The technicalities

punkuate

punkuate

Messages
285
Name
Spiderman
Edit My Images
No
How much do you worry about how "technically correct" your photography is? (The photos you take for enjoyment rather than for clients)

I sometimes love to take blurry, overexposed photos, experiment and do weird stuff. Infact, nothing bores me more than technically correct portraits.

I do feel that sometimes when my photos are viewed I get comments. about my "mistakes" but they are usually (not always, because we do all mess up) done purposefully.

Am I the only one that views a camera as a tool and doesn't really care about how its "supposed" to be used? I'm pretty sure that painters, sculptors etc don't feel that they have to conform to rules like most photographers seem to believe they have to.

I do, of course, realise that commercial photography is a completely different thing than photography as a creative outlet.

Discuss.
 
Technically correct photos do not bore me and I try to take what I think are technically correct photos some of the time - mostly family shots, record shots on holiday etc.
For lots of my shots though I just go with what I want. I do not post them anywhere for comment as people then point out what they do not like about them and, to be honest, I am not worried about other peoples' opinions.
Soft focus, blur, blown highlights, etc have all produced shots that I like.

Don't tell anyone but sometimes I do not have the subject on a third :schtum:
 
I don't think I have the ability to take perfect photos yet, and I don't think I'm going to want to start making my photos 'unperfect' until I can shoot images to the best of my abilities. Until I can take perfectly composed and sharp photographs I don't think I want to waste time and effort on stuff which is, to me, a backwards step.
 
What do you mean by technically correct? I take that to mean properly exposed. Can't see the point in something so burned out you don't have any image detail, just the white paper showing when you print. however, there is such a huge range of techniques you can do with a camera, there is a massive amount of creativity to be found in using new angles, different lenses, shutter speeds, apertures that its almost limitless, but still be well exposed.

Blurry, overexposed yells 'inexperienced', not 'creative'. You've got to learn to use your tools before creating art, much like a painter needs to know which brush, what consistency of paint etc before painting a masterpiece.
 
A technically perfect but visually bland image will always come second best to a visually inspiring but technically bland image. It's why so many people, in rushing to move up to a DSLR from a compact, are ultimately disapointed that their pictures don't improve the way they thought they would.
 
Ok, I'll include an example

PUNKuate_2342650.jpg


Blurry, out of focus, odd shadows, over exposed. But... that is exactly what I wanted.
 
Hi Lynnie
Its definitely creative. Glad its what you wanted. For me, its unsatisfactory mainly because of the huge white area top right, and part of her face is missing. But photography is hugely subjective. Keep on creating. It looks like fun.
 
Photodiva said:
Hi Lynnie
Its definitely creative. Glad its what you wanted. For me, its unsatisfactory mainly because of the huge white area top right, and part of her face is missing. But photography is hugely subjective. Keep on creating. It looks like fun.
Click to expand...

But that's kinda the point. I don't really care what other people think. I do it for me and its purely enjoyment. Its not for other people.
 
It is important to have some understanding, but to me being creative is more important than being a technically competent photographer - There are many who worry about the rules to the extent that their pictures can seem to lack emotion or impact, but again, this can also depend on the subject matter.
I take a lot of informal pictures of kids in a school, and so often there is not the time to get everything right - snapping the moment is way more important than composing, correcting the WB and exposure etc. Another kids shoulder obscuring half a face doesn't always mean a reject shot if it has something else to offer !
I can see why your picture might be slated but also it has something that would disappear if the rules had been adhered to. I would prefer it to be slightly darker and would crop a little off the right hand side if it were mine, but it does what you want and that's what matters.
The camera is a tool, and what others think is not important unless they are paying, though it is nice to get some praise !
 
A technically perfect image simply refers to an image that perfectly represents or communicates what the photographer intended. You can only achieve that if you have firm grip on how to achieve that. Happy accidents are a different story. in a way experimental photography is an essential part of what we do as it spawns originality but you need to be able to recreate afterwards or it remains an accident!
 
onform said:
A technically perfect image simply refers to an image that perfectly represents or communicates what the photographer intended. You can only achieve that if you have firm grip on how to achieve that. Happy accidents are a different story. in a way experimental photography is an essential part of what we do as it spawns originality but you need to be able to recreate afterwards or it remains an accident!
Click to expand...

I think Ansel Adams put is better,

"A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed"​

But he is referring to a great photograph, not a technically perfect one.

A "technicaly perfect image" could be perfectly exposed, follow exactly one or more of the "rules" of composition, and yet still fail to completely engage the viewer, communicate a vision or display any sense of aesthetic desire or attractiveness. In the absence of an understanding of aesthetics, emotion and vision, the pursuit if technical perfection can easily lead to cold/unemotional or bland/unintersting images. A great photograph doesn't have to be technically perfect.
 
Define perfect ? For me I want to minimise the difference between the picture in my head before I press the shutter and what I get at the end.

If other people enjoy what I produce then great. This applies to personal work of course.

For commercial work it is about producing the perfect image that the client sees in their head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top