Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: stamper on August 10, 2015, 06:27:29 am
-
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-perfect-photograph/
I can't help thinking that the article won't help anyone become a better photographer. Why? Because we live in an imperfect world and all photographers are themselves imperfect and they use imperfect tools to capture an imperfect image. So why should we be expected to try and process an image to perfection?. I think it is futile to try and only lead to frustration. IMO processing to an "acceptable" level would be a better method. "Acceptable" to the photographer's ideal way of thinking and not trying to please others. Pleasing others should be optional.
-
A counter argument.
http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog/editorial-why-you-shouldnt-get-hung-up-on-perfection?cm_mmc=Facebook-_-Wexfacebook-_-blog-_-editorial-why-you-shouldnt-get-hung-up-on-perfection
-
I like this brief article quit a bit. It reminds you of the need of reaching higher all the time. The examples shown are the proof.
cheers,
Boudewijn Swanenburg
-
Perfection does not exist anywhere anyway, in any field. I agree to have in my mind a goal set as to "try and achieve the best I can", but perfection? Nope, it does not exist.
Wonderful photos in the article.
-
So why should we be expected to try and process an image to perfection?. … IMO processing to an "acceptable" level would be a better method.
The article does not say anything about trying to "process an image to perfection". The article does not say anything about "processing".
The point is "… to capture quality rather than quantity, think about composition and how the subject and the light work together in harmony."
-
Would anyone think it possible to speak about a perfect musical composition? There are formal rules of harmony, counter-point and so on far beyond what has been formulated for visual images, and yet people keep writing stuff...
-
There are indeed formulaic rules for music, and they produce the most boring crud ever.
Sensible texts on composition will talk about dissonance and how to use it, and how cultural norms will be relevant, and how they have evolved. And, I suppose, a bunch of other similar topics.
Even simple things like equal temperament are a modern conceit, which (the experts agree) would have sounded intolerably out of tune to Bach, who was an exponent of an intermediate idea, "well temperament" which rendered all keys usable, albeit different from one another. Personal taste, modulated and informed by ambient cultural taste, is the name of the game.
-
Would anyone think it possible to speak about a perfect musical composition?
Would anyone think it possible to speak about a perfect musical performance?
-
This story reminds me of a quote from "Tron Legacy":
"The thing about perfection is that it's unknowable. It's impossible, but it's also right in front of us all the time." - Kevin Flynn
-
If we wish to make good Art, we will need to hold our photos to a certain set of standards, our own standards, of course, not someone else's. I don't believe "Standards" are the same thing as "Perfectionism", although they have some crossover.
Nevertheless, if we have an authentic inner need to produce images that are at least a cut above average, it would be better to be a neurotic perfectionist than a camera-toter with sloppy thinking. At least perfectionism is the sign of an individual with higher creative brain functions. The problem comes in if one allows perfection to cause "paralysis by analysis".
Beautiful work by Nigel Turner, I must say. Thank goodness for Standards...or Perfectionism?
-
Hello,
and thank you for your thoughts - they made me think about perfection. Although I can, to some extent, understand your quest, I think it is futile. THE perfect photograph does not exist; just like THE best camera, best food, or best anything does not exist. It is a little bit the same as with the best camera - it is the one that you have with you. You can create a perfect photograph at a particular location under particular conditions. The next day, the perfect photograph may be all different, taken under different conditions. In my opinion, there are many different perfect photographs.
Also, how would you know that you have created the perfect photograph? Do you think there is only one perfect way to photograph a specific subject? Once you have created the perfect photograph, would you always consider it THE perfect photograph? Does your appreciation of your photographs not change depending on your mood and interests at a particular moment in life?
All the best,
Florian.
-
Perfection does not exist. Perfection implies no room for improvement. Even Ansel Adams, the photographer we most think of as a perfectionist, would continue to improve his prints from old negatives over scores of years.
All we can do is strive to be better.
But there is a trick - be more selective, and weed out your lesser work. Be your own toughest critic.
In 1988 I attended the Ansel Adams Gallery Photo workshop in Yosemite. Attendees were asked to bring a portfolio of their own work.
I presented my portfolio at a group session. The leader of my group was William Neil. After reviewing my work, William suggested I refine the selection. I took out several items that I though were less good than others.
William then said to me "Now you have just become a better photographer".
I never forget this advice.
But while I am the subject, I think that another good way to improve is to join a photo club and participate in photo contests. You can learn a lot by listening to the judge's critique, and also get inspiration from other photographer's work.
Also attend talks and workshops, go to galleries, and WORK HARDER to get good images and improve them in Post.
David Horn
-
I see notions of `perfection' as highly subjective and `aspirational' rather than necessarily`achievable'. The desire to reach the unreachable may seem futile but it certainly motivates me to do better, to look for ways to improve, to hone and craft my vision/skill. For me `good enough' is never quite good enough and I can certainly identify with the original authors ideas and goals. I can also appreciate how striving to achieve the impossible or unattainable might seem futile and be demotivating for some. I guess it depends on your personal philosophy and/or beliefs and, as in most things, the ability to achieve an acceptable balance is perhaps what's most important. So, yeah! I capture some quite good images but hey! I'll do better next time. Thanks for the piece, it's good to know I'm not the only one!
