I'm such a fan of Brett Weston that I don't even see this as a'fault' !Originally Posted by h2oman
It's the one that annoys me most regularly .
Show someone a picture and they say .. "ooh nice... but.. maybe you could just bring that area up a bit, get a little detail in there... "
What is technically ideal not only differs person to person, but potentially image to image. I'd rather think of it as optimized visual strategy. I often want a particular part of a composition a little more in focus than certain other areas - not necessarily in any soft-focus sense, but just enough to lead the eye where I want it. And especially given the depth of field challenges in 8x10 and even larger formats, intelligently strategizing depth of field is often the name of the game. Few things unnerve me more than those stitched digital multiple images where everything is in the same degree of focus. It looks unnatural. Even our own eyes don't work like that. I'd far rather contemplate the opalescent image on the ground glass for what it is, do what I need there, and press the shutter once. No, this is not another film versus digi debate, but about the positive potential of wisely dealing with our real limitations, and even using them to best advantage.
Same goes for where we want textural detail, and where we don't. Once in awhile I've done an ala Brett print with a graphic pure black. Once I actually did a color Cibachrome that way, and of all things, he left me a note in the gallery, and bought the thing, plus another framed print; and those were last seen hung in a conference room at Pebble Beach after he had passed away. Wonder what the full story was. But a few times, I've done the opposite, and let desert glare go fully textureless white. It worked, and that's all that counts. But it only works on certain specific images. I don't do them all the same. Mostly I wan't a full range of tonality, highlight to shadow, with just discrete portions of pure white or DMax. The only rule is, no rules. But that's not an excuse for sloppiness. It takes more wisdom to train a wild horse than ride a tame one.
A while ago I saw an exhibition of Anton Corbijn. A lot of his portrets are focused on the nose and not the eyes.
Still no idea what to think of it.
exactly !!
and a lot of photographs made to "brag" technical perfection have nothing else to say.
Jacques-Henri-Charles-Auguste Lartigue's image made with his uncle's plate camera in 1912
riddled with technical IMperfection is way more interesting than something made
through bellows, exposure and processing gymnastics. maybe it's just me,
but get bored pretty easy ( and all sorts of talking points related to grain structure, ultra-micro contrast and hinge theory make my eyes glaze )
I used to tell my students that the only time technical imperfections (focus, scratches, etc) are an issue is when they are seen/noticed before the image content or message you are trying to convey. I'm an f64 guy myself but like to think that all photography has something to offer.
Very cool indeed. That's something you can tell the grandchildren !
I think a lot of people particularly in the LF world have been conditioned to look for shadow detail without enough honest thought/reflection.
lol
Well, this kind of forum is pretty much suited to discussion about specific technique. And knowing how and when to tailor certain aspects like microtonality can have a distinct impact on what a print itself says. There are images where I might want to diminish or understate that a little, and in others, enhance it, just like a painter selects from either flat or pointed brushes, or potentially even frayed ones. Same goes with grain structure: whether we want visible grain or not in the print, how grain growth affects visible edge effect itself, and so forth. It's not necessarily empty technical talk at all. Calling it bragging is pretty much playing Pope in order to condemn pontificating. But I guess that's inevitable when the title of this thread implies that there are set prescriptions to technical "perfection". The way I look at it is the advantage of having a rather full tool kit. One doesn't need to use every tool in it every time, but does need to know when to use a particular tool or technique to best advantage. But tools are only a means to an end.
I have seen technically perfect photographs which are boring and technically imperfect photographs which are great, so I would not say technical perfection is a condition precedent to a great photograph. I would say that, based on the photographs I see posted here, if photographers spent a little less time on technical perfection and a little more time on the creative aspects of the image, such as subject matter, composition, conveying an idea, etc., they would be better photographers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks