A lot of photographers spend much of their time obsessing over the technical quality of their images, and while that certainly matters, there is such a thing as taking it too far, which is something many of us are guilty of. Worrying too much about technical quality can often cause too little focus on creative development and exploration, which can be quite detrimental to one's growth and maturation as a photographer. This excellent video essay features a seasoned photographer discussing the issue and how to fix it.
Coming to you from Scott Choucino from Tin House Studio, this insightful video essay discusses the issue of obsession over technical image quality to the detriment of creative growth. Certainly, it is good to be able to produce a technically sound image, and one should not abandon that pursuit, but it often grows to the point of obsession in photography. When this happens, technical quality becomes the end when it should be one of the means to the end. Remember, a creative but technically imperfect photo will always be more compelling than a technically perfect but uninteresting one, so work on developing those create skills just as much. Check out the video above for Choucino's full thoughts on the topic.
He makes valid points, but the other side is also valid: What good is a creative and compelling photo if it is technically sub-par?
Many of us submit images to agencies with EXTREMELY stringent review processes and technical criteria that must be met. I mean it's not like we're just hacks, taking photos for someone who wants a wedding album or who wants a few 11 by 14 inch prints to hang up. We are submitting to some of the most demanding publishers and advertising agencies in the world who use the images in a wide myriad of ways at often large sizes.
Some of my most interesting and compelling photos have been shot down and immediately rejected because they are not up to the super high technical requirements of the agencies and publishers that I submit to. Again, we're not just a bunch of hacks shooting for regular people. We are shooting for Art Directors and Review Boards and Directors of Photography and Photo Editors. Technical aspects matter so very much.
@Tom Reichner, agree completely!
During my days as a professional (back when film was used) I remember standing over a light table with clients and Art Directors looking at the film with high power loupes making sure everything was correct.
I recall one time of having to reshoot a product because the trademark symbol on the can was ever so slightly soft.
"...it's not like we're just hacks, taking photos for someone who wants a wedding album or who wants a few 11 by 14 inch prints to hang up" So, portrait and wedding photographers are hacks? Interesting perspective, care to elaborate?
From a lot of what I have read, pixel level image quality does not matter much to those who produce photos for an end result of being used and presented at small sizes, such as 16" by 20" and smaller. Just about any camera's IQ will be plenty good enough for such uses, so those photographers are focused entirely on the content of what they are shooting, and not concerned with things like how bokeh will appear at large print sizes, or how the highlight detail will be rendered when viewed at 400% by a review specialist at an agency. They can pretty much ignore IQ at anything except the most basic level of acceptability because their images are never going to be scrutinized by imaging professionals and compared to 100s of other photographer's images at 400% and beyond.
You're right on target with the idea that technical ability has different levels of importance depending on how the images will be distributed.
I think a lot of confusion comes from the idea that "professional" photography is somehow a one-size-fits-all approach. Before social media, the photography market was divided into different categories with varying ideas of what constituted a specialist. Photographers called themselves wedding, architecture, commercial, sports, photojournalism, editorial, and fashion etc based on the expertise that they brought to the table. The only time we would encounter the term "professional" photography was in popular photo magazines and camera clubs because that one-size-fits-all term was popular with hobbyists as a kind of criteria to judge themselves against people that made money. Hobbyists tend to think of those different specialties as "genres" of photography rather than as having totally different expectations as to what constitutes professionalism.
In a specialist photography environment, there are certain parameters that are expected and creativity is important but it comes in second place. Creativity can even look deviant sometimes and personally self indulgent. Hobbyists don't have to specialize, so they have the luxury of shooting to whatever standard they want and can be as creative or uncreative as they choose. Basically, there are no rules for hobbyists so they can do whatever they want. The reason why the lines are so blurred today is because content producers on Youtube, Instagram, Facebook etc call themselves professional but mostly they just produce to whatever standard is acceptable for the web (1024, srgb, 8bit, oversharpening, sliders to the max etc) In the end, content producers and hobbyists can both overlook technique because the standards on the web are so low. Also, the web thrives on views which are propped up by attention gaining clever gimmicks and tricks which they tend to equate with "creativity."
You bring up essential points. The term "professional photographer" is so stretched and misused these days that it has lost its meaning. Professional photography is when someone makes a living directly from their photography, not indirectly.
If you make your living by charging people to photograph things that they want you to photograph, you are a professional photographer. If you make your living selling prints or selling usage licenses for the photos that you take, you are a professional photographer.
If you make a living leading photography workshops, you are NOT a professional photographer ... you are a professional tour leader and/or photography instructor. If you make your living by monetizing YouTubes that you make talking about photography, you are NOT. a professional photographer, you are a professional "influencer" or a professional "content creator".
People are doing all kinds of para-photography things these days and still calling themselves professional photographers, even though they aren't actually making their livelihood directly from the photography that they produce. Semantics are so crucially important, and we should strive for more stringent use of the term and call people out when the stretch the definition beyond what it literally means.
I agree 1000% that so many people are claiming to be professionals when really they are something else. But who is really going to call them out? If some girl calls herself a professional fashion photographer on a YT channel with almost 2 million subscribers, then those people seem to actually believe it even though she's living in Michigan where there is no fashion industry. I think these people are selling a fantasy and they are basically role players, but they seem to actually believe that they are the real thing. If I were being totally honest I'd have to say that they are liars, but it's hard to be totally honest nowadays without being labelled as a failure that's just jealous. Social media has created a situation where likeable fakes are monetized so they appear to be real pros. It's all an illusion.
Also, I do not accept that there is really a division between technique and creativity. Technique is actually what allows photographers to make creative choices in the first place. The people that downplay the role of technique are just making excuses for their own lack of ability and their work always looks like a hodge podge of cliches copied from other photographers that have bad technique too. Cliches are literally the opposite of creativity.