Yes, Doug... but many photographers just get it wrong and then market it... saying that it is "art" or "their style"I spent several years at the beginning of exploring photography assuming everything "should" be properly exposed, in perfect focus, and taken with excellent technique. That is often the case. But not always. For instance sometimes the message of the image is best told with an overexposed. Same thing with lens flare, subject movement on a semi-long exposure or even camera "shake".
If the image "works" no one gives a damn about the technicals.
Yes, Doug - when in the studio you have control over the lighting... exposure and contrast ... but for landscape the ability to manipulate the image is paramount, and with software like phocus and good big files we can make transparencies look sick.... and do they ever try to assess this ability in camera reviews?That said, for many kinds of images technical perfection can greatly accentuate the things about the image that "work". Anytime you're looking to describe the intention of an image with "massive" "infinite" "sweeping" "wonderful texture" or "detailed" - whether landscape, interiors, product, still life, figure studies, or portraits, then better technical attributes of the image will often accentuate those attributes.
But technical perfection can only amplify the image. If there is no message in the image then all the amplification in the world won't do jack.
More over I have to say I still think the most overlooked area of image quality is "file flexibility". Just how well does the raw file hold up to the abuse of the post-processing you feel will best suite the image. I find myself over a lot of people's shoulders during post processing (because of the elements of my job that include software training and workflow consultation) and I often ask "is that as far as you wanted to push it" and I'm shocked how often the answer is "no, I wanted to push it further but I know it won't hold".