What's wrong with this picture (Page 2): What makes you think this is "a technical photo discussion site"?

srt101fan

OldSchool-WI wrote:

___________________________
The question in the thread was not whether the picture fulfilled its purpose-----but what was wrong with the photo---asked on a technical photo discussion site. So the appropriate answer is not about the people or the cute animals---but what might make the photo "more photographic."-------

What makes you think this is "a technical photo discussion site"?

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

srt101fan wrote:

What makes you think this is "a technical photo discussion site"?

_______________________________________
Have it your way---I would be the last one to argue with you. The site has nothing to do with photography we can now assume and carry on about anything when asked specifically "what is wrong about this photo." In fact I don't like the hair style of number two or the shoes of number three or the clothes of number one. Is that the kind of discussion you think appropriate---srt101fan????-----

srt101fan

OldSchool-WI wrote:

_______________________________________
Have it your way---I would be the last one to argue with you. The site has nothing to do with photography we can now assume and carry on about anything when asked specifically "what is wrong about this photo." In fact I don't like the hair style of number two or the shoes of number three or the clothes of number one. Is that the kind of discussion you think appropriate---srt101fan????-----

Discussion of the subject and content of a photo and how the photo connects with the audience is certainly appropriate in this forum. It is not only for technical issues.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

srt101fan wrote:

Discussion of the subject and content of a photo and how the photo connects with the audience is certainly appropriate in this forum. It is not only for technical issues.

Then what does the philharmonic member in NYCity to do with the world of photography? Have it your wasy----I don't like their music----is that appropriae?-----

User ID

srt101fan wrote:

A technically flawed photo with significant or interesting content is always superior to a technically perfect blah photo.....😊

The gallery section shows that much of uhh simply doesn’t buy into that ... but rather the opposite actually :-(

User ID

Longshadow wrote:

Nope.
It's the 3 to 2-dimensional conversion in a photo that messes with out mind.

Yes THAT is the essence of a photograph. For about a century the transformation of reality into grey scale also cooperated in the discarding of reality. You don’t ever capture reality. You make a photograph. Photographs have native artifacts: DoF effect, grain, noise, distortions, etc etc etc. Many viewers are quite bored by Greco Roman statues but love a good chainsaw sculpture.

User ID

OldSchool-WI wrote:

___________________________
The question in the thread was not whether the picture fulfilled its purpose-----but what was wrong with the photo---asked on a technical photo discussion site. So the appropriate answer is not about the people or the cute animals---but what might make the photo "more photographic."-------

And the answer is “nothing”. The photos are very photographic and are decently executed. There is nothing wrong with them. BTW, this is not a “technical photo discussion site”. This is the general photo discussion area. There actually are other areas on this site definitely dedicated to the technical aspects. You might wanna check them out.

The thread title alone suggests that the OP should have posted that question in the tech areas. For this area a more appropriate question would be “What improvements could’ve been made” rather than “What is wrong”. There is nothing “wrong”, but acoarst there’s almost always room for improvement.

User ID

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Then what does the philharmonic member in NYCity to do with the world of photography? Have it your wasy----I don't like their music----is that appropriae?-----

I know that you don’t know their music.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

User ID wrote:

And the answer is “nothing”. The photos are very p... (show quote)

_____________________________E
The lens was so inappropriate that when I first viewed this photo I thought those were PASTEBOARD CUTOUTS of people put up and re-photographed, the technique was so horrible with that near sighted wide angle lens. Then I realized the tremendous distortions were caused by the lens. Otherwise the people were fine and that begs the question if this post was not about the photo technique why not put it in the section--designated----NON- PHOTO--CHIT-CHAT? UHH is a photo site----

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

User ID wrote:

I know that you don’t know their music.

-----So UserID(anonymous) Do you want to squabble about that also?---When was the last time they played my favorite 5 symphonies by the great Jean Sibelius?-------?

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

User ID wrote:

Yes THAT is the essence of a photograph. For about a century the transformation of reality into grey scale also cooperated in the discarding of reality. You don’t ever capture reality. You make a photograph. Photographs have native artifacts: DoF effect, grain, noise, distortions, etc etc etc. Many viewers are quite bored by Greco Roman statues but love a good chainsaw sculpture.

________________________________
You are correct that the mind fills in what might not be shown overtly in a work of art. That is part of the essence of art is to create an environment which cultivates the mental reactions in many people. But the end result IS REALITY. Even a persons night dream represent a reality of the mind. Simplicity rather than baldness--Strength rather than bombast was the way the greatest British art critic of the19th century, John Ruskin put it. Therefore fewer distractions like color (B&W) or even your chainsaw example along with the non-representational art of the first half of the 20th century could very well be more realistic with their lack of any effort to copy nature or natural color. The mind fills in the rest to the pleasure of the individual.-----ew

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

sergiohm wrote:

From the official Facebook of the New York Philharmonic

https://www.facebook.com/nyphilharmonic/photos/10161562799797293

I guess the photographer was using a wide lens which can be tricky to use for portraits since only the center is free of distortion, take a look at the woman to the left edge, the face is visibly distorted.

I'd use the liquify persona in Affinity Photo to correct that distortion.

I've done it many times with good results

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

srt101fan wrote:

A technically flawed photo with significant or interesting content is always superior to a technically perfect blah photo.....😊

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

sergiohm wrote:

From the official Facebook of the New York Philharmonic

https://www.facebook.com/nyphilharmonic/photos/10161562799797293

I guess the photographer was using a wide lens which can be tricky to use for portraits since only the center is free of distortion, take a look at the woman to the left edge, the face is visibly distorted.

So what?

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

In this case the entire fun spontaneous mood captured here would have been lost by moving back and zooming in with a longer focal length. Perhaps a quick move to the right could have reduced the distortion on the left, but still the candid nature of this image would most likely have faded. It’s a great photograph. Nothing “wrong” with it.