Lukabulla

Are we taking it a bit too far now ? Or is it that we have better tools ?

I see ' classic ' photos from the 50's / 60's some great portraits of stars , street life , etc .. which nowdays most photographers having taken such a shot , would class them as rejects and either throw them away or spend endless time trying to get them ' perfect ' ..

Portraits nowdays mostly have to be ' Sparkling with Eyes un naturally sharp ' .. lighting to be exact or added on later in PS , unblemished skin, etc etc ..

Are photos now just ' Too Good ' ?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Tastes change, what's "cool" changes.

(I can't stand cutting the top inch or three off of someone's head for a portrait.
But that's just my taste.)

And "perfect" is relative.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

I'm satisfied with most of my images but I've often thought that a professional photographer could probably pick them apart over things I would consider nit picky. If you're not a professional and are content with your results that's all that matters. I see countless images on google maps that are horrible so that tells me most point and shooters don't give a whit about image quality. Whether you strive for perfection or not is entirely up to you. What others do with their images should concern only them.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I think you are talking about changes in what people want rather than changes in quality which remain the same.

I look back at old Nikon, Hasselblad or Canon ads and see fantastic photographs that would still be fantastic today, good sharp photographs that anyone would be proud to submit for evaluation. Lenses and cameras back then were top of the line and still are. Many of us have posted photographs taken either with digital cameras or film cameras using older lenses and are pleased with the results.

Dennis

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you have to lower your expectations to fit your results, so be it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

- it should be illegal !

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

What Longshadow said.

Bob Mevis Loc: Plymouth, Indiana

Amen to that!

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Perfection has always been the goal or we wouldn't have the technology of today...

bwa

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I believe that a lot of photographs today are technically "better," or maybe just realize higher technical capability, "just because they can." As noted, tastes change. I spent quite a bit of money in the 1990s for a soft focus lens for my Mamiya 645. I suspect that a portrait taken with that lens and posted here would be pretty much razzed out the door.

Of course, the notion of what is "ideal" has also changed quite a bit over the past 25 or 30 years, as have expectations of how folks should appear against those ideals.

On the one hand, I think that there isn't anything specifically wrong with working to be as technically competent as possible. On the other hand, not many in my audience care much about how much work was required to capture and produce my 10-exposure panorama of the full arch of the Milky Way over the Chisos Mountains, or that the foreground was illuminated only by starlight. They just know that they like the image and that they have never known anyone else able to create something like it. If I am totally honest, I have to admit that I enjoy basking that sentiment...at least a little bit. When I was doing more HDR photography, they were pretty impressed that I was able to capture both shadow and highlight detail, which they were very conscious that they couldn't do. They really didn't care that doing it required capturing 5 or 7 nearly identical images, then using special software to put everything together and "make it pretty."

On the other hand, no one that was not a judge or designated critic has ever fussed about a photograph that wasn't drastically sharp or that wasn't perfectly color corrected or that had some other minor technical flaw.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy using well-designed and well-functioning equipment. I enjoy learning how to use as many of the capabilities of that equipment as possible. I less enjoy making a lot of minute adjustments in post processing. My belief is that many of us, and many of those who view our work, don't see well enough to fret over absolute sharpness or absolute anything else. Hey...a third of the people that you know have some level of color blindness.

So while I think it's fine to work to do the very best that we can, it is important to remember that there is a point beyond which it really doesn't matter. It's pretty much the same question as how fast a computer do you need? Certainly there is a case to be made that faster is always better. But there is an equally valid case that says there is a point beyond which you can't tell the difference. My suggestion is to aim for perfection but to chill out if and when you fall a little bit short.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Photography is easy when you don’t know how, but very difficult when you do.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

When a portrait no longer looks like the person it represents, then perhaps yes, the editing went a little too far.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Film made us all tolerant of all sorts of things. Not only was the medium more limited in its capabilities, there were less opportunities for recovery in PP, no instant review while shooting and every exposure cost money.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Unless the subject of the portrait feels it meets their perception of what they look like.