Are we now seeking too much perfection nowdays ?
Aug 3, 2020 14:53:54 #
Bill_de wrote:
Sometimes you have to to make room for the nose, particularly when the nose is a distinguishing feature. 
LOL!!!
Aug 3, 2020 15:07:14 #
NRB wrote:
A goodly number of Bresson's image are slightly out of focus.
Now if he had used micro focus calibration...
Aug 3, 2020 15:17:06 #
RichKenn
Loc: Merritt Island, FL
I don't think that today's photos are any "better" than those of the 1930s, 40s, 50, 60s, etc. Yes, technical advances and post processing have made it possible to make a good photo under conditions or circumstances that might not have been possible 50 years ago but that isn't to say that today's are better than they were back then. I watch some old movies on TCM and sometimes I am astounded by the great B&W photography, sharp as a tack, great contrast, good lighting, you name it.
Aug 3, 2020 15:26:48 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
The technology is better but the "ART" or "TECHNIQUE" is up to the person which is at the point of shooting and can also be said at the skill of the person at software. Also the definition of the picture "as a thing of art" or "quality of the technology" again this is the choice in the eye of the beholder.
Aug 3, 2020 15:44:22 #
Tonyf1234
Loc: Hyattsville, MD
CHG_CANON wrote:
Photography is easy when you don’t know how, but very difficult when you do.
Aug 3, 2020 15:46:20 #
PhotogHobbyist wrote:
... I remember the saying, "Photographs do not lie," and "A picture is worth a thousand words." Today with computers, we can make such changes in photographs that they become something totally different from the original. We can even make a realistic photo from nothing.
Aug 3, 2020 15:51:16 #
There are no rules for good photographs, great photographs have just one: the photoshop work is exquisite.
Aug 3, 2020 16:25:31 #
Dean37
Loc: Fresno, CA
I may be wrong, but I always thought that the photograph was what the photographer saw and photographed, within the capabilities of the photographer and the equipment.
The artist takes the photograph and adjusts it to fit the artists vision of perfection within the capabilities of the software and equipment used.
The artist takes the photograph and adjusts it to fit the artists vision of perfection within the capabilities of the software and equipment used.
Aug 3, 2020 17:26:52 #
Dean37 wrote:
I may be wrong, but I always thought that the photograph was what the photographer saw and photographed, within the capabilities of the photographer and the equipment.
The artist takes the photograph and adjusts it to fit the artists vision of perfection within the capabilities of the software and equipment used.
The artist takes the photograph and adjusts it to fit the artists vision of perfection within the capabilities of the software and equipment used.
As you mentioned, you may be wrong.
It’s one of the typical consequences of constructing a false dichotomy.
Aug 3, 2020 17:29:16 #
Lukabulla wrote:
Are we taking it a bit too far now ? Or is it that... (show quote)
I agree with you 100%. We spend more time in post production and for what?
Aug 3, 2020 18:23:25 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
There are no rules for good photographs, great photographs have just one: the photoshop work is exquisite.
Paul, have you considered starting a fortune cookie company catering to photographers that order out Chinese food? I think you have a real talent. And if that doesn’t appeal, they could also have a very Zen appeal (what is the sound of one shutter curtain closing?)
Aug 3, 2020 19:05:51 #
As a hands-on artist, I also take photographs. My question: "Is photography art, and if so, what is there about a photograph that makes it art?" Van Gogh truly was a starving artist; he only sold, for little money, a scant few of his works. His art puzzled or confused viewers. As a dead artist, one of his paintings sold for $148.6 million in 1990. Over the years, I've meet many photographers in workshops and classes. They dazzle with perfect "technique" and mechanics. Yet, I've seen so many photos of the "technically perfect" cute-puppies-and-kittens calendar variety and enough "perfectly enhanced waterfalls" variety, I cringe. Good art must tell a story that impacts the viewer emotionally at a gut/heart level as well as intellectually. Is striving for today's photographic "technical perfection" actually smothering photography in herd mediocrity?
Aug 3, 2020 20:09:53 #
Lukabulla wrote:
Are we taking it a bit too far now ? Or is it that... (show quote)
How do you define a “perfect photo”? By whose standards is it considered perfect? When is the effort to get a perfect photo “good enough” without achieving perfection? How much money on gear needs to be spent/ wasted to achieve perfection? How much knowledge is needed to achieve perfection? Questions for which there are a thousand answers or no answers. Just like JPEG or Raw? DSLR or mirrorless? No right or wrong answers and everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. The beauty of our hobby.
Aug 3, 2020 20:19:31 #
crabbydog wrote:
I agree with you 100%. We spend more time in post production and for what?
Improving your photographs isn't reason enough? Same reason I used to spend more time in the darkroom.
Aug 3, 2020 20:32:14 #
An artist can capture beauty with any camera. The rest of us need photoshop.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.