If every shadow has to be full of detail, then Brett Weston was a horrible printer! I personally regard every image as potentially worthy of its own kind of treatment. One shoe size does NOT fit all.
If every shadow has to be full of detail, then Brett Weston was a horrible printer! I personally regard every image as potentially worthy of its own kind of treatment. One shoe size does NOT fit all.
I won't speak for others, but my answer was to the question "Do you want the complete image to be sharp, and have every detail in the shadows?" I've tried at times for the Brett Weston look, and it just isn't me. That doesn't mean that I don't have an appreciation for his work, or Sally Mann's, or anyone else's that is not every where sharp or lacks in shadow detail. In fact, I own four books of Brett's work, and one of his and his father's ("Dune").
Entirely subjective, depending on the photographer's intent and preferences. There is no "correct" answer.
Personally my tastes lean towards images with a high standard of technical quality, but of course I can appreciate the "imperfect" too; Atget is one of my favourite photographers, for example.
So often even technical mistakes can't detract from an excellent photo. You can't tell by looking at a photo book, but if you get a chance to see an actual print of Migrant Mother you'll notice the sharp focus is on the woman's collar, not her face. I saw a large print of Adams' wavy aspen trunks. The one in the middle of the print and closest to the camera is not in focus. Still a fine composition and well printed and a fine photo.
You do the best you can. And if it really bugs you (and if possible) go back and try the scene again and do the best you can again.
the problem with photography is that people keep confusing a photographs with reality when they have nothing to do with each other...
So very true!Originally Posted by jnantz
What is "Perfect" _?_
What is the or are the points of reference for "Perfect"_?_
Kinda goes back to what the goals are, no?
Bernice
A good image comes from vision and composition. Good craft helps to limit the imperfections that you describe. And for sure, it's the lack of craft that can result in imperfections which can detract from a good image.
At the same, craft is no substitute for vision and composition. Didn't Ansel Adams say how much he disliked seeing an excellent execution of a fuzzy idea? (Something like that?)
Still, it's always been my perception that, sometimes it's the imperfections that can really make something artful.
I dunno.
It's how one uses the "imperfections" to advantage, compositionally, that separates the men from the boys. In large format works, something in the scene is inevitably going to be out of focus; but how is that depth of field issue specifically managed? - thoughtfully or just via some rote formula? Of course, it there are dings and knife etches all over the print, or mat corners that aren't square, that's a different kind of quality issue that spoils things. And nowadays I see lots of big stitched inkjet prints from DLSR or MF digital cameras with short lenses that are downright annoying because everything is in focus, and all post-edited. Maybe they need to spend a little time in front of a Vermeer painting, or spend more time just looking intently in the first place. Technique merely for the sake of technique can turn out awfully disappointing.
It seems that, based on the way Patrick worded his original post, one major element of what he defines as perfect is the complete image being sharp.
Apparently Drew doesn't like everything in focus (i.e. sharp) in stitched images. Great. I, and others, do. Unfortunately, while that technical capability is, in my view, an advantage of digital over large format, it's not useful very often in the landscape due to subject movement. We who prefer and strive for keeping everything in focus have no need to spend time in front of a Vermeer painting. What a painter did has no relevance to our "everything in focus" photographic goal. Vaughn already posted above the reality that, while a photograph is not reality, getting everything sharp is the optimum way to represent how humans see reality:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks