Photographs/ Photographers that make it
 

After visiting a number of photography exhibitions lately I have been wondering about changing my whole method of taking photographs. I saw work by some famous photographers and their verticles were not perfect, some were blurry, noisey and had uneven horizons etc.. I am just wondering how important all of these things are really and if we do get too hung up on them? The shots I saw were stunning, told a story and despite there being technical errors they still got narrative across or came across as arty images. Exposure was not always perfect on some either yet you were able to look beyond it and enjoy the photograph. Or, is this because the photographers were really great at what they did and their photographs didn't have to conform to everyday photographic standards to work?

Karen

It's all relative, as a blurred shot of a Yeti would have greater impact than a perfect shot of a Pig. :p

[QUOTE=OldBoy;42609]It's all relative, as a blurred shot of a Yeti would have greater impact than a perfect shot of a Pig. :p[/QUOTE]

Actually that makes sense! ;-) So if the photograph is exclusive enough or spectacular enough it won't matter as much about the techhical side of things.

Karen

It's a combination of a lot of things: the subject, the environment, the lighting, the mood, the position, etc. Pro photographers just get it all right, even when some things (focus, horizon angle etc) are "wrong" :)

[QUOTE=karenoliver;42608]......... photographs didn't have to conform to everyday photographic standards to work?

Karen[/QUOTE]


Surely if you conform to everyday standards you end up with everyday standard photographs.

[QUOTE=ABERS;42659]Surely if you conform to everyday standards you end up with everyday standard photographs.[/QUOTE]

But think about the artistic aspect of pure & clean uniformity ;)

This is an interesting thread. I'm going to be cheeky and suggest this is dividing into two camps.....
In the blue corner, a street photographer, for whom drama and human interest is everything, sometimes to the cost of technical quality. In the red corner, a landscaper, for whom a tripod is essential (along with an array of filters, remote shutter release etc), to give technical purity, compositional planning and perfect exposures.

One's not better than the other. Photography is great - long live photography!

[QUOTE=MattUK;42634]It's a combination of a lot of things: the subject, the environment, the lighting, the mood, the position, etc. Pro photographers just get it all right, even when some things (focus, horizon angle etc) are "wrong" :)[/QUOTE]

You're right, they do seem to have a knack for just getting it right :-)

[QUOTE=ABERS;42659]Surely if you conform to everyday standards you end up with everyday standard photographs.[/QUOTE]

Yes, something I am beginnig to realise more and more.

[QUOTE=GeoffWessex;42687]This is an interesting thread. I'm going to be cheeky and suggest this is dividing into two camps.....
In the blue corner, a street photographer, for whom drama and human interest is everything, sometimes to the cost of technical quality. In the red corner, a landscaper, for whom a tripod is essential (along with an array of filters, remote shutter release etc), to give technical purity, compositional planning and perfect exposures.![/QUOTE]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. It was predominantly street photographers getting it wrong yet still getting it right :-) I suppose architecture and landscapes need to be more precise?

Karen

Have to agree with Geoff Wessex on this one. How many of us have taken images that perhaps are not tehnically of quality yet are pleasing but we dismiss them for their imperfection? Quite a few I would think. As for landscapes yes quality appears to be everything but for the most part these shots can actually be planned and arranged so to speak, whereas everyday occurrences are mostly spur of the moment captures.

This week I popped in to the Quad at Derby to look at the Format 'street photography' exhibition being held there. In my opinion ... (*takes a deep breath) .. it was mostly poorly executed uninteresting snap shots mascarading as photography. In my opinion of course.

What makes me say this? Well, one or two of the photographers had produced some really clever and engaging work but many of the others had simply produced 'snap' shots tied losely together by some supposed 'theme'.

For example; a 'panel' of 10 pictures or so held prominent place on one wall; the first picture I looked at was of a man bending down to pick up some litter next to a waste bin in some city precinct. The one next to it was of a women with a plastic bottle in her hand next to (you guessed it) a waste bin in a shopping mall or some-such place. And so this went on with all the pictures in this series shot at a distance featuring unremarkable people in unremarkable locations. If the photographer had set out to portrait life as 'unremarkable and repetitive' then they succeeded.

Another exhibitor had (apparently) stuck his camera out of the window of a car as it was being driven along and taken pictures. This resulted in a set of 20 or so shots of totally blurred and grey roadside landscape.

I took a minute or two to step back and look at the people viewing the exhibition (for a lunch time it wasn't exactly overflowing) a minority were slowly moving along the pictures looking carefully at them (4 people actually) and the rest seemed to be walking with increased bewilderment along the rows of pictures with puzzled expressions on their faces. many of them didn't make the effort of finding the other galleries and simply left after doing one quick circuit.

To be honest it was depressing. It reminded me of those art exhibitions that get mistaken for rubbish by the janitor and thrown in the rubbish bins at night. It's almost as if they are saying this is art, if you don't understand that then that's your loss.

I really wanted to see something more in what was being shown there but really struggled to see anything of merit. I'm confident in saying that had I posted many of these pics on the Critique forum here they would not necesarily got a response from anyone.

I recently picked up a book about the photographers of Life Magazine going back to the 50's and 60's - photojournalism as its best. Many of these pictures were taken hurridly and were far from perfectly exposed, or necessarily sharp, but they were stunning images, and totally engaging!

So I agree, great pictures don't have to be perfect pictures, but they still have to be great pictures, otherwise they are just 'bad' pictures!

Or am I missing something?