Views on technical image quality

[VladimirV]

Having recently visited a photo exhibition by Michel Comte and from previous experiences I found that I always prefer the grainy and sometimes even blurry b&w pictures to the ones that are technically perfect.

For some reason most technically brilliant pictures feel pretty lifeless and dull when I look at them. Yes, these are very sharp pictures with a lot of detail, well exposed and the subject is also interesting but I can't help moving by pretty fast and going back to the less perfect pictures.

Reading forums and what people want it seems everyone wants less noise, more detailed and sharper images. But does this really make for better or more interesting pictures? I feel the more technically perfect some pictures are, the more artificial they feel, almost like a rendering.

To illustrate what I mean have a look at this picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrwforum/3244782427/

It was grainy and had a lot of noise but had a bigger impact than these two had for example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrwforum/3244786581/

What are you views on this?

On a side note, I find the camera he is using interesting

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrwforum/3235288752/sizes/o/in/set-72157613097761476/

 

[Streetshooter]

Without a doubt content is always first.
With content, intent is intertwined.

Everyone has their own process and that
process reflects on the above.
One of the mishaps with digigraphs and
that process is that it is to easy to get
lost in the processing.

It's very easy to find images that show
process and intent but lack content.
It's easy to get lost in that entire cycle.

A good image should posess all 3 of the
above and then it's up to the viewer to decide
if it works for them.

Take any of the 3 parts out and the viewer
is lost and moves on.

I could go on but it's some one else turn.....
Don

 

[TRSmith]

I'm not sure I agree. And I confess to being confused by the samples you reference. At first I simply looked at the photos (which include photo(s) being displayed in a gallery) and thought you meant to compare them using your criteria. Doh! Then I figured it out and wasn't able to really see the "flaws" and imperfections so it's a little difficult to really judge.

However, the last major exhibit I was able to attend was Lee Freidlander at the SF MOMA. I remember being struck by just how effortlessly he was able to see and then capture a unique moment/person. Everything just seemed to fit and worked. Very often I would stare at an image for awhile and then zing! Something deeper would emerge, almost like a little time bomb of awareness going off and I would be even more amazed. What I don't remember is whether any of the photos were grainy, or contrasty, or dark, or in any other way imperfect. The images (for the most part) just plain worked.

Making photos intentionally grainy, or contrasty, or somehow less than technically perfect on purpose is no substitute for vision. Nor is technical perfection a guarantee that a photo will succeed. But neither is a barrier to appreciation when the vision is clear.

 

[Bob]

It has always been easier to move away from technical perfection through photographic processes, after all, it is the entropic direction. So it is better to begin with the best possible, then move perfection into whatever corner desired.
-bob

 

[smokysun]

oddly, at the only big show i've had, people preferred these pics to all the clear, sharp, and unnoisy images! shot during a performance with a rather primitive point and shoot, it seemed to catch the spirit of the show and to evoke a certain mystery and desire for close examination.

www.pbase.com/wwp/blue

and i agree, subject comes first. here's a very famous novel from africa written in a patois english that fits a very bizarre story:

http://www.amazon.com/Palm-Wine-Dri...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240416565&sr=8-1

ultimately, it's what hooks the audience and keeps them looking that matters. dickens and dostoyevsky certainly learned the trick.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[ddk]

Having recently visited a photo exhibition by Michel Comte and from previous experiences I found that I always prefer the grainy and sometimes even blurry b&w pictures to the ones that are technically perfect.

For some reason most technically brilliant pictures feel pretty lifeless and dull when I look at them. Yes, these are very sharp pictures with a lot of detail, well exposed and the subject is also interesting but I can't help moving by pretty fast and going back to the less perfect pictures.

Reading forums and what people want it seems everyone wants less noise, more detailed and sharper images. But does this really make for better or more interesting pictures? I feel the more technically perfect some pictures are, the more artificial they feel, almost like a rendering.

To illustrate what I mean have a look at this picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrwforum/3244782427/

It was grainy and had a lot of noise but had a bigger impact than these two had for example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrwforum/3244786581/

What are you views on this?

On a side note, I find the camera he is using interesting

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrwforum/3235288752/sizes/o/in/set-72157613097761476/

I think that I understand your point but don't agree that imperfections have a "jai ne sais quoi" quality to them. I feel that our reactions are based on our age, experiences and personal taste. I can't see the subtle qualities that you're talking about in these links but my personal favorite is girl in the red dress in the bath tub and not the bw of the man in the field.

 

[sinwen]

It's all have to see with "content" as mentioned in an above post.

So what is content ? It is made of feelings, emotions, story telling....And what is technic ? It is composition, light, rendering (which include grain)....
You need both for a great picture, but you rarely get both in balance (which has to do with subjectiveness).
In any case, we lean more to the content than the technic so if you think the balance favour the content, you'll definetly prefer it. Usually technical photos are less spontanous because they often need longer preparation and that shows into the picture.

In the shots you presented here the last two seems to be fashion shots, pure plastician shots where the content is absent, obviously the first one is more interesting but I don't see any blur or particular default with it.

Wayne's picture uses the technic to give content, in this case you don't really master the content, you have the idea and it is made of trial & failure. This one is pretty good but he probably took a bunch to get it, and he may never get what he thought of at first.
So can you say this picture is technically imperfect because of blur & grain ? Surely not ! They are part of the content here.

So think again about your criterias for a good or more accurately, "pleasant" picture.

Michel

 

[smokysun]

i just watched this again:

http://www.amazon.com/Annie-Leibovi...ef=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1240466351&sr=8-2

whether or not you like her style, i think it's important to know how professionals work

or for somebody doing something mostly different:

http://www.amazon.com/War-Photograp...ef=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1240466523&sr=8-2

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[VladimirV]

Thanks for all your replys.
I have re-read my initial post and see that I haven't made it really clear what I wanted to say.