-
Perfection does not exist.
THE perfect photograph does not exist
Perfection does not exist anywhere anyway, in any field.
1) These seem to be responses to the title of the article, not to the other 700 words.
2) Given the subjective nature of our judgements about photographs, why shouldn't someone regard a particular photograph as perfect (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/perfect_1) ?
I can't help thinking that the article won't help anyone become a better photographer.
In spite of the anecdote the author told of the workshop attendee who "wasn’t shooting ‘crap’ anymore" ;-)
-
The article does not say anything about trying to "process an image to perfection". The article does not say anything about "processing".
The point is "… to capture quality rather than quantity, think about composition and how the subject and the light work together in harmony."
Isaac every image you, and others, have seen has been processed. Either processed digitally in camera, film processed by a lab, or processed by the photographer on a computer. It is part and parcel of producing an image. No processing no image. You might not have tried to process an image but I am surprised that someone with your book knowledge doesn't understand that?
-
Quote Isaac Reply #13
2) Given the subjective nature of our judgements about photographs, why shouldn't someone regard a particular photograph as perfect ?
There will always be something in an image to nitpick. Just look at the critique section for evidence. ;) ;D
-
I loved this article since the take-away seems to be slow down, make more effort to look at what is in front of you, think carefully about light and composition before even getting out a camera and then only take the shots that really matter to you. Leave the rest behind. That's the best way to have a more satisfying time anyway. Perfection itself must be terribly dull. Being perfect means no more mistakes which means no more learning and nothing unexpected, so chances are one would end up complacent, unadventurous and dim with it.
-
In the story it mentions that to shoot less and strive for quality over quantity.
This assumes that you know what you seek in terms of "quality" and that you are capable of achieving it. That (understanding what you like) is a journey unto itself, separate from seeking perfection.
Taking lots of different pictures, even in different settings, is important because it helps you (the photographer) understand how you respond to different environmental stimuli. The downside is that you end up with lots of pictures that you need to delete but those that you don't become something for you to review and build your own understanding of photography.
Part of that journey is also building an understanding of how your equipment behaves and responds to different scenarios.
Take fewer, better, pictures, sure, I'm up for that.
But of what? When/where? How? Using what?
-
One doesn't need to seek perfection in order to slow down, take fewer images etc etc. Telling someone that perfection is possible will/can end up causing frustration.
Take fewer, better, pictures, sure, I'm up for that.
But of what? When/where? How? Using what?
That is the frustration I feel as well. :(
-
I am not into perfection, that can backfire. My goal is "As good as reasonably achievable" by me, with the knowledge and equipment on hand at the time. And some shots are "record" shots - these are to remind myself to go back when the light is better (landscape image I have in mind), or to identify some organism that has had some properly composed shots already (these ID shots are not necessarily aesthetic, I want to be able to view identifying features not demonstrated in the "nice" photos, butt shots on an insect or bird, boring but necessary leaf structure, etc).
I am an amateur, it's all about process and learning, about photography and about the world at large. I do see improvement over time.
-
I often skip shooting because I think the view isn't "perfect" or I won't be able to get the "perfect" lighting or composition or whatever. So I wind up skipping what could be a good shot. What's the expression? “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”
Work for excellence, not perfection.
Here's a neat article about this subject in another field of endeavor. I think it applies here as well.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2014/03/13/dont-let-perfect-be-the-enemy-of-good-tips-to-help-tame-perfectionism/
-
2) Given the subjective nature of our judgements about photographs, why shouldn't someone regard a particular photograph as perfect (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/perfect_1) ?
There will always be something in an image to nitpick. Just look at the critique section for evidence. ;) ;D
The person who regards a particular photograph as perfect (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/perfect_1) has judged that, for them, there is nothing to nitpick.
-
But of what? When/where? How? Using what?
"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don’t much care where--" said Alice.
"Then it doesn’t matter which way you go," said the Cat.
"--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.
"Oh, you’re sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."
-
I often skip shooting because I think the view isn't "perfect" or I won't be able to get the "perfect" lighting or composition or whatever.
Do you figure out when there should be "perfect" lighting and where you need to be for your perfect composition -- and then put yourself in that place?
-
But of what? When/where? How? Using what?
Perhaps four of those five questions are actually unimportant?
The how is what counts, in my opinion.
You can find something interesting to photograph anywhere, anytime; you just need to look for it. This can be difficult if you are very familiar with the area (your yard for example).
The "using what" is the least of the concerns. While we like to focus (pun intended) on the equipment, today's cameras are more than sufficient and are seldom the weakest link in our photography.
But the how... that's the key. Without the how, I can go to the most interesting place, find the most interesting scene, wait for the most interesting time, with the bestest camera system there is.....and still fail to take the picture I want.
The how is also what will differentiate my photographs from the rest of the photographers with the same (or better) equipment than I have. Two photographers can try to take the same photograph, but each will have a different "how".... That's what makes it unique to the photographer.
Unfortunately, I can't buy "how", nor can I easily learn it from books/Internets Tubes other than the basics.
The hard part about photography is working on the "how". It is not a glamorous nor especially exciting part of photography; But I feel it is critical to my photography.
It is easier to write than do.
There is a scene near where I live that I have been trying to photograph well for a while. It is a nice solitary tree with a swing. Every time I drove past it, I would think to myself "A good photographer could make a good photograph of this". Unfortunately, I was alone so there was no good photographer available. So I tried it myself.
Over a period of months, I must have taken over 50 carefully planned shots of this tree and swing.. and never have been able to capture the essence that I experienced when I see the tree and swing.
Unfortunately, it has been torn down so I can't go back. Probably a good thing as I was tormenting myself every time I drove past that stupid tree with that silly swing.
I had everything working for me. I had the what, the where, the when, and I had equipment far superior to my skill.
What I did not have was the "how". That eluded me.
In my opinion, photography is all about the "how" and less about the other stuff.
Dammit! ;D
-
This disucssion is interesting, up to a point. While I do believe that perfection is quantifiable in many realms, art isn't one of them.
I love photography because both the artistic and technical aspects of the pursuit are "un-masterable" in any real sense. Anything I master, begins to bore me. Photography will never bore me. Frustrate me, yes. Thrill me, yes. Bore me, never.
I don't even think of perfection in my pursuit, I think of "interesting and pleasing." When I create something "interesting and/or pleasing," I'm happy.
Rand
-
There will always be something in an image to nitpick. Just look at the critique section for evidence. ;) ;D
The person who regards a particular photograph as perfect (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/perfect_1) has judged that, for them, there is nothing to nitpick.
The problem is that you show it to someone who immediately picks a fault - artefacts from poor processing - then it isn't perfect. Isaac the gist of the article was a tutor showing his pupils faults and how to avoid them in order to become "perfect". It is obvious you don't like to show your images to anyone so how do you propose to improve?
-
The problem is that you show it to someone who immediately picks a fault - artefacts from poor processing - then it isn't perfect.
When you say "poor processing" I wonder that you consider it to be an example of nitpicking.
Isaac the gist of the article was a tutor showing his pupils faults and how to avoid them in order to become "perfect".
Nowhere does the short article mention "a tutor showing his pupils faults".
You seem to have comprehensively misunderstood the article.
-
Isaac I can assure you that I didn't misunderstand the article. You are the one who is at odds with everyone else.....as per usual. ::) :( BTW how do propose to improve???
-
stamper,
You are the one who is at odds with everyone else...
Not everyone.
-
stamper,
Not everyone.
And what is your opinion or are you just here to snipe?
-
stamper,
And what is your opinion...
On what would you like my opinion?
...or are you just here to snipe?
When you wrote "...everyone..." you included me.
You do not have the authority to speak on my behalf.
-
Rob when I wrote the statement.
You are the one who is at odds with everyone else...
You hadn't posted anything in the thread so the statement didn't include you.??? So are you going to contribute anything or are you here just to snipe???
-
I guess it is true.
Some people will argue about anything on the Internets Tubes. :(
-
Otto Phocus,
Some people will argue about anything on the Internets Tubes.
Some people take enjoyment from it (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101482.msg833982#msg833982).
-
Just think of it (InterToobs arguments) as exercise for the fingers.
-
A counter argument.
http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog/editorial-why-you-shouldnt-get-hung-up-on-perfection?cm_mmc=Facebook-_-Wexfacebook-_-blog-_-editorial-why-you-shouldnt-get-hung-up-on-perfection
Real estate or wedding photographer are some of the examples where people can often view this topic from a more pragmatic angle. And more practical approach can even be included and play its role in a personal concept of perfection. Naturally, the concept can be also rejected as unsuitable.
-
This disucssion is interesting, up to a point. While I do believe that perfection is quantifiable in many realms, art isn't one of them.
I love photography because both the artistic and technical aspects of the pursuit are "un-masterable" in any real sense. Anything I master, begins to bore me. Photography will never bore me. Frustrate me, yes. Thrill me, yes. Bore me, never.
I don't even think of perfection in my pursuit, I think of "interesting and pleasing." When I create something "interesting and/or pleasing," I'm happy.
Rand
What you say sounds a lot like perfection. Maybe more in a shape of perfect journey.
-
Personally, when I see the right mixture of right components I see the perfection. I see them quite often. And it can be photography or a style that is different from mine own. Because for me this sort of things happens across the styles, genres and types and it mixes with my personal preferences only marginally. I could almost say, it’s a different matter. I feel it also opens one's mind to inspiration that way perhaps.
But I don’t really think 'perfection' often. It’s more like a natural part of everyday photography and perception of this quality is more spontaneous.