# "Technical" vs. "Artistic": Should One Trump The Other?



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

In another thread, there's a discussion regarding the technical merits of a photo of a young lady. One poster pointed out many of the technical flaws of the photo, and every single one of his criticisms were correct, in a technical sense.

But it's still a really good photo.

So, that begs the question: Should proper technique trump "artistic expression"?

If so, why? If artistic expression is to trump technique, should it _always _do so?

My opinion is this: In doing product shoots for Bose and Mesa Boogie, I needed the photos to be technically correct. Period. I was being paid by clients to produce marketing images for them. My "artistic vision" didn't really matter all too much.

But if I'm shooting a concert, or candids on the street, "technical", for me, runs a distant second to artistic expression.

There is a time and place for both, and my experience is that they rarely occur simultaneously to the same degree.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 31, 2013)

How about...

An artistic interpretation is best when rendered with technical accuracy.  An artistic interpretation rendered without technical accuracy cannot convey the message as effectively as the same image executed properly, however a technically excellent image with no artistic strength is essentially "just another snapshot".


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 31, 2013)

that picture got plenty of praise on its artistic merits. but it was posted in a section where technical merits are often judged as well. and it was. 
the response to those technical critiques were..well, you know how it went. 
anyway, part of posting here, and especially in a section that specifically caters to professional C&C, is having the ability to accept whatever C&C is given. 
as long as that critique is given in a technical and respectful manner, it should be received as such and things should move along. 

the great part about this forum is....you have so many people here with different styles, techniques, and feelings on what makes a good photo. 
your question of what trumps what...it doesn't make any sense to me. people that feel artistic license is more important will probably always feel that way, and people that focus on the technical aspects of a picture will probably never be convinced of the "artistic" value over its flaws. its just a different camp of thought and I dont think one is any better or worse than the other. if you went out to shoot an artistic piece, and despite any technical flaws, you achieved what you envisioned....then it was a successful photograph. BUT, to a person looking at from photography technique, they might have some issues with it. 

art is a feeling. you cant really PROVE art to someone. they either "feel" the piece or they dont. its much easier though, to show someone technical mistakes. 
i might take a crappy technical photo and really love it. but if I posted it here...i would say, heres my photo. I love it. I know it has "insert technical flaws here" wrong with it, but I love it on a personal or artistic level because "insert whatever personal reasons here".  If a more learned photographer pointed out a hundered technical reasons why my photo was crap, im fine with that because I know its true. I like it for personal or artistic reasons, not technical ones.


----------



## nonamexx (Mar 31, 2013)

Technical as in... overexposed, underexposed, wrong WB,  wrong ISO, wrong focus, etc. Am I right? Now as for composition: does comes under technical merit or art? Because often people criticize composition as though it is a technical flaw, but in my view, composition is an artistic choice - may be right or wrong. But that is an artistic issue.

P.S. people can also get pretty technical about art, so it all gets a bit complicated.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 31, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> My opinion is this: *In doing product shoots for Bose and Mesa Boogie*, I needed the photos to be technically correct. Period. I was being paid by clients to produce marketing images for them. My "artistic vision" didn't really matter all too much.



This bold text above is what is called 'Argument from Authority'
In short, it is saying in a sub-text, 'I have this high level experience, therefore my opinion should have some weight.'

I just mention that because, on the other hand, I have no experience so you might want to devalue my opinion (which is, as follows below in italics to make it stand out)

_I don't shoot for pixel-peepers; I don't care what they think.  I can't satisfy everyone and so I choose to satisfy myself so I shoot for myself and, incidentally, for people who like the style of what I shoot.  My personal mantra is that* technical perfection is only important if it stands between the viewer and the enjoyment of the image. 
*Thus I try to get good technicals but I mostly try to get great shots and let the technicals fall where they may._


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 31, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion is this: *In doing product shoots for Bose and Mesa Boogie*, I needed the photos to be technically correct. Period. I was being paid by clients to produce marketing images for them. My "artistic vision" didn't really matter all too much.
> ...



authority? whos claiming to have any authority?
what "I" got from that statement was this. 
"when I shot for this company, i had to focus on technically accurate photographs. when I shoot for myself, i can focus on artistic photographs"
people "name drop" here all the time. for all manner of reasons. I didnt get any "better than you" vibes from Steve, just that he was trying to show a real reason as to why he might have shot differently for different clients.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 31, 2013)

'Argument from authority' is not my construct but is the technical term for that kind of usage where one cites experience or knowledge to back up his/her opinion.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 31, 2013)

Eh.  One person's garbage is another person's treasure.  There's an intersection between technical and artistic - where that intersection lies, and how big are the circles depends on the individual. And if the criteria is whether an image evokes emotion, then the lowly snapshot wins hands down, as there is more emotion tied in to the ordinary snapshot (for the people involved, that is) than most of us can summon with our "artistic" images.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2013)

If I from the get go decide I want my photo to be underexposed for a reason, than that is a conscious technical choice. If I go out and take a photo that I later find to be underexposed, that is a mistake and needs to be pointed out.

It's all about intent. That us not saying that there aren't happy accidents but for the most part it isn't the case.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> 'Argument from authority' is not my construct but is the technical term for that kind of usage where one cites experience or knowledge to back up his/her opinion.



Logical fallacies.

Right up there with poisoning  the well, straw man argument and so on.

Perfect example of argument from authority is any add or commercial you with someone wearing a lab coat. Even if the product is some quack cure your brain automatically assumes its legit because we have been programmed to trust doctors.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 31, 2013)

The poll is a little odd, and suffers from the "planted axiom" fallacy! The third choice introduces a client, and thereby suggests that the poll is about commercial photography.

I'm not commercial, at all, so. I answered 'artistic' is the only thing that matters to me, because that's all I care about. With 'artistic' pretty broadly construed, to cover everything that's not technical. Whatever THAT is.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 31, 2013)

runnah said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > 'Argument from authority' is not my construct but is the technical term for that kind of usage where one cites experience or knowledge to back up his/her opinion.
> ...



that makes more sense. 
I dont think thats what Steve did at all though. He simply cited actual real world experience with a real client where the results were relevant to the discussion. 
I dont think his mentioning the name of the company was meant in any way to show arrogance, but to show that his opinion is based on actual in the field working knowledge. 

and honestly, I personally think its a better piece of evidence than the "i know better because ive been shooting for 100 years" argument.


----------



## KmH (Mar 31, 2013)

The better the photographer's technical understanding, the broader the range of artistic possibilities available to the photographer.

But since there are no rules, just guidelines, and since art it totally subjective, the real issue is if an end result is the product of technical/artistic mistakes - or intention.

Accidentally making a stunning image without knowing the technical or artistic factors that make it stunning limits lessons that can be learned from the accident.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> that makes more sense.
> I dont think thats what Steve did at all though. He simply cited actual real world experience with a real client where the results were relevant to the discussion.
> I dont think his mentioning the name of the company was meant in any way to show arrogance, but to show that his opinion is based on actual in the field working knowledge.
> 
> and honestly, I personally think its a better piece of evidence than the "i know better because ive been shooting for 100 years" argument.



Mentioning the company name did nothing but bolster his claims of authority. If he had jus said "a high end product company" would that have carried as much weight and have had the same effect of backing up his claims?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 31, 2013)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > that makes more sense.
> ...



seriously? here? no. SOMEONE would have immediately called him out for making it up and demanded he reveal his so called "client".
why is making a factual statement about a place he produced work for suddenly him being a braggart?
noone here is asked how many years experience they have, yet it comes up all the time as "evidence" of knowledge. 
plenty of people have given critique and cited very specific pro events they have shot, instead of "some famous car race", or, some multinational athletic event. 
is your work resume bragging to a potential employer? or is it the only way you can show that you have relevant experience?


----------



## LouR (Mar 31, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The poll is a little odd, and suffers from the "planted axiom" fallacy! The third choice introduces a client, and thereby suggests that the poll is about commercial photography.
> 
> I'm not commercial, at all, so. I answered 'artistic' is the only thing that matters to me, because that's all I care about. With 'artistic' pretty broadly construed, to cover everything that's not technical. Whatever THAT is.


It is worded "wrong" but the intent is "whatevah" so I chose it. I am not really a "commercial" photographer at all, I shoot what pleases me and hope it pleases others enough to hand over some hard earned dollars.  However, with the exception of one unintentionally blurred accident, I have to be sure that most technical aspects are met; clarity, brightness (or darkness, depending on the subject), proper cropping within the context of the piece, things like that.  If people have to ask "WTF is that?", then I have failed in those aspects.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2013)

I prefer artistic images without distractions! Distractions would be poor choices in technique, and the technical prerequisites. An artistic image that is over / under exposed, has branches though the subject face, OOF in the wrong places, Poor choice of DOF, harsh lighting, etc, etc... is usually not something I care for. There are exceptions where this can still work, but it is the overall totality of the image, the merger of the technical with the artistic.. that makes an image for me! You can seldom have one without the other.... IMO!

I didn't vote.. as I don't feel there is an option that covers this....


----------



## KenC (Mar 31, 2013)

I voted for the third option because it really does depend on circumstances, like almost everything in life.

As far as the technical "correctness" of a photo, even that is a matter of opinion.  Exposure can be chosen to emphasize detail in either the shadows or highlights in a contrasty scene and focus is also a choice when near-infinite DOF either is not possible or not desirable (another choice).  I'm afraid what we're left with is a fuzzy subjective opinion about whether an image works for us.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

View attachment 40651Here is the image that started this whole thread. So, lets discuss it.

My goal of this shot was to get a very soft, delicate, and candid feel of this young girl. I am shooting through twigs and sticks, and I put the focus directly on the eyes. I did not want everything to be tack sharp, or I would not have been shooting through anything. I would have done a direct shot. Was this an artistic choice? For sure! Did I get what I wanted out of this shot. Yes. This client and her mother will not walk away from their ordering session saying, "Man, if only she was placed on the left side, or if only her hand wasn't so bright and high in intensity we would have spent more money." They will walk away with what I set them up to walk away with, which is an expressive, artistic image. Which is who she is. As long as I remain consistent then clients know what they are paying for, and they know what to expect from me. At this point, I know my style and I know what sells. So, if I continue to marry the two of those, then I will continue to grow. The second I lose sight of the artistic aspect is the time I will start to lose sight of my sales. I also agree with KMH in which the greater understanding of the technical aspects, the greater the range of artistic possibilities.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> View attachment 40651Here is the image that started this whole thread. So, lets discuss it.
> 
> My goal of this shot was to get a very soft, delicate, and candid feel of this young girl. I am shooting through twigs and sticks, and I put the focus directly on the eyes. I did not want everything to be tack sharp, or I would not have been shooting through anything. I would have done a direct shot. Was this an artistic choice? For sure! Did I get what I wanted out of this shot. Yes. This client and her mother will not walk away from their ordering session saying, "Man, if only she was placed on the left side, or if only her hand wasn't so bright and high in intensity we would have spent more money." They will walk away with what I set them up to walk away with, which is an expressive, artistic image. Which is who she is. As long as I remain consistent then clients know what they are paying for, and they know what to expect from me. At this point, I know my style and I know what sells. So, if I continue to marry the two of those, then I will continue to grow. The second I lose sight of the artistic aspect is the time I will start to lose sight of my sales. I also agree with KMH in which the greater understanding of the technical aspects, the greater the range of artistic possibilities.



I actually like the image... although I hate the headchop. But it is a popular look today... and it sells! If I was still shooting professionally.. I would probably be forced to shoot like this.. just to be competitive. But I would probably do less "headchop" even then... personal preference! I would have also probably shot it vertically.. since I am more of a traditionalist that way...  and it would show off more of that lovely lady without the "wasted" space.

I am not saying Kathy is wrong to shoot it this way... I am saying I would not do it that way!


----------



## TimothyJinx (Mar 31, 2013)

Kathy, very well said. I'm new and I'm a noob so I guess my opinion carries very little weight. But photography, like many other realms I've been in throughout my life, has its share of over-sized egos. Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous. I love this picture. Very nice job!


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2013)

TimothyJinx said:


> Kathy, very well said. I'm new and I'm a noob so I guess my opinion carries very little weight. But photography, like many other realms I've been in throughout my life, has its share of over-sized egos. Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous. I love this picture. Very nice job!



There are NO technical aspects missing... but there are some "inclusions" that would make many traditionalists and classically trained artists call it a snapshot. But it is a nice image... light is nice, subject is nice, focus is nice... but is a "Today" photo, shot in today's trends and fashions! That does not make it right or wrong... but that doesn't mean every has to like it... or that everyone will hate it either. 

Noobs will like it more than old-timers will... because this this the type of image they are most exposed to... what they expect!


----------



## TimothyJinx (Mar 31, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Noobs will like it more than old-timers will... because this this the type of image they are most exposed to... what they expect!



No disrespect, because I'm sure you are a very talented photographer. But this is exactly what I'm talking about - what you are saying is I'm not experienced or smart enough to know what to like.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2013)

TimothyJinx said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Noobs will like it more than old-timers will... because this this the type of image they are most exposed to... what they expect!
> ...



No.. I am saying you like what you are learning to like, which is what you are exposed to, what is popular! I am saying that you have not been exposed to forty or fifty years of photography AS a photographer. You have only been exposed to the modern photography AS a photographer! 

You like what you like.... I like what I like.... no big deal.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 31, 2013)

TimothyJinx, being a noob doesn't mean you're not qualified to say "I like that" and "I don't like that" and ultimately, that's all anyone can do. A pro just knows more about where to stick the lights to make it so more people would have liked it 5 years ago.


----------



## TimothyJinx (Mar 31, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> TimothyJinx said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2013)

TimothyJinx said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > TimothyJinx said:
> ...



Good! There was no offense or condescension intended! We merely have totally different viewpoints! I can see from your avatar that you are probably close to the same generation as I am... but the reason I stressed above "AS a photographer", is that you look at things differently once you start getting serious about photography... you look at framing, composition, lighting, etc....  which you would not have really paid much attention to.. PRE-Photography! I hope you understand what I am trying to say...


----------



## Derrel (Mar 31, 2013)

I remember leaving the movie, "The Tooth Fairy" with my then six and a half-year-old son, who excitedly said, "Wasn't that just the BEST movie EVER, Dad!!??", and I said, "Yes, yes it was!"  A few weeks later, I took him to another kid movie, and as we left he said, "That was the BEST movie I have ever,ever SEEN! What did you think of it, Dad?" and I said, , "Oh MAN, it was totally AWESOME!" And you know what? As a movie for KIDS, it WAS, indeed, very good!!!!

Fast forward three years, and I was involved in an on-line discussion about the comedy/slasher movie entitled, "A Night In The Woods" A Night in the Woods (2011) - IMDb   with some 20-something people...some of them thought the film was pretty good...others, with a bit more cinematic seasoning, saw the obvious failures.

I went to see an Oregon Shakespearean festival production of The Taming of The Shrew, and wondered as I sat there why more episodes of The Simpsons were not nearly as good as that moldy old play.

I think there are many levels of craft. In painting we have Dogs Playing Poker []Dogs Playing POker - Google Search, the epitome of kitsch, and then we have things like Guernica. Both are "painting". But both have very,very different levels of artistic involvement. At times it's good to go along,like I did with my young son and agree, wholeheartedly, and say things like, "YES! That kid movie is the best movie ever made!" The level of the craft needs to be sufficient for the level of artistic expression desired. (I think that a famous photographer once said something kind of like that statement.) Kid movies are not the same as historical drama, like the film Lincoln, or Schindler's List, and different levels of craft are needed for each type of movie. An episode of The Simpsons is vastly different than a Shakespearean play, and in today's marketplace, an episode of The Simpsons is probably more marketable than a Shakespearean play, and yet, I highly doubt that most universities world-wide will offer courses in The Simpsons. And let me assure you, the movie A Night In The Woods is a very,very,very weak offering in its genre, but in today's market, younger viewers bought enough tickets to, probably, recoup the cost of production of the movie.

What do the above examples have in common? Well, in all of them, the "technical" [as a singular quality] was adequate for their genre and target audience. However, the "artistic" aims of all of the above examples I brought up were very different. Some shoot low,others swing for the fences. The Simpsons is a product of modern industrial animation techniques and "the technical", bringing cartoon figures to "life". Shakespeare's works were based upon true artistry, bringing archetypal feelings, emotions, and concocted characters to life, to such a degree that people are still paying money to see his artistry over 400 years later.


----------



## TimothyJinx (Mar 31, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Good! There was no offense or condescension intended! We merely have totally different viewpoints! I can see from your avatar that you are probably close to the same generation as I am... but the reason I stressed above "AS a photographer", is that you look at things differently once you start getting serious about photography... you look at framing, composition, lighting, etc....  which you would not have really paid much attention to.. PRE-Photography! I hope you understand what I am trying to say...



Wow, did you just call me old? Just kidding and no offense taken. I understand where you are coming from


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I remember leaving the movie, "The Tooth Fairy" with my then six and a half-year-old son, who excitedly said, "Wasn't that just the BEST movie EVER, Dad!!??", and I said, "Yes, yes it was!"  A few weeks later, I took him to another kid movie, and as we left he said, "That was the BEST movie I have ever,ever SEEN! What did you think of it, Dad?" and I said, , "Oh MAN, it was totally AWESOME!" And you know what? As a movie for KIDS, it WAS, indeed, very good!!!!
> 
> Fast forward three years, and I was involved in an on-line discussion about the comedy/slasher movie entitled, "A Night In The Woods" A Night in the Woods (2011) - IMDb   with some 20-something people...some of them thought the film was pretty good...others, with a bit more cinematic seasoning, saw the obvious failures.
> 
> ...



Nicely written! I agree.. the trends and fads come and go! The "Art" stays...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 31, 2013)

Personally I like everything about the photo except one thing, her hand doesn't look like it belongs in the photo.  There is nothing really wrong technically with the photo, the light is nice, the focus point is right, I don't like the crop, which is probably why the hand doesn't look right.  I try not to look at photographs from a technical aspect, but more from the emotional side.  I don't always know why I like a photo, but I do know why I don't like a photo.  It may be technically perfect, but if I don't connect with it, it means little to me.

I've shot photos that don't mean anything to me, but the client likes them, they may not even be artistically or technically perfect, but it doesn't matter as long as they work for the people that are looking at them.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I remember leaving the movie, "The Tooth Fairy" with my then six and a half-year-old son, who excitedly said, "Wasn't that just the BEST movie EVER, Dad!!??", and I said, "Yes, yes it was!" A few weeks later, I took him to another kid movie, and as we left he said, "That was the BEST movie I have ever,ever SEEN! What did you think of it, Dad?" and I said, , "Oh MAN, it was totally AWESOME!" And you know what? As a movie for KIDS, it WAS, indeed, very good!!!!
> 
> Fast forward three years, and I was involved in an on-line discussion about the comedy/slasher movie entitled, "A Night In The Woods" A Night in the Woods (2011) - IMDb with some 20-something people...some of them thought the film was pretty good...others, with a bit more cinematic seasoning, saw the obvious failures.
> 
> ...



This is a great art history lesson, but what are _YOU_ bringing to your clients that is unique and that sets you apart from other people? What do you consider more important in your own images rather than the works of others? Times are changing. You continually say, well so and so does this or that, and your breaking this rule and that rule. Well, show us what _YOU_ are bringing to the table. I would much rather see that then to constantly hear you talk so much about other artists. Become your own artist and then lets talk about that. Also, Shakespeare's work was not a part of my business plan. My work was. So, if I would like to carry out my plan as intended then I must take the lead, and not follow in the path of others.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 31, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I remember leaving the movie, "The Tooth Fairy" with my then six and a half-year-old son, who excitedly said, "Wasn't that just the BEST movie EVER, Dad!!??", and I said, "Yes, yes it was!" A few weeks later, I took him to another kid movie, and as we left he said, "That was the BEST movie I have ever,ever SEEN! What did you think of it, Dad?" and I said, , "Oh MAN, it was totally AWESOME!" And you know what? As a movie for KIDS, it WAS, indeed, very good!!!!
> ...




I think maybe you could have asked what Derrel brings to the table...well, probably before you were even born. I think he may have earned the right by now, not to have to qualify his every statement with proof like most of us relatively new photographers.  I dont think anyone here has said anything to the contrary of you working however you want to, or even that it was right or wrong. Derrel only offered critique on a photograph. nothing more. 

OUR clients, mainly wedding and portrait, ask for a certain level of technical correctness and formality. and that's what we aspire to deliver to them. 
we do very little "candid" and almost zero "natural light" photography. that is simply the way we choose to do business, and it is what our clients want us to do for them. 
to say that other people are not artistic because of YOUR standards, is doing to other people, exactly what you complained was being done to you. because by YOUR definition, OUR work is not artistic. and we are ok with that, because our clients are ok with it. 

and honestly...there is almost nothing anymore that is entirely unique about any photography style. its all been done.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 31, 2013)

Kathy, I write long replies to all sorts of topics, all *across this forum*, on all topics. I have no idea why you're once again trying to attack me ad hominem, except that your feelings are still bruised from the thread you started, and then had closed earlier today. What the heck does the *OP's post*, and my response to it in THIS thread, HIS thread, have to do with YOU, and *YOUR axe to grind?
*
My post above is not and was not about "you" Kathy, or your most recent thread, which you posted in The Professional Gallery. Please take a look at where this is posted. We are here, in the Photographic Discussions section of TPF. It's a big,big forum. 

Why are you stalking me, Kathy?

By the way, in the poll earlier this MORNING, when I voted, I voted "_It would depend on the situation, the client, and the desired image."_


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



What? I asked Derrel a question about right now, not forty years ago. Right now. Present tense. To say it has all been done is absolute hog wash. Let him speak for himself.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 31, 2013)

TimothyJinx said:


> Kathy, very well said. I'm new and I'm a noob so I guess my opinion carries very little weight. *But photography, like many other realms I've been in throughout my life, has its share of over-sized egos. *Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous. I love this picture. Very nice job!



Let me point out something in this post. 
I don't disagree necessarily with the idea but, considering the history of this discussion, there is a certain amount of passive aggressive behavior in talking about *some people with over-sized egos. 
*
If I had been Derrel and made the comment that started the previous ruckus, I would feel that this above was a sneaky jab at me.
It could have been easily left out of the paragraph without changing the meaning.
It isn't productive behavior to do this in the middle of a different discussion.


----------



## IByte (Mar 31, 2013)

Ladies and gents can't we settle this over a pint(5-8 for me)?


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Kathy, I write long replies to all sorts of topics, all *across this forum*, on all topics. I have no idea why you're once again trying to attack me ad hominem, except that your feelings are still bruised from the thread you started, and then had closed earlier today. What the heck does the *OP's post*, and my response to it in THIS thread, HIS thread, have to do with YOU, and *YOUR axe to grind?
> *
> My post above is not and was not about "you" Kathy, or your most recent thread, which you posted in The Professional Gallery. Please take a look at where this is posted. We are here, in the Photographic Discussions section of TPF. It's a big,big forum.
> 
> ...



Who said that post was about me? I didn't. I was responding to what_ YOU _wrote in THIS thread. Are your posts off limits to make comments on? How was that an attack Derrel? My point was that we are our own artist, and that we can certainly gain inspiration from past artists, but ultimately we must form our own identity to become successful. My feelings are not bruised over your "critique" Derrel. That I can promise you.


----------



## TimothyJinx (Mar 31, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> TimothyJinx said:
> 
> 
> > Kathy, very well said. I'm new and I'm a noob so I guess my opinion carries very little weight. *But photography, like many other realms I've been in throughout my life, has its share of over-sized egos. *Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous. I love this picture. Very nice job!
> ...




First of all, I certainly wasn't talking to or about Darrel. In fact, I think his comment came after mine but I'm not sure. Secondly, I didn't intend to be passive aggressive - I was just trying to make the point that our egos sometimes drive us to want to be able to point out flaws or indicate broken rules. I'm truly sorry if I've offended you or anyone else.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2013)

I volunteer myself as a giver of consoling hugs to to Kathy.


----------



## IByte (Mar 31, 2013)

runnah said:


> I volunteer myself as a giver of consoling hugs to to Kathy.



Maybe a group hug lol.


----------



## runnah (Mar 31, 2013)

IByte said:


> Maybe a group hug lol.



I think that would have the opposite effect.


----------



## IByte (Mar 31, 2013)

runnah said:


> I think that would have the opposite effect.



It's all about hugs not drugs .


----------



## kathyt (Mar 31, 2013)

runnah said:


> I volunteer myself as a giver of consoling hugs to to Kathy.



You just made me spit my water out laughing.  Thank you.


----------



## cynicaster (Apr 2, 2013)

TimothyJinx said:


> Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous.



Wow man, that is what I was going to say, verbatim.  

I'm fairly new to photography as well, but I've been big into music for 20 years, and it's the exact same story in that medium.  You get these self-righteous blowhards who go on and on about how band A puts band B to shame, simply because band A plays songs in odd time signatures with 8 minute tap-style guitar solos, while band B constructs songs out of 4 chords and has no solos at all. To be completely honest, I sometimes find myself feeling sorry for people like that; people whose brains simply cannot acknowledge beauty in things that fail to achieve some minimum score on a set of technical metrics.      

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm "anti-technical-prowess" in photography, far from it; I'm simply saying that some people fail to see a picture simply because the pixels are in the way.


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 2, 2013)

IByte said:


> Ladies and gents can't we settle this over a pint(5-8 for me)?



I like the sound of this. Pints galore!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 2, 2013)

cynicaster said:


> TimothyJinx said:
> 
> 
> > Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous.
> ...



To take an extreme example, however... what if the composition is awesome, the message is riveting, the subject is enticing... but it's so out of focus that you literally can't see any of it?  Like it's all a big blur.  That would be an exceptional example of where technical abilities would make the artistic rendering useless.

Now is this usually the case?  No.  It's usually a bit under-exposed or out of focus, or whatever... but the point is that technical elements CAN be a detriment to the final product and the artistic elements, so saying they are unimportant is incorrect.

It also helps to think of painting rather than photography.  Most anyone can get a camera to at least SORT of work and get a picture out of it... but not that many people can come anywhere NEAR as close to their artistic vision with paint... without having a technical skill in how to do it.

Technical issues matter quite a bit.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 2, 2013)

By the way, I think the poll is (essentially) too binary.

It basically says:

a> technical
b> artistic
c> depends on situation

C is sorta silly, I think, but regardless... the answer really is a AND b.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 2, 2013)

manaheim said:
			
		

> SNIP>>>>>>>>>Technical issues matter quite a bit.



Except when they *hardly matter one bit*...

The Execution of A Vietcong Guerilla | Iconic Photos

Here is a photo seen around the world, and which has become truly iconic...and which has weak technical values for its time and for the imaging system used to make it...out of literally MILLIONS of frames exposed during the Vietnam War, this one,single image has become one of the two most-recognized images of the entire war...


----------



## TATTRAT (Apr 2, 2013)

cynicaster said:


> Wow man, that is what I was going to say, verbatim.
> 
> I'm fairly new to photography as well, but I've been big into music for 20 years, and it's the exact same story in that medium.  You get these self-righteous blowhards who go on and on about how band A puts band B to shame, simply because band A plays songs in odd time signatures with 8 minute tap-style guitar solos, while band B constructs songs out of 4 chords and has no solos at all. To be completely honest, I sometimes find myself feeling sorry for people like that; people whose brains simply cannot acknowledge beauty in things that fail to achieve some minimum score on a set of technical metrics.




Exactly. Some will say the whole "photography is subjective" is hogwash, but, photography, like music, is art and is open to all sorts of interpretation. There are technical musicians, there are jam bands. .. hell, there are even technical jam bands with a million and six genres in between. Same with photography. 

The top 40 pop billboards are FULL of this "Art" that is so "loved", for a few weeks at a time, then there are "The CLASSICS", that pass the test of time. Coming from someone with a musical background, the top 40 is hogwash (a majority of it). Fact is, it IS subjective. Everyone's personal experience/knowledge/know how/background reflects in what they consider to be "Art". . .either to the eyes or the ears.


----------



## TimothyJinx (Apr 2, 2013)

cynicaster said:


> Wow man, that is what I was going to say, verbatim.
> 
> I'm fairly new to photography as well, but I've been big into music for 20 years, and it's the exact same story in that medium.  You get these self-righteous blowhards who go on and on about how band A puts band B to shame, simply because band A plays songs in odd time signatures with 8 minute tap-style guitar solos, while band B constructs songs out of 4 chords and has no solos at all. To be completely honest, I sometimes find myself feeling sorry for people like that; people whose brains simply cannot acknowledge beauty in things that fail to achieve some minimum score on a set of technical metrics.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm "anti-technical-prowess" in photography, far from it; I'm simply saying that some people fail to see a picture simply because the pixels are in the way.



cynicaster, I know exactly what you mean. I've played in bands since I was 15 years old and I'm 52 now. I can't tell you how many times I've been ridiculed for enjoying certain types of music. Either because it's considered "corporate rock" or because the musicians are not technically proficient or whatever. Personally, I just like a song or I don't. But I agree - I think we should strive to produce the best photographs we can. But we can never let the technical aspects become more important than what we are actually trying to convey.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 2, 2013)

Derrel said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yeah you've got me there... but that is an OVERWHELMINGLY powerful message and the photo is clear enough to convey it and the technical issues are minor enough to not matter by comparison.

I suppose another way to think about it is a balance of sorts... or perhaps a total quantitative value of some kind.  X points in technical + Y points in message = Z good photo. 

I know that massively cheapens it, but you know what I mean.


----------



## runnah (Apr 2, 2013)

I like to call it the Uma Thurman effect. From every technical aspect she is weird, feet big enough to ski on and hands the size of tennis racquets. But still she is hot. She has that X factor that makes her appealing.

Now apply that to photos.


----------



## mishele (Apr 3, 2013)

Don't you people sleep? Lol


----------



## runnah (Apr 3, 2013)

mishele said:


> Don't you people sleep? Lol



Not when there are well trod debates such as these!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 3, 2013)

runnah said:


> Not when there are well trod debates such as these!



So... Never then?


----------



## cynicaster (Apr 3, 2013)

manaheim said:


> cynicaster said:
> 
> 
> > TimothyJinx said:
> ...




Your example about how even a generally &#8220;good&#8221; photo could be made better by closer adherence to textbook tenets is, in my opinion, built upon a very questionable premise; namely, that enhancement of one or two technical aspects of a photo will likely lead to a commensurate enhancement in the overall impact of the photo.  If a particular combination of subject, composition, lighting pattern, exposure, white balance, noise level, DoF, etc. comes together in a harmonious whole that just works, then, well, tinker with that at your own peril.  As far as I&#8217;m concerned, at that point, the only thing a rigorous technical analysis achieves is to suck the life and human touch out of a pleasant creation. 

Besides, nobody is saying the technical side doesn&#8217;t matter; of course it does.  The suggestion isn&#8217;t that  any old ham-fisted technique will do, it&#8217;s that the moment a photo &#8220;moves&#8221; its viewer is the moment it has achieved a measure of success, completely regardless of the unacceptable acutance that is manifested in the lower right cobblestone foreground when viewed at  200% zoom.  You know as well as I do that there are people out there with strong enough techno-OCD to let something that silly &#8220;ruin&#8221; a photograph for them.  That&#8217;s their prerogative&#8212;and, if you ask me, their loss.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 3, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



I thinks it is a different equation.

Y points in message - Z points in bad technicals = Result.

Because technicals can't 'make' a picture with no impact - except for _techno-anals_ - but bad technicals can hurt a picture


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

The thing is "technical goodness" isn't even a meaningful phrase. Any technical element can be used powerfully in either direction.

Technical elements of photography are just effects that can be applied. Put the focus here, put it there, you get different images. Warm colors, cool colors, you get different images. Sharper or softer, different images. These images all feel different to the viewer and they either work or not. The effect either supports the image and the ideas in it, detracts from them, or is neutral.

The only real difference is whether you can do it in post. Sharper is better up front not because sharper is better, but because you can't add sharpness in post. You_can _add the opposite of sharpness.

As technology advances, the list of technical stuff you _can_ change in post gets longer, though. See Lytro cameras, light-field tech, for a contemporary example.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 3, 2013)

cynicaster said:


> Your example about how even a generally &ldquo;good&rdquo; photo could be made better by closer adherence to textbook tenets is, in my opinion, built upon a very questionable premise; namely, that enhancement of one or two technical aspects of a photo will likely lead to a commensurate enhancement in the overall impact of the photo.  If a particular combination of subject, composition, lighting pattern, exposure, white balance, noise level, DoF, etc. comes together in a harmonious whole that just works, then, well, tinker with that at your own peril.  As far as I&rsquo;m concerned, at that point, the only thing a rigorous technical analysis achieves is to suck the life and human touch out of a pleasant creation.
> 
> Besides, nobody is saying the technical side doesn&rsquo;t matter; of course it does.  The suggestion isn&rsquo;t that  any old ham-fisted technique will do, it&rsquo;s that the moment a photo &ldquo;moves&rdquo; its viewer is the moment it has achieved a measure of success, completely regardless of the unacceptable acutance that is manifested in the lower right cobblestone foreground when viewed at  200% zoom.  You know as well as I do that there are people out there with strong enough techno-OCD to let something that silly &ldquo;ruin&rdquo; a photograph for them.  That&rsquo;s their prerogative&mdash;and, if you ask me, their loss.



That's not what I said.

Traveller phrased it perfectly so I won't rehash it... But basically good art minus sufficient points for technical issues can make a bad photo.  I would NEVER suggest that bad art + technical points = good photo.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The thing is "technical goodness" isn't even a meaningful phrase. Any technical element can be used powerfully in either direction.
> 
> Technical elements of photography are just effects that can be applied. Put the focus here, put it there, you get different images. Warm colors, cool colors, you get different images. Sharper or softer, different images. These images all feel different to the viewer and they either work or not. The effect either supports the image and the ideas in it, detracts from them, or is neutral.
> 
> ...



Technical goodness... Is really the skill necessary to execute the photo you want in the way you want it.  You bring up a great point though... If I want overexposure in a certain part of the photo I need to know how to do that to execute on my artistic vision... Which IS what I'm saying, except that it also brings about the point that something that would traditionally be called "a mistake" and panned would actually be intentional.  Ergo a "bad" image can actually be a "good" one ... If the artist intended it as such and the message is effectively carried.

Ugh.  That hurts my head.

Good thought provoking comment as always, amolitor.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 3, 2013)

To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable. There IS always the chance that someone can just get "lucky" with a shot. (someone has to win the lottery, right?) To somewhat clarify, the real problem is....you cant argue "art" or "sentimental value". you can only argue technical aspects of a photo like focus, cropping, color...some of those might have been done as an artistic choice, or maybe by mistake, or even poor post processing choices. But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures. I suppose they have the right to claim "artistic choice" as much as the next person, but I think there is a big difference between someone that CAN take a technically good photo that sometimes chooses to break the rules for the sake of art, and someone that cries "its my artistic style" due to a lack of fundamental camera skills.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

The claim of "artistic choice" implies a choice. If you made it out of focus on purpose, that's an artistic choice. If you made it out of focus because you don't know how to make it in focus, that's not a choice. If you then CLAIM it was an artistic choice, you're just lying 

The picture might still work, or not work, though!


----------



## kathyt (Apr 3, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable. There IS always the chance that someone can just get "lucky" with a shot. (someone has to win the lottery, right?) To somewhat clarify, the real problem is....you cant argue "art" or "sentimental value". you can only argue technical aspects of a photo like focus, cropping, color...some of those might have been done as an artistic choice, or maybe by mistake, or even poor post processing choices. But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures. I suppose they have the right to claim "artistic choice" as much as the next person, but I think there is a big difference between someone that CAN take a technically good photo that sometimes chooses to break the rules for the sake of art, and someone that cries "its my artistic style" due to a lack of fundamental camera skills.



This pretty much sums it up right here. It is going to be a case by case basis. I can't have a completely unfocused, scattered, **** portfolio, and then call it "art." There has to be some technical knowledge swimming in there somewhere for someone to look at my work and tell if I know what I am doing.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

If you give a bunch of bozos a bunch of cameras and have them take 1,000,000 photographs, and then curate and photoshop that down to a collection of 50 stylistically connected and powerful images, what then? You've got a strong portfolio, potentially. You have exactly zero capacity to add a 51st photograph to it, though, which is, I feel, an interesting point.

Who's the artist? Is it art at all? Hep! Hep! What's going on here?!


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> If you give a bunch of bozos a bunch of cameras and have them take 1,000,000 photographs, and then curate and photoshop that down to a collection of 50 stylistically connected and powerful images, what then? You've got a strong portfolio, potentially. You have exactly zero capacity to add a 51st photograph to it, though, which is, I feel, an interesting point.
> 
> Who's the artist? Is it art at all? Hep! Hep! What's going on here?!



I'm a bit insulted.
You're describing my methodology and calling me a bozo.


----------



## nonamexx (Apr 3, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable. There IS always the chance that someone can just get "lucky" with a shot. (someone has to win the lottery, right?) To somewhat clarify, the real problem is....you cant argue "art" or "sentimental value". you can only argue technical aspects of a photo like focus, cropping, color...some of those might have been done as an artistic choice, or maybe by mistake, or even poor post processing choices. But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures. I suppose they have the right to claim "artistic choice" as much as the next person, but I think there is a big difference between someone that CAN take a technically good photo that sometimes chooses to break the rules for the sake of art, and someone that cries "its my artistic style" due to a lack of fundamental camera skills.



You make very good points, but this may be a reason why value judgements are formed based on the perceived skill level of the photographer in question and not the actual image posted for critique, leading to quite a bit of subjective bias. This is true not just of this forum, but in general media as well. 

Too often a photograph put up for critique alone is not criticized, but by implication photographer as well. A person putting a photo for critique is asking for what is right or wrong with that particular photo. I've read critiques here that become patronizing and condescending about a photographer's skills, particularly when they attempt something different outside their comfort zone. If a critique is given,  the technical flaws may be highlighted but must be balanced with other aspects to give a rounded perspective. Let the photographer then decide how to go about improving. Not all of us go around with a camera all the time and when we do, it's purely a hobby. That is one reason why those who put their work for critique also become defensive. 

If a beginner has got 'lucky', so what? It's almost as though some critics gets riled up that a beginner could take such a great photo without much thought when an expert takes the effort. The critic's role is the review the picture, not the photographer's mindset when taking the picture. Critics sometimes go way beyond their scope and try to "mentor" when not asked for. Some people seem to enjoy going out of the way to analyze too much and in the process provide advice that is not really appreciated. In that case, they have no logical basis to get defensive when asked to show their own work.

I now realize that part of the reason why I've been intimidated to post much on this forum is not because most of the experts here have the knowledge and experience, but from browsing around, I found that some people can  get quite condescending or dismissive about those who don't have the knowledge or experience. This is human nature. The bar is set too high. Technical perfection combined with artistic perfection is a tough goal. There's also a lot of implicit gear snobbery.

On the other hand, many reviews are nice and considerate,  and useful at the same time. So thumbs up to all those who take time to review others' work to genuinely help out and not to feel superior.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> I'm a bit insulted.
> You're describing my methodology and calling me a bozo.



Sorry, man. I meant _genius_ of course. They're, like, RIGHT NEXT to one another on the keyboard.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 3, 2013)

amolitor said:


> If you give a bunch of bozos a bunch of cameras and have them take 1,000,000 photographs, and then curate and photoshop that down to a collection of 50 stylistically connected and powerful images, what then? You've got a strong portfolio, potentially. You have exactly zero capacity to add a 51st photograph to it, though, which is, I feel, an interesting point.
> 
> Who's the artist? Is it art at all? Hep! Hep! What's going on here?!



i was talking about ONE bozo, you are talking about MANY bozos. 
also, if it takes a dozen bozos taking a million pictures to piece together 50 "good"ones, I personally call that "luck" not "artistic anything".
that isn't to say they may or may not be good images, on whatever merits you choose to judge them on, they are just "lucky" images. 
whos to say that only ONE of those bozos didn't take all 50 "good" images and zero were chosen from the other bozos. 
maybe one bozo with some actual photography talent slipped in with the rest. 
statistically speaking, even with ZERO skill or experience, in 1 million shots taken, 50 that could be deemed as "good" by SOME criteria is actually pretty likely. 
I dont personally  find the million photos taken  analogy to be particularly compelling in this discussion.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

Certainly the million photos scenario has wandered a bit afield of the topic. It seemed tangentially relevant at the time!


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 3, 2013)

Every time this conversation comes up I think about this image.  I think if you ignore the whole of the image it can be torn apart, motion blur/out of focus, blown highlight top left in the cloud, nothing is sharp, it is riddled with what can be considered technical flaws created by my choice to use a slow shutter speed while panning. 

Could I have captured this image technically perfectly? Yep, just up my shutter speed and we would be most of the way there, we would end up with a nicely lit, simply composed, sharp, richly coloured picture of a willow tree and tiny pond (I have the pictures to prove it somewhere but not going to go hunting for them lol).  So since there are a set of choices that I can make to create a technically perfect version of the photo below do the technically incorrect choices I made in my settings, specifically my shutter speed and resulting "imperfections" make it a failure by default?


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 3, 2013)

Without arguing with harishankar, I have a slightly different take on this.

If we don't know the maker then it is difficult to know where to start with what one says or how far to go.

It is much easier for me if I know 1) what skill level the photographer is at and 2) what is the implied question he/she is asking.

For new posters, that is the best way to get a c/c that is appropriate. 
Say what you are trying to do and pose a sample question.

That is like the first thrown ball in a game of catch.
The reply will be more likely to be appropriate.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 3, 2013)

harishankar said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable. There IS always the chance that someone can just get "lucky" with a shot. (someone has to win the lottery, right?) To somewhat clarify, the real problem is....you cant argue "art" or "sentimental value". you can only argue technical aspects of a photo like focus, cropping, color...some of those might have been done as an artistic choice, or maybe by mistake, or even poor post processing choices. But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures. I suppose they have the right to claim "artistic choice" as much as the next person, but I think there is a big difference between someone that CAN take a technically good photo that sometimes chooses to break the rules for the sake of art, and someone that cries "its my artistic style" due to a lack of fundamental camera skills.
> ...



a common scenerio we  see here isn't simply a beginner getting "lucky" per se, but someone that posts an image for critique from a recent "shoot" they did for a "client" which is watermarked with their business logo, webpage, and business FB/twitter/flikr information. That, along with their signature being all of their business contact information leads people to believe that they are a professional photographer, and therefor they are often times given very professional critique. this is NOT the same scenario as a new hobbyist photographer posting an image and getting bashed for it. that is wrong.  If you advertise yourself as taking paid jobs, I don't believe you have the right to complain when people want to judge your work by professional standards. that isn't newbie bashing, because if you are a photographer doing business on your own, then I think its fair for people to assume you are not a newbie.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 3, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> Every time this conversation comes up I think about this image.  I think if you ignore the whole of the image it can be torn apart, motion blur/out of focus, blown highlight top left in the cloud, nothing is sharp, it is riddled with what can be considered technical flaws created by my choice to use a slow shutter speed while panning.
> 
> Could I have captured this image technically perfectly? Yep, just up my shutter speed and we would be most of the way there, we would end up with a nicely lit, simply composed, sharp, richly coloured picture of a willow tree and tiny pond (I have the pictures to prove it somewhere but not going to go hunting for them lol).  So since there are a set of choices that I can make to create a technically perfect version of the photo below do the technically incorrect choices I made in my settings, specifically my shutter speed and resulting "imperfections" make it a failure by default?



by MY criteria and definition? nope. your just fine, because it is a choice, not a mistake. others may disagree of course.


----------



## nonamexx (Apr 3, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Without arguing with harishankar, I have a slightly different take on this.
> 
> If we don't know the maker then it is difficult to know where to start with what one says or how far to go.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying it's not relevant, but it becomes a factor in bias. On the other side, people are very intimidated to offer harsher critique to somebody they know as an experienced pro photographer for the same reason, even if the image in question is below par. Not that it happens often, but sometimes it does.

