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:
It was grainy and had a lot of noise but had a bigger impact than these two had for example:
What are you views on this?
On a side note, I find the camera he is using interesting