Must your image be technical perfect ?

[Ben Calwell]

I love this thread. I’ve just looked at some of my “rejects” with more forgiving eyes.

[h2oman]

This thread seems to be drifting...

Allow me (or don't) to bring it somewhat back in line with what I think the OP had in mind with the following two questions:

1. In your own photography, do you, deliberately and with intentionality, introduce what some would consider flaws (select areas out of focus, blacks without detail, blurring due to camera movement, lens vignetting, etc.) to express your vision?

2. Are there other photographers, whose work you enjoy, that, deliberately and with intentionality, introduce what some would consider flaws (select areas out of focus, blacks without detail, blurring due to camera movement, lens vignetting, ...) to express their vision? Names/examples?

(I'm checking out for a little to go make some digital prints. )

[John Layton]

What I can find a bit frustrating over the long run is needing to hop onto yet another learning curve as materials come and go and/or change.

Also an admission: that I find myself occasionally sliding back down my own learning curve lately, as my photography field work and darkroom sessions have been spotty.

There was a time when I'd be able to block out a month...two weeks for travel and photographing, followed by two weeks of twelve to eighteen hour days in the darkroom - with enough energy to sustain and tweak results as a new body of work came to light.

These days, its "catch as catch can." While I'd assumed that retirement would allow me long blocks of time once more, so far, for various reasons, this just has not panned out. Then again, to some degree, I'm OK with this...sort of. Hmmm...

[Randy]

For longer than I care to admit, and for reasons unbeknownst to me, I was drawn to large, extremely sharp (top to bottom), images with loads of contrast. I don't know exactly what / when my preferences changed, but some time in the past 10 years, likely due to this forum, I find that creating and viewing "good" images that are not so large, sharp, or contrasty has more of an emotional impact on me than otherwise. I suspect that's why I usually reach for my older lenses that are less corrected, and a tad primitive, over more modern lenses.

I probably have shared this before:

Both shot at f/5.6.
The in-focus area with the Kodak lens (1946) is very shallow and is abrupt. The corn is very sharp and contrasty.
The Wollaston is a re-manufactured lens by Reinhold Schable. The in-focus area is slightly soft and the depth of that area is far less abrupt.




I get similar results with my 9.5" Wollensak Velostigmat Series II with softening ring. The lens is about 100 years old:

The point of focus - forground tree - is no where near tac-sharp, but the elements of the soft background are easily recognizable, from near to far. Perhaps I have grown to like that because it more matches what my eye sees when I view a scene...perhaps...?

The End

[Alan Klein]

For longer than I care to admit, and for reasons unbeknownst to me, I was drawn to large, extremely sharp (top to bottom), images with loads of contrast. I don't know exactly what / when my preferences changed, but some time in the past 10 years, likely due to this forum, I find that creating and viewing "good" images that are not so large, sharp, or contrasty has more of an emotional impact on me than otherwise. I suspect that's why I usually reach for my older lenses that are less corrected, and a tad primitive, over more modern lenses.

I probably have shared this before:

Both shot at f/5.6.
The in-focus area with the Kodak lens (1946) is very shallow and is abrupt. The corn is very sharp and contrasty.
The Wollaston is a re-manufactured lens by Reinhold Schable. The in-focus area is slightly soft and the depth of that area is far less abrupt.




I get similar results with my 9.5" Wollensak Velostigmat Series II with softening ring. The lens is about 100 years old:

The point of focus - forground tree - is no where near tac-sharp, but the elements of the soft background are easily recognizable, from near to far. Perhaps I have grown to like that because it more matches what my eye sees when I view a scene...perhaps...?

The End

Sometimes it's better not to see the world in sharp relief.

[h2oman]

Thanks for sharing, Randy.

[Bernice Loui]

Thanks for sharing Randy. Nice example of image goals, what is needed to achieve them.

Again, what is "perfect"?


Bernice

For longer than I care to admit, and for reasons unbeknownst to me, I was drawn to large, extremely sharp (top to bottom), images with loads of contrast. I don't know exactly what / when my preferences changed, but some time in the past 10 years, likely due to this forum, I find that creating and viewing "good" images that are not so large, sharp, or contrasty has more of an emotional impact on me than otherwise. I suspect that's why I usually reach for my older lenses that are less corrected, and a tad primitive, over more modern lenses.

I probably have shared this before:

Both shot at f/5.6.
The in-focus area with the Kodak lens (1946) is very shallow and is abrupt. The corn is very sharp and contrasty.
The Wollaston is a re-manufactured lens by Reinhold Schable. The in-focus area is slightly soft and the depth of that area is far less abrupt.




I get similar results with my 9.5" Wollensak Velostigmat Series II with softening ring. The lens is about 100 years old:

The point of focus - forground tree - is no where near tac-sharp, but the elements of the soft background are easily recognizable, from near to far. Perhaps I have grown to like that because it more matches what my eye sees when I view a scene...perhaps...?

The End

[Alan Klein]

This thread seems to be drifting...

Allow me (or don't) to bring it somewhat back in line with what I think the OP had in mind with the following two questions:

1. In your own photography, do you, deliberately and with intentionality, introduce what some would consider flaws (select areas out of focus, blacks without detail, blurring due to camera movement, lens vignetting, etc.) to express your vision?

2. Are there other photographers, whose work you enjoy, that, deliberately and with intentionality, introduce what some would consider flaws (select areas out of focus, blacks without detail, blurring due to camera movement, lens vignetting, ...) to express their vision? Names/examples?

(I'm checking out for a little to go make some digital prints. )

I've read that traditional Persian rugs are made with a deliberate defect in keeping with the Muslim belief that only God is perfect.

[LabRat]

I've read that traditional Persian rugs are made with a deliberate defect in keeping with the Muslim belief that only God is perfect.

I had heard that, even if just one thread...

Steve K

[LabRat]

Let's define camera and process separately...

Camera needs all steps in perfect working order to even expose a sheet without error... Then, exposure decisions how to expose subject to normal, then some (little) latitude + one can increase/decrease a little for slight higher/lower key effects (for mood) but keeping it in a range where it will still print ok... So some "creative control" there, but you gotta know the limits...

Then, there's the process part where the exposed film goes through the motions to end up as a print on the wall... We learn what is needed to avoid defects during process and later into the future (permanence etc)...

Some rely on "happy accidents" thinking it's koool, but cannot see where the problems in the near & far future can bite 'em in the butt later...

Steve K