Must your image be technical perfect ?

[PatrickMarq]

The question is: do you want the complete image to be sharp, and have every detail in the shadows ?

For a long time this was quite important to me, but I have seen my style changing over the years.
Some views need to be completely sharp (except when using soft focus lenses). But I don't find this a must anymore.

A landscape can have a soft foreground and a sharp main subject, or some shadows may be complete dark. I find this more natural as we see this with our eyes.

Then you have of course the impression of the artist who deliberate places thing out of focus, or creates harsh images in black & white, or a shallow depth but this is something completely different.

I see these questions pop-up on a regularly base in the forums so I'm curious, so do you go for perfection or more the natural way ?

[Tin Can]

I shot only Pentax no meter, never a flash for 50 years

I wanted sharp

This last 10 years, LFPF has changed my eye

[xkaes]

The "f64 group" started this "everything in focus" idea one hundred years ago. Fortunately it was a craze that died out. Every photographer has to make their own decision every time they make an exposure based on the subject and their intent & preferences.

If you want a subject 100% in focus, make it that way. Another photographer will choose to have just a small plane in focus.

Neither is right or wrong, good or bad.

It's the same with choosing a lens, selecting a film, the print size, and even the frame you put it in -- if any.

[John Layton]

Whatever works best for a given image (no matter if this means blown out highlights, greyed out featureless shadows, etc.) is how I define the term "technically perfect."

[Alan9940]

I like the subject to be in focus and I don't like textureless high values, but I don't mind inky black shadows areas as long as it doesn't distract from the image. Soft focus is fine, if it's done with intention. That said, we LF photographers face limited DOF and little use of higher shutter speeds to stop motion. Therefore, many times we need to decide what part of the image we're going to have softer and/or how subject movement is going to affect the image. I used to not shoot a forest scene, for example, due to wind, but after I time I learned to embrace the movement of ferns, leaves, etc. This motion can impart a dynamic feeling to the photograph. Anyway, I'm with John...it's within each of us how we define "technically perfect."

[Richard Wasserman]

Have you seen Sally Mann's landscapes? I dare say they exhibit some imperfections, and for me are some of the most evocative landscape photographs I've ever seen. Others may disagree...

https://www.sallymann.com/southern-landscapes

[Ron McElroy]

Have you seen Sally Mann's landscapes? I dare say they exhibit some imperfections, and for me are some of the most evocative landscape photographs I've ever seen. Others may disagree...

https://www.sallymann.com/southern-landscapes

I love Sally Mann's work!

[nitroplait]

Have you seen Sally Mann's landscapes? I dare say they exhibit some imperfections..

"some imperfections" :-)
Just goes to show that "perfection" is really subjective. I love Sally Mann's work as well, although my preference is the Immediate Family work.

[Willie]

I believe the image should show what you want it to show, sharp or not.

That said, the excuse of "I wantlike it that way" is NO excuse for shoddy work, poor exposure, processing and printing.

Tecnically perfect is just fine as long as it isn't "technically perfect, boring picture". Then again - maybe that is Your World?

[Sal Santamaura]

The question is: do you want the complete image to be sharp, and have every detail in the shadows ?...

Yes.

The "f64 group" started this "everything in focus" idea one hundred years ago. Fortunately it was a craze that died out...

It wasn't a "craze." It was and is an aesthetic. It didn't "die out" any more than it became universal.

Bottom line: whether style of photography or any other aesthetic decision, there's only a single factor that drives: does one like it. Dogma, no matter the context it arises in, is optimally eschewed.