Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Eschewing Perfection  (Read 27811 times)

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2015, 02:09:56 PM »

One of the issues is that the technical properties of a photograph can be measured.  If it can be measured, it can be compared with other measurements.  That makes discussing...ok  arguing... about a photograph easier.

I can measure focus, tonal patterns, the physics of composition, lighting, exposure...... The list goes on

If I can measure it, I can re-create it using technology and technique.  My ability to use the technology and implement my technique can thereby be discussed argued.

This is why discussions arguments about techniques and technology are common on the Internets Tubes forums.  It is easy to understand and it is easy to cherry pick facts that support one's opinion and refute someone else's opinion.  ;)

What I can't measure is art.  Because art does not have a definition.. or to be more accurate, art does not have a universally agreed upon definition.  Every one has their own definition of what is and ain't art.

This is why I can't say that something is good or bad art or even if it is or ain't art.  I can say that I personally like or don't like this form of art.  I can also say that this particular example of art adheres to or differs from some "arbitrary standard".  But that does not indicate whether someone's art is good or bad or whether it is or is not even art.

Therefore any discussion argument about art can quickly devolve into a matter of opinions.  Naturally anyone's opinion that differs from *my* opinion, must be wrong, uneducated, or is unsophisticated. After all, if they were, they would naturally share *my* opinion.   ;D

Photographers like to proclaim that it is not the equipment but the photographer, but if you notice most of the postings on photographic forums involves equipment.  It is not the equipment but I will sure argue about minutia about lens parameters to my dying breath!!

Why?

Because discussing arguing about technology is easier than discussing arguing about artistic intent.

Something is art if and only if the person that created it, considers it art.  Whether anyone else considers it art is their opinion.  But the artist is not constrained by anyone's opinion but theirs.
Indeed.
Another thing to consider is that those who like to obsess over pixels are with very rare exceptions, not very good at creating interesting photos. Sharp, well exposed and using the rule of thirds really well, but normally quite dull.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9719
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2015, 06:23:20 AM »

I'm a bit puzzled by this rant from Michael. Is Michael now accepting the view of Ken Rockwell, who claimed several years ago that 'your camera doesn't matter'?

I remember Michael, at the time, strongly criticising that comment from Ken. Perhaps those were the days when Michael was very impressed with the performance of Phase One MFDBs.

I would agree that any true obsession can be a problem. There are quite a few people who have what is  referred to as an OCD (obsessive-complusive disorder), whether it be an obsession to clean the house every day, or an obsession with checking several times that the doors are locked when leaving the house.

An obsession with the technical perfection of cameras might not help one to take photos that are interesting to people who lack such an obsession, or who lack a fascination with sharp texture and detail in a photo. However, for the amateur, surely the best advice is to take photos which one likes, which one finds interesting and meaningful.

For some folks, that means taking a selfie. Their own face in front of every scene is what they like most. For other folks, that means using the sharpest lens with highest resolving sensor so that every grain of sand, or every wrinkle on every old face, is discernible.
For others, that means ignoring issues of sharpness and low noise, and having the goal of producing images that express what they consider to be a 'sharp concept' that they hope can be appreciated by as many people as possible.

Speaking for myself, I admit that I like sharpness and low noise in an image, excluding abstract photography which is another genre.
I don't consider I'm actually obsessed with technical perfection. If I was, I'd probably have bought an MFDB years ago.
However, I admit I just don't like noise and fuzziness in the parts of my compositions which I think are significant or relevant to the general concept.

As Alain Briot once wrote, 'every part of the composition is important'.

I'm also puzzled by Michael's comments on 'Street Kiss'. He claims a case can be made that 'the barred windows, and auto and the driver, are as much the main subject as are the women'. Really? If that's the case, then surely both the background and the women should be equally sharp.

Amolitor in reply #9 writes "The women don't need to be sharp, a little softness is fine, even beneficial if you want to wander into the weeds of emotional response. The background, the context, does need to be sharp, to generate any interest here at all. And the two need to be separated, since tonality and texture are not doing it here."

Really? Is this a case of kidding oneself? Imagine a very large print on the wall. Would one claim, "that background is so lovely and sharp. Stuff those fuzzy women in the foreground"? Also, if one views this small image from an increasingly greater distance from one's monitor, does the image gradually become less appealing as the sharpness of the women and the background become equal?

Supposing the women were attractive models with lovely eyelashes and smooth skin. Would one have the same opinion about their not being in focus?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9719
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #43 on: June 04, 2015, 06:49:21 AM »

Stamper,
The true artist should be able to accept any criticism and learn from it.  ;)
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 361
    • ripsart.com
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #44 on: June 04, 2015, 07:06:42 AM »

I would agree that any true obsession can be a problem. There are quite a few people who have what is  referred to as an OCD (obsessive-complusive disorder), whether it be an obsession to clean the house every day, or an obsession with checking several times that the doors are locked when leaving the house.
Please don't trivialize OCD; it isn't just a matter of cleaning the house every day or checking that the doors are locked.  OCD is a terrifying, frequently debilitating disorder that affects every aspect of one's life, and symptoms such as repetitive cleaning or locking or washing are futile, often frantic  attempts at controlling, or at least holding at bay the perceived very hostile world one lives in, with the view that if I do not do this, I will be completely, totally and horribly destroyed.  Please do not make light of this.
Logged

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2015, 08:03:07 AM »

Otto Phocus,

Quote
Something is art if and only if the person that created it, considers it art.  Whether anyone else considers it art is their opinion.

Please demonstrate how considering something they created to be art is anything other than that person's opinion.

Quote
...the artist is not constrained by anyone's opinion but theirs.

Neither is the opinion of others constrained by that of an artist.
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2015, 08:04:04 AM »

You are right on both counts.  ;)
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9719
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2015, 09:05:41 AM »

Please don't trivialize OCD; it isn't just a matter of cleaning the house every day or checking that the doors are locked.  OCD is a terrifying, frequently debilitating disorder that affects every aspect of one's life, and symptoms such as repetitive cleaning or locking or washing are futile, often frantic  attempts at controlling, or at least holding at bay the perceived very hostile world one lives in, with the view that if I do not do this, I will be completely, totally and horribly destroyed.  Please do not make light of this.

But surely, the solution is to make light of it. Anyone who has OCD must convince himself that his concerns are in reality, trivial, and not to be taken seriously.

But I fear we're straying off the topic here.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9719
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2015, 09:12:49 AM »

Hopefully you will accept any response that comes your way. It was a wide ranging post by yourself that was akin to a shotgun being aimed at a few people and the blast catching them all?  ;) :)

Of course I can accept any response for what it is, trivial, prejudiced, misinformed, misunderstood, or enlightened and perceptive, in which case I might learn something.  ;)
Logged

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 361
    • ripsart.com
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #50 on: June 04, 2015, 09:19:12 AM »

But surely, the solution is to make light of it. Anyone who has OCD must convince himself that his concerns are in reality, trivial, and not to be taken seriously.

But I fear we're straying off the topic here.
No reputable psychologist, myself included, would ever suggest such a thing.  And yes, we are off topic.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9719
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #51 on: June 04, 2015, 09:43:17 AM »

No reputable psychologist, myself included, would ever suggest such a thing.  And yes, we are off topic.

Really! You believe that any consensus of opinion on any matter must be  the truth? Are you also an AGW alarmist?

I try to accept only views that make sense, in the light of all available evidence, without prejudice or bias.
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1407
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #52 on: June 04, 2015, 09:46:48 AM »

But surely, the solution is to make light of it.

Off topic or not, one should make neither light nor fun of the misfortune of others.
A quite repugnant attitude.


Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10637
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #53 on: June 04, 2015, 10:03:52 AM »

Off topic or not, one should make neither light nor fun of the misfortune of others.
A quite repugnant attitude.

Indeed! If only we could somehow remove the humor gene from humans, all would be right with the world! Except we wouldn't be humans anymore.

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 361
    • ripsart.com
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #54 on: June 04, 2015, 10:35:51 AM »

Really! You believe that any consensus of opinion on any matter must be  the truth? Are you also an AGW alarmist?

I try to accept only views that make sense, in the light of all available evidence, without prejudice or bias.
Yes, I believe the consensus of opinion of my psychological and psychiatric colleagues, based on significant peer-reviewed tests and studies, has provided the best possible pathways to helping our clients/patients.  It's called science.  And I don't even know what an AGW Alarmist is.  BTW, "all available evidence" is that you don't treat lightly such illnesses as OCD. You apparently do not know whereof you speak.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10637
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2015, 10:57:30 AM »

Time to get off that high horse, Rip.

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #56 on: June 04, 2015, 12:06:46 PM »

"OCD" means at least two things. It refers to people who are somewhat more than normally picking and detail oriented, often only within a specific domain, as well as to people who have an actual damaging syndrome.

The former group, much larger than the latter, and usually who we're talking about, may well benefit from a little light mockery. It appears to be human to get lost in details, and to too-highly prioritize certain minutiae.

As for the latter, as with all things in Science, there is always a current best state of knowledge, but only the naive and foolish think that the current state of knowledge is ultimate truth.
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2188
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #57 on: June 04, 2015, 12:17:53 PM »

OT: OCD is often successfully treated with a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy and drugs, usually selective serotonin uptake inhibitors.

On topic: It is easy to over-think the technical aspects of a photo, especially for amateurs who may still be on the steeper slopes of the learning curve. But the most important thing an amateur can do when evaluating their own photos after a shoot is to notice their gut reaction to the photo, not just ask, is it perfectly sharp, perfectly exposed, etc.
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #58 on: June 04, 2015, 12:20:52 PM »

So what was the topic of this thread again?  ???

Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10637
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Eschewing Perfection
« Reply #59 on: June 04, 2015, 12:44:59 PM »

So what was the topic of this thread again?  ???

Obsessing over perfection.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up