood 'great' photographer, he showed an image he dearly loved and that the client had on their wall HUGE and had paid several thousands of $s for, that was obviously missing focus but the emotion captured and how we reacted to it meant that didn't matter a damn :)

We worry too much

Dave
 
Exactly this :)

Many years ago I attended a workshop with a Hollywood 'great' photographer, he showed an image he dearly loved and that the client had on their wall HUGE and had paid several thousands of $s for, that was obviously missing focus but the emotion captured and how we reacted to it meant that didn't matter a damn :)

We worry too much

Dave

I know which photographer you mean as we have discussed his work before. Absolutely beautiful stuff.

I get the point @dweeble is making for sure and I 100% agree, but here, on a photography forum, sadly, technical perfection will almost always be regarded in a higher standard than the moment.
 
I know which photographer you mean as we have discussed his work before. Absolutely beautiful stuff.

I get the point @dweeble is making for sure and I 100% agree, but here, on a photography forum, sadly, technical perfection will almost always be regarded in a higher standard than the moment.

Spot on. For people who aren’t enthusiast photographers, ie 99.9999999% of the world, a less than pin sharp image with burnt out highlights really doesn’t matter, unless the subject is unrecognisably blurred. Subject matter, or meaning / capturing a moment, trumps technical perfection for the majority of non-photographers.

Don’t get me wrong, having high standards for the technical side of photography is worth striving for, just don’t expect a non-photographer audience to care as much as you do!
 
As Tom Wood says in the programme What do artists do all day?; "It's not absolutely sharp, a bit underexposed but... it's a picture."

Unless your audience is exclusively photonerds, that's what matters. Pictures.
 
It's always nice to rescue a cockup, but modesty about it isn't necessarily a bad thing. [emoji6]
 
Back
Top