We are at a remarkable time in photography: cameras and lenses are more capable than ever, and we can create images that photographers could only dream of a decade ago. And for the most part, that is a great thing. However, there can be a downside to that. Are images too perfect nowadays?
Coming to you from aows, this interesting video discusses the idea of reintroducing imperfection to photos. I think this is an important thing to think about. A lot of photography today places technical perfection at the top of the list of priorities. And no doubt, we should not confuse the idea of deliberate imperfection with not possessing sound technique. Rather, we should reassess if the constant pursuit of technical perfection is hindering us from improving our photos in other ways. After all, there are a lot of photos out there that are clinically sharp, with beautiful colors and crisp editing, and yet, they are often somehow lacking something — something that makes them compelling, that makes the viewer unable to look away. When our technique is good, it is time to make room for other aspects of image-making as well. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
Love it. I agree with you and more and more photographers just strive for perfection rather than capturing a raw moment. I have some out-of-focus images that I love so much because they show movements, or a special moment.
We have an "Armageddon" of perfection. I've been shooting for a while so I know how to generate a decent image but I'm starting to question the pursuit. My niece got into wedding photography and was a natural. She got bored with perfection, stopped shooting digital and now shoots analog with expired film! She has won many awards and though we have totally different styles I deeply admire her work! There is a book called "The revenge of analog". Maybe I need to read it!
If you remember there was a similar reaction to digital music, it was too perfect! There is a great interview with Joe Walsh on that very subject out there. He even did a song analog man. It’s a well trod argument digital v analog. Bring back vinyl was the shout, I want some hiss and crackle in my sounds. It’s now the same with film, expired films being even better as that’s even less perfect! The truth is if you believe digital photography is too perfect, then it is, as we can all convince ourselves of pretty much anything, such is the human condition.
Like so many arguments in photography it’s a pretty pointless one. As a photographer you have to make choices to suit your own aims, desired aesthetics and your own objectives. If they are to produce crystal clear tack sharp images, then fine. If it’s to produce fuzzy, grainy images, also fine. I happen to like both as each approach has its place and merits.
Check out Margret Cameron.
https://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/julia-margaret-cameron
A very gifted photographer who was heavily criticised at the time for being too imperfect, out of focus and for being a woman!
For those who seek perfection the answer to the article is a resounding no. For those fuzzy photographers out there it’s a resounding yes.
The idea that some talented prize winning wedding photographer proves the point is nonsense. What it does do is prove she has talent so good on her. It’s nice to see creative people succeed. Next year the winner will be some tack sharp total perfection photographer!
There will always be those annoying photographers who will insist that this is the best, camera, lens, technique etc, etc…
The moral is there is room for everyone and every approach every camera and every lens, there is no best or one right way of doing things. Photography is not a one size fits all.
You want some "hiss and crackle" in your music? I want pure music as it was recorded or performed.
.
I agree with you. Hiss and crackle is not a part of music - it is generated from the recording and/or playing equipment. I want pure music - not a mix of music and other sounds generated by equipment. And I want my photos the same way - as true to the real life scene as possible, not with noise or fringing, which are artificial things generated by equipment.
In the cases I mention above, the imperfections are actual artificial impurities caused by technology. There is nothing organic or real or authentic about such imperfections. If there are imperfections in sound caused because a drummer doesn't keep perfect time, then that would be a wonderful imperfection, and I want it kept in the music.
Likewise, if there is an "imperfection" in the scene I am shooting, or in my subject, such as a zit or two on their face, then yes, I want that left in the photo because it is real. But noise grain? There is nothing real about noise grain - it is an artificial artifact created by technology. Hence, I don't want it in my photos because it keeps them from being true to life.
.
I remember clearly my fist CD player and my first CD which was a Tampa death metal band called Savatage. I put on my headphones and could not believe the sound! I'll take that digital 'perfection' every time.
You obviously weren’t a student back in the 60s/70s when LPs by default had beer spilled on them and needles had to be regularly defluffed. Hiss and crackle were an unavoidable part of music at those times given the physical dust attracting nature of the musical medium.
I’ve got many tracks on both vinyl and digital format (lossy and lossless) and whilst the absolute quality of a digital file is undisputed, there are far more qualities to an analogue vinyl sound than ‘hiss and crackle’, the warmth of the bass is superior and that can’t be replicated by a digital file.
A lot of dance music producers are returning to analogue devices for their studios because of the qualities of the sound they produce in comparison to their digital brothers.
As always there are 2 sides. The nearly perfect equipment we can use nowadays sometimes make too good pictures.
Flat, overscharp, exact lightning, but no soul left. But as mentioned, as photographer you can manage your equipment to do otherwise, and bring back soul, by e.g. "wrong" settings and do some "photoshopping" to bring your feeling in the picture.
Just as Ansell Adams did.
What I don't understand about analog is that the photos usually end up getting digitized and seen on a screen anyway. And when they need hard copies, the digitized photos are sent to print. I know, it is not always like that, but often.
So my thought is: Yes, the look of analog is sometimes interesting. And compelling. But if you see it on a screen, you could probably just pass the photo through a filter, or apply some AI to it to get the same look.
What perhaps matters more is the limitation that you have to pay for every single shot, even the blurred and wrongly exposed ones. That forces you to carefully consider every photo you take.