There is also the assumption that a professional photographer always makes mistakes on purpose to enhance the beauty or artistic vision. So that, even if the average viewer doesn't really "get it" they have to go along with the flow and pretend they do.

On another note, PixelRabbit's photo above is a great example of HOW to do an artistic photo really well. That one is gorgeous and you don't need to be an expert to appreciate the artistic vision there.


----------



## nonamexx (Apr 3, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> a common scenerio we  see here isn't simply a beginner getting "lucky" per se, but someone that posts an image for critique from a recent "shoot" they did for a "client" which is watermarked with their business logo, webpage, and business FB/twitter/flikr information. That, along with their signature being all of their business contact information leads people to believe that they are a professional photographer, and therefor they are often times given very professional critique. this is NOT the same scenario as a new hobbyist photographer posting an image and getting bashed for it. that is wrong.  If you advertise yourself as taking paid jobs, I don't believe you have the right to complain when people want to judge your work by professional standards. that isn't newbie bashing, because if you are a photographer doing business on your own, then I think its fair for people to assume you are not a newbie.



Oh, that's a different scenario. And your point is taken. People posing as professionals and then getting found out is not what I was talking about.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 3, 2013)

Who really cares?


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

I care deeply! And in truth, it actually is the sort of thing I think about far too much for my own good. But I like it.


----------



## runnah (Apr 3, 2013)

This is why I hate art. Everything else is based on facts, specs and data. This car is better because it has more horsepower, this laptop is better because it had a faster proccessor etc... 

You can't quantify something that doesn't have quantifiable values.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 3, 2013)

runnah said:


> This is why I hate art. Everything else is based on facts, specs and data. This car is better because it has more horsepower, this laptop is better because it had a faster proccessor etc...
> 
> You can't quantify something that doesn't have quantifiable values.



So your position on affection, adulation, admiration is....
  (    )


----------



## cynicaster (Apr 3, 2013)

> To me, the argument of "art" over "technical accuracy" is only valid if the photographer actually HAS the knowledge and ability to produce either of them when it is applicable.
> &#8230;
> &#8230;
> But I think there are also people that want to be taken seriously as a photographer that do not have a basic grasp of photography basics and use "artistic choice" as a crutch for poorly executed pictures.


 
I knew this was coming, and I mostly agree, but it seems like you&#8217;re only considering the extreme scenarios:



Skilled photographer has both an artistic flair and a thorough grasp of technical aspects, knows just what rules to break to achieve a &#8220;vision&#8221;
Clueless green square junkie produces inconsistent results, uses the label &#8220;art&#8221; to cover up lack of knowledge and wherewithal
 
What about the vast majority of the rest of us, who fall somewhere in the gaping middle? 

As an example, let&#8217;s take a hobbyist photographer with a solid grasp of technical fundamentals and modest gear, who manages to capture an image that he or she is very proud of from an artistic perspective, despite some less than textbook-perfect technical aspects.  The photographer is discerning enough to assess the technical efficacy of the photograph on their own, but is simply deciding that they like the photo in spite of its &#8220;flaws&#8221;. 

In this case we&#8217;d have a photo that is less than perfect, but the &#8220;flaws&#8221; are not due to lack of knowledge on the photographer&#8217;s part, nor are they due to a clear intention on the photographer&#8217;s part&#8212;they are simply due to the stack up of chance elements, human error, and perhaps the operation of available gear at its limits.  The reason doesn&#8217;t really matter, because even the most skilled and experienced photographers with their ridiculous gear are incapable of perfectly nailing every single shot. 

So, our photographer comes to TPF and shares the photo, and receives lots of &#8220;oohs&#8221; and &#8220;aaahs&#8221; from the apparently &#8220;artsy-fartsy&#8221; types who are moved by the image, but predictably gets assailed from all angles by the techno-buffs over nitty-gritty.  This, I think, is where the true colours shine through on the philosophical question of this thread. 

Of course, nobody is obligated to like or dislike any photo for any reason; it&#8217;s all purely subjective.  But what bears greater significance-- a positive response to the art or a negative response to the pixels?  For me it&#8217;s the former, any day of the week.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 3, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:
			
		

> SNIP>>>>>>>>do the technically incorrect choices I made in my settings, specifically my shutter speed and resulting "imperfections" make it a failure by default?



No, this is not a failure. This photograph is a good example of pictorialism. We had a huge,lengthy discussion about pictorialism a year or so ago, started by BitterJeweler. Pictorialism was a widespread movement in photography, and it held wide sway for decades, and it was a popular way of working. Pictorialism as a popular movement that was respected and widely exhibited was killed off by people like Ansel Adams and the rest of the Group f/64 photogs and their curator co-conspirators, who insisted on rigidly correct technique and sharp-focus images. The Group f/64 folks killed off all the pretty, impressionistic, ethereal, delicate renderings, and instead gave us razor-sharp peppers, stark, sharp images of Half Dome, formalistic nudes, and facile renderings of scenic vistas, ad nauseum.

Pictorialist photographers deliberately chose lenses that had "pictorial" rendering characteristics, and made images that were more "conceptual" shall we say, than the later Group f/64 types that came to dominate photography in the 1930's through the 1950's and into the 1960's. I think all of the drug use, cultural upheaval, and the widespread re-examination of ALL SORTS OF cultural "ideals" in the 1960's helped pave the way for some new, refreshing ways of doing phototography that first started popping up in widespread locations around the world in the mid- to late 1960's.

Technical values need only be high enough to get the desired meaning across to viewers. The shot above is a pictorialst-style image. It does its job. It is a successful photograph!


----------



## pgriz (Apr 3, 2013)

Can I be an artsy-fartsy with nitty gritty tendencies?  Please?


----------



## Derrel (Apr 3, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Can I be an artsy-fartsy with nitty gritty tendencies?  Please?



Yes. As long as you bring cookies, that is!


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

The thing about photographs is that while the result may be an evocative piece of art, the stuff that goes into it is all technical details. You make a series of essentially _technical_ choices, either on purpose or by accident, which produce the image.

Critique, ideally, addresses both. Worrying about sharpness divorced from anything is kind of silly, unless someone's asking specifically for help on technical issues. Looking at the image holistically, and trying to grasp maybe what the photographer was going for, is where we should start. Generally. This goes for purely commercial stuff too, just because it's a picture of a beer bottle or a bride doesn't mean you're not going for some holistic thing.

So, view it holistically, as a thing in and of itself. How do you feel, etc etc, all that artistic crap. None of this is particularly _useful_ if you can't boil solutions down to technical solutions. Often, I can't, but I usually give it a try. "The frame feels unbalanced, off-kilter, and it seems like you were going for a more peaceful feeling. I think shooting from a foot to the left, and then cropping the result square would create a more balanced and therefore peaceful image." is the kind of thing I really want to say every time I give critique. Do I succeed? No.

So, anyways. What's it all mean? I think it means that the technical details and the artistic result are inextricably intertwined.

Which is NOT the same thing as saying that technical excellence is necessary for artistic excellence.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 3, 2013)

runnah said:


> This is why I hate art. Everything else is based on facts, specs and data. This car is better because it has more horsepower, this laptop is better because it had a faster proccessor etc...
> 
> You can't quantify something that doesn't have quantifiable values.



Mac or PC?

-dives behind a couch-


----------



## KenC (Apr 3, 2013)

manaheim said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I hate art. Everything else is based on facts, specs and data. This car is better because it has more horsepower, this laptop is better because it had a faster proccessor etc...
> ...