Basically it is just me questioning some people's demand for ever better image quality and dismissing certain cameras because they have too much noise or are not as sharp like other cameras. For me the aim of these people for ultimate technical image quality just seems pointless because I find that it robs the picture of any character and in parts it looks like a computer generated image if it's too perfect. I think sometimes a technical flaw can actually add to an image whereas technical perfection can distract from the image.

The pictures I posted are not very good but there are no better ones available so my examples are not really showing what I wanted to. Having seen the prints however, the b&w picture had a lot of noise and was a bit blurry where the fashion shots were highly detailed and sharp without noise. Still, the content of the fashion shots was absent or completely uninteresting to hold my attention where the grainy b&w shot had content and also felt more real to me. At the same time, I think the b&w documentary shots he had would not work as well had they've been shot in the same high technical quality as the fashion shots.

So what I want to say is that sometimes a technical limitation can benefit a particular image where technical perfection can sometimes feel empty. My observation is that on some photo exhibitions people tend to look at technically briliant pictures more to how detailed and sharp it is and how great the colors are but miss the content, where less technical perfect pictures are looked at for the content and people seem to spend more time in front of them. In the end it's all about the content though and an interesting image can be interesting no matter how the technical quality of it is.

 

[nei1]

It has always been easier to move away from technical perfection through photographic processes, after all, it is the entropic direction. So it is better to begin with the best possible, then move perfection into whatever corner desired.
-bob

So all of us poor buggers had better just give up and maybe buy a quality pencil ,............or just blink to store in our very empty heads and leave the creative stuff to our betters(am tugging my forelock):ROTFL::lecture:

 

[nei1]

oddly, at the only big show i've had, people preferred these pics to all the clear, sharp, and unnoisy images! shot during a performance with a rather primitive point and shoot, it seemed to catch the spirit of the show and to evoke a certain mystery and desire for close examination.

wayne


I think there are others sides to this observation Wayne.In an extreme case,for example setting off a motor driven camera and throwing it across a road ,where is the creative act?It could be said that the only artistic action was in the decision to throw the camera in the first place.I think intent has to be established and if an image was accomplished through chance its possible that this should be stated...best , Neil.


I should add,just to confuse things a little more,that youre image of the fairground is great.

 

[smokysun]

hi neil,
i guess you're not a follower of john cage! or 'chance favors the prepared'? there's often a moment when the unconscious breaks through and combines things in a new way. our conscious choices very often cliches without it. and every artist takes advantage of what at first seem 'accidents.' did you take a look at the whole gallery? a lot of photos didn't work and were rejected. this is always the case with photography, is it not? i think we have to judge by the results, not by the processes which got us there, or probably no one would ever be a parent!
ah, you do like to play the devil's advocate. try looking at the whole gallery:

www.pbase.com/wwp/blue

wayne

or take a look at other galleries using the same technique:

http://www.pbase.com/wwp/tech06

this wasn't just guesswork. i set the settings. reviewed what i was getting on the lcd. constantly made choices, when to push the shutter button, for example, what to keep and what to reject, and most of all the technique appropriate for the nature of the show.

 

[Lili]

Technical perfection has its own, chilly quality. However, IMHO, the images that have most impacted me have transcended this; I am unaware of their techical quality or lack thereof. The gestalt of these images is far beyond that.

 

[nei1]

Cages introduction of chance is a very deliberate act.If Id thrown the camera because I wanted a photo of the middle of the road from above and kept throwing it or another one until I got the photo that I wanted then this is a deliberate act and the event and the photo can be applauded as having the same source.If however I throw it once the resulting photo is pure chance and can not be attributed to the photographer,only the initiation of the process can be attributed to him.We are all dependent on one anothers honesty,without it we are lost.
Youre photo here is excellent,it suggests a life and emotion that is not present in the other photos taken,youre creative act "if you like"has been in the selection and presentation of the image,many would argue that this is a more important act than the taking of the photo.Then the arguement questions wether we can change roles at will;I guess we can.
Wayne ,I hope this is being taken as a general discussion as Im not accusing you of anything nor do I think you are claiming anything,all the best............Neil.

 

[smokysun]

hi neil,, no problem. the general question does become metaphysical: how much does chance play in our lives. can't answer that, but in photography its role undeniable. the contact sheets of any great shot usually show it surrounded by many failed attempts. even setups bring unexpected elements and consequences. guess it depends on the number of variables. they can be limited but never wiped out.
best,
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[smokysun]

here's an example. shot the equivalent of a roll of film as these young women crawled around on the rocks (didn't know them). here's a couple where the gesture/pose lasted only a few seconds.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[nei1]

Wayne,if youre aware of the possibilities of a situation and react to them then to my mind that is what photography is all about.All Im saying is that if you take a photograph of a Lloyd-wright building,however beautiful that photo is;most of the credit should go to Frank.

 

[Bob Yanal]

To illustrate what I mean have a look at this picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrwforum/3244782427/

It was grainy and had a lot of noise but had a bigger impact than these two had for example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrwforum/3244786581/

Might it be that the Chinese Gentleman - the subject of the picture - has more human depth in his face, more than the two gals - the subjects of the other pictures? In other words, perhaps the reason you're drawn to the Chinese Gentleman photo is its subject, not the "technique".

 

[smokysun]

neil, now we agree! that's my feeling about most travel photography. taking pics in mexico seems like shooting fish in a barrel. so much is given to you. that said, a few pictures of the eiffel tower really stand out from others. kertesz, frank, hcb. and bravo and iturbe make the most of mexico. these days i'm feeling we do best in our native place. however, that may only be true for me, out of laziness.
best,
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

 

[pollobarca]

Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder.

rgds

paul