But then again, you could in fact pose the same limitation for yourself when shooting digital.
I guess you done print
What you guys need to do is grab a brandy, and listen to Giles Peterson on Radio 6 (Google it)
I love music, I love hifi, but music is the reason to have a hifi.
When you have listened to a few hours, of Giles, you realize, this is a real DJ, mixing all sorts of new music on vinyl.
The music will blow you away,
Same with photography
Im going to say something controversial. Both are equally valid in their own circumstances. I shoot digital and film. Sometimes nice digital images help tell the story. Sometimes a grainy underexposed film photo tells the story. Multiple things can be true at the same time......
.
I just can't wrap my head around how grain, that was never a part of the real life scene that was photographed, can help to tell the story of what was happening in that scene, or how it felt to be there witnessing that scene.
Grain is an artificial artifact introduced to the image by the technology that was used to capture it. It has nothing to do with what was captured. How, then, can it possibly help to tell the story about that scene?
.
I had a feeling one of the old gatekeepers would comment. It doesn't matter what was in the original scene. Nothing we see is completely accurate anyway. The colors you see are slightly different from what i see. There is no real image because there is no universal way to see the same thing. The 'real' scene is infinitely complex beyond our understanding. Also its art so just enjoy it. Or don't.
.
In response to me, J H said,
"I had a feeling one of the old gatekeepers would comment."
That's an odd thing to call me, J H.
Old gatekeepers are those who cherished film and want to shut out new technology and those who eschew the virtues of digital imaging. I am the exact opposite of that. I do not like the old ways - film was always so disappointing to me, and for me photography came to life with the advent of digital sensors.
I absolutely love the new ways in which photographic technology has progressed, and embrace the new, ever-changing ways of recording images. So I am the antithesis of an "Old Gatekeeper".
If you want to put down the new technology and tell people that only the old film technology is viable, then go to it. But that would make YOU the old gatekeeper, not me. People who cling to the old ways, and criticize new methods and new technology in efforts to discredit them ... those people are, by definition, the "gatekeepers".
I think it is great that there are people who love to use film, and who love the results. Personally, I do not care for the results, compared to digital. But I have no problem with others whose preferences are very different from mine. I am glad that we now have both mediums, so that each of us can use that which best enables us to accomplish the objectives that we have for each image that we create.
.
agree
You are correct sir. Our technology has taken us to the brink the pinnacle. They strive to make things so defined and 'pure' that it just seems...to me...to be.....unnatural. I remember in the late 70's I was walking in a park in Missouri with a Rolleiflex TLR that was gifted to me by an old man (bless your heart) and I had it loaded with Ekatachrome 100. I took one photo which stands to me of a bush with 2 fallen Fall leaves on it, one overlapping the other just a bit. When I got the slides back, the image looked nearly perfect as to what I saw. No filters, no post production (of course), just that shot, as I saw it. It looked natural, unpolluted, unmunipolated. During the 60's and forward the slides I took were all just as I shot them. Kodachrome 25 was damn pure. Man i loved that film. Still have some even now. Anyway, today people seem to want to 'make' their images pop out at you, to scream 'here I am'. They throw them on the computer and do whatever they want in order to "say something " or to speak words with the image that isnt really there from its natural state. If you look at any extremely beautiful image...ask for the original shot. The problem is that if we all 'captured' an image and put it out there in its natural, unmunipulated form, it would be ho-hum. We HAVE TO express something with our photos. They must say something to us, to make say...AWE. To find a scene and shoot it and display it OOC, as it is and be a powerful image is very hard to find. With my digital work I DO use PP, but as little as possible. With film, I just use any filters I might need and leave the final product as is. Photographers want their images to speak, to scream even. It's our aim, our goal. We all want our images to touch someone or say something with meaning, with impact, with profound feelings. So...keep looking for those 'profound words' in the world and convey them to all of us. Manipulate if needs be, but hey...don't go nuts. Ok?
This guy is in my brain, saying what I've been feeling for the past several years. For context, I grew up with a Pentax spotmatic f that was eventually an extension of my eyes and hands. I came to know the three settings that would give me the picture I wanted. I was connected to the camera. I lost all that when film photography became too expensive and when I could afford digital I spent two frustrating years trying to do it with all those fancy buttons and dials and menu items. And I eventually got the hang of it but honestly, most days I enjoy the camera when shooting in manual mode and seeing things the way this man describes.
I was having the same thoughts about today's cars. They're just too damned perfect and operate in such an aggravatingly dependable way. Perhaps we need to increase the lug nut thread machining tolerances so we get a few more vehicles with their wheels flying off, thus introducing a bit more art and adventure into the driving process.
I'm going to take this a tongue in cheek. I used to work on cars a lot. I can't tell you how happy I am with today's 'don't need a tune up' for 100,000 miles, oil change intervals of up to 10,000 miles, brake and tire performance to keep the dirty side down, suspensions that can make a car ride cushy or like a slot car.
I can't tell you how many plugs, points, and condensors I've changed back in the 'good ole' days'. Or how many old timer shoe brakes I've changed. Heck, I still have my timing light and dwell meter. :-)
And I love my R5. Keeping it photocentric. :-)