- where he bumps into the Canon vs. Nikon crowd-


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 3, 2013)

The only aspect of photography that can be critiqued on a a measurable level is its technical qualities .  If you are going to critique just on an artistic level,  your limited to liking or dislikeing it on a personal level. That isnt what most people posting for critique are looking for if they want to improve. We have a section for people just looking to share photos that dont want c&c.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 3, 2013)

I disagree, pixmedic.

If I post a photograph and get 5 people saying 'yeah, wow, that's gloomy' that's interesting. It becomes more a process of polling than of measuring, but it's not worthless. I've actually learned a lot about how to make evocative images by doing just that. Well, to be precise, I've learned a lot about how not to make them.

One person's response to other-than-technical stuff isn't all *that* interesting, but add a couple more and you're starting to get something good.

There is something to the idea of a "good" image, a "powerful" image, an "evocative" one, that goes beyond the technical. These are real things, but getting at them is tricky.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 3, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Can I be an artsy-fartsy with nitty gritty tendencies?  Please?





Derrel said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Can I be an artsy-fartsy with nitty gritty tendencies?  Please?
> ...


Ah yes, come to the dark side, we have cookies  

Oh and Derrel, that part about the 60's I think I may be stuck there in many ways lol :hippie: 

To those that commented on my picture, thank you.  I absolutely don't consider it a failure because of it's "technical flaws" I think it is a success because of them.

"I think it means that the technical details and the artistic result are inextricably intertwined." 

Amolitor expressed it very well with this line, I think that when you play around with settings that will provide a "technically incorrect result" you have to use that result effectively, it can't appear to be a mistake but rather disappear, become irrelevant/relevant or elevate the image in some way.  

Anything that causes the intended audience of the image to not be engaged (meh, click next!) or to be jarred out of viewing an image (unless you intend to jar your audience) is a technical failure and it is our job as the one trying to engage the audience to figure out where it falls short.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 3, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> This bold text above is what is called 'Argument from Authority'
> In short, it is saying in a sub-text, 'I have this high level experience, therefore my opinion should have some weight.'



You sure do read into things.

I used the Bose and Mesa Boogie shoots as examples of how "artistic vision" means nothing. The only thing that matters in a situation where someone is paying you to shoot something specific, is the specifics the client wants. I wasn't hired because of my "artistic vision", and the client wasn't interested in my artistic vision.

Should my opinion carry "more weight"? That's entirely up to the person who reads my opinion, which is based on actual experience, and another opinion which may not be.

I claim no "authority", but I also won't back off from basing my opinion on my real world experience...


----------



## kathyt (Apr 3, 2013)

I still like my image, and it is four days later. So, clearly it will stand the test of time.  I am going to go have some cocktails with the girlfriends! Yes, it is 2:30. Don't judge.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 3, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> He simply cited actual real world experience with a real client where the results were relevant to the discussion.
> I dont think his mentioning the name of the company was meant in any way to show arrogance, but to show that his opinion is based on actual in the field working knowledge.



Thank you.

'Tis truly a shame that the obvious needs to be stated...


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 3, 2013)

runnah said:


> This is why I hate art. Everything else is based on facts, specs and data. This car is better because it has more horsepower, this laptop is better because it had a faster proccessor etc...
> 
> You can't quantify something that doesn't have quantifiable values.





pixmedic said:


> The only aspect of photography that can be critiqued on a a measurable level is its technical qualities .  If you are going to critique just on an artistic level,  your limited to liking or dislikeing it on a personal level. That isnt what most people posting for critique are looking for if they want to improve. We have a section for people just looking to share photos that dont want c&c.



If you look at something and say, not necessarily whether you like it or not, but whether you think it is a good shot or not then the next question is why you don't think that way and that leads to all sorts of answers, artistic and technical. Of course the technical can be quantified but that doesn't mean that those characteristics should always lead the critique stream.


----------



## peter27 (Apr 3, 2013)

I often take photos that are less than perfect, technically speaking. If I like them anyway, I think of their flaws as artistic licence. As to the ones I'm less keen on, I say _oh b*gger_!

For me, getting the technical side of things right is important, but the artistic aspects always hold the ace.


----------



## Photographiend (Apr 4, 2013)

Photography is supposed to sort of marry the two concepts no? 

Even the super artistic types can benefit technical critique to help them bring their shots to the next level. 

That said, I have no clue what the image is that struck this query in the first place.


----------



## Compaq (Apr 4, 2013)

One of my concert shots from a one-month long festival last year. This shot may be technically lacking. It's noisy as heck, and I think I missed focus a little bit. While I really dig the shot, I was a little reluctant to submit it to my boss for print. So, where does that leave the shot?




Petter Baarli 2 sk by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr


----------



## kathyt (Apr 4, 2013)

Photographiend said:


> Photography is supposed to sort of marry the two concepts no?
> 
> Even the super artistic types can benefit technical critique to help them bring their shots to the next level.
> 
> That said, I have no clue what the image is that struck this query in the first place.



Post #19 of this thread.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I still like my image, and it is four days later. So, clearly it will stand the test of time.  I am going to go have some cocktails with the girlfriends! Yes, it is 2:30. Don't judge.



Four days later and it will stand the test of time? I am assuming that's you making a delicate little joke with that statement, right? I mean four days??? I have some chicken in the fridge that's right at about four days, and I'm already starting to worry about it...

Now the cocktails at 2:30...whatever...as long as it's after noon and you're over 21, hey go for it. Judging by your avatar you look to be barely 25 ;-)


----------



## Compaq (Apr 4, 2013)

I think age has clouded your judgement, Derrel. Being 22 myself, I'll venture to claim she's pushing 30........


----------



## kathyt (Apr 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > I still like my image, and it is four days later. So, clearly it will stand the test of time.  I am going to go have some cocktails with the girlfriends! Yes, it is 2:30. Don't judge.
> ...



Yes, my four day thing was a silly joke, like 99% of the things I say on TPF. Thank you Derrel.  Back at cha'! My 35th birthday is coming up, and I guess I just have learn to embrace it. Oh, and I am planning a super huge vacation to celebrate!


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 4, 2013)

runnah said:


> I volunteer myself as a giver of consoling hugs to to Kathy.



  Dude, I like your style!  I nominate Runnah for TPF President of the Month.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 4, 2013)

All hail president for life runnah!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 4, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> Dude, I like your style!  I nominate Runnah for TPF President of the Month.



Seconded!


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Four days later and it will stand the test of time? I am assuming that's you making a delicate little joke with that statement, right?



You certainly have a keen eye for the obvious...


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Four days later and it will stand the test of time? I am assuming that's you making a delicate little joke with that statement, right?
> ...



Quick, let me find you a windmill, Steve, so all that chivalry will not go to waste!!


----------



## Photographiend (Apr 5, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Post #19 of this thread.



Thanks :mrgreen:

I have a theory about this place. The benefit to it is primarily that people will always pick your work apart. They are hyper critical which is something we wont get from friends and family. That said you can pick and choose what feedback to heed. 

The pic is lovely. The head chop was a bit severe for me but it doesn't make the image any less lovely. You hit a gorgeous focal point in the shot. The pose was comfortable, everything from the styling of your client, the movement in the shot, to the contrast and choice to depict it in black and white was fluid and worked quite well... even when I go back and look I still can't bring myself to be bothered by the way the light hits her hand... You want to see a blown out shot you should see the one I posted yesterday. :mrgreen: I knew it was blown out as all hell and I posted it anyway... Yes, Yes I did.


----------

