Life is not perfect, so why should the photograph be?

<p>Well put. I understand, Phylo, and I agree.</p>

 

<p>Hi howard, great littile gem there. I was amazed. I had read about winnogrand and his strobe light in peoples' faces, but now I have seen it, in all honesty i would be to scared to walk next to him. Some of Koudelka's less exoctic masterpieces are not here, I guess I will have to buy the book.</p>

<p>Chris.</p>

<p>Sorry Sorry, i meant Bruce Gilden, I was thinking Gilden but writing Winnogrand.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>too clean, too well framed</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I think I get it now. Actually knowing how to take a good photograph is a bad thing. Is this to make life easy or part of some misguided post-modern project?</p>

<p>Oh, you have to scroll down some to get to the Winogrand video. Sorry.</p>

<p>HT</p>

<p>Here's my contribution. The end of the roll light strike helped create this portrait. It works for me as the darkness poses questions: 'Is death rolling in on the subject as he smokes a toxic cigarette?' 'Does the smoking matter at all given the onslaught of blackness?'</p>

<p>Others might see it as a flawed attempt but I accept it as an accidentally-conceived image charged with more meaning as a result ofthe accident<br>

Also see:<br>

.<a href="http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/trotsky.html">http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/trotsky.html</a></p>

<p>This photo has suffered the ravages of time, yet the scrapes in the emulsion enhance the overall message of Trotsky's intensity.</p>

<div></div>

<p>This is a false dichotomy: technical perfection vs. the messiness of life. You use your chosen medium to show what you want to show. E.g. I think 1/60s is where it's at to show action, but most photographers like to freeze motion with crazy high shutter speeds. Whatever - if it shows what you are trying to show it is good. It is a question of intentionality, not what is right or wrong for the entire medium of photography.</p>

<p>The reason to insist on technical perfection - which does not exclude blurs or odd exposures - is that photography is a visual art. At least it can be. You are trying to show an audience exactly what you found interesting in a particular view in a particular moment in time. You either suck at it or you excel at it - simple as that.</p>

<p>A lot of photographers' idea of perfect skin tone looks comically overexposed to me. They want to see makeup ads from magazines; I want to see glorious translucent skin with pores and hairs and whatnot. If we can each execute what we want, we are both correct.</p>

<p>Some photographs are compelling despite technical problems, but that in no way excuses the problems. It merely means that there is enough significance there to draw the viewer in through the distractions caused by the photographer's ineptitude.</p>

<p>What's a perfect photograph?</p>

<p>Jeff Cosloy, I think that image by Robert Capa is great. If it had been cleaned up in photoshop with restoration techniques and made to look presentable, then its accidental layer of depth and significance would have been invisible I think. It's a fantastic piece of visual poetry with all its flaws revealing the flaws of that era. I wonder if Robert Capa would have seen it that way?<br>

"Life is not perfect, so why should the image be"<br>

Regards, Chris.</p>

<p>Okay.. thats really a heated discussion. I think It depends on what people consider to be perfect. And im talking bout the guy/girl behind the camera. I havent had time to publish since I became more serious because I take like 1500 shots on a one day mission. Alot ?? yeah.. but since im very busy I dont have time to spend hours in Lightroom. So what I do is that I carry extra batteries and 16 GB cards for my Canon 50D. I take alot of photos in situations where there is no second chances, so I just fire away while I work the zoom lens and I move around as well. Always short burts. So maybe many oldschool photographers will turn in their grave (or on their sofa if they are not dead yet) but if I have this tecnological advance then why not use It ?? So I dont crop and I dont tweak. The 50D is a fine camera and with a massive amount of footage I mostly find what im looking for. And like I mentioned ealier.. In some situations you have to take the shot in a matter of 2 seconds or less.<br>

Personally I find arranged photos annoing. So maybe Im just a snapshot photographer, but hey... I can live with that.<br>

<img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_qfIKqDhJ06U/SVV3-i25N-I/AAAAAAAACI4/P1Dtszip198/IMG_7347.JPG" alt="" width="500" height="334" /></p>

<p><img src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_qfIKqDhJ06U/SVV3-i25N-I/AAAAAAAACI4/P1Dtszip198/IMG_7347.JPG" alt="" width="500" height="334" /><br>

<br /> Gypsy houses being demolished. This woman just lost her home and she is in despair. This is what I need and I dont want to crop or edit such a photo. Its all there and doesnt get any more real. Trick is also to be really fast because I dont want this woman to feel abused. Mostly I pretend to look away and do nothing and then I turn really fast and take between 2 and 5 shots. Not the optimal solution but I dont see any other way. Risky and unethical ? yeah... but getting the job done is always highest priority.</p>

<p>"I think that image by Robert Capa is great. If it had been cleaned up in photoshop with restoration techniques and made to look presentable, then its accidental layer of depth and significance would have been invisible I think. It's a fantastic piece of visual poetry with all its flaws revealing the flaws of that era."</p>

<p>You can achieve the same effect by taking your film to the 1 Hour and letting the proverbial pimply-faced teenager have his or her way with it 8-) Or mess up your digital images in Photoshop. I'd rather have what Capa intended.</p>

<p>Of course it is a useful image for the hauntologically inclined. Spectres of Marx, indeed.</p>

<p>"I wonder if Robert Capa would have seen it that way?"</p>

<p>He'd probably wonder: Again? Why me?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's a perfect photograph?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a strawman.There's been no justification for the whole premise here, it's just a false dichotomy. Every request for any kind of examples has been met with vague references to low circulation photography magazines in a small country.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is what I need and I dont want to crop or edit such a photo.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How does anyone take a photo without both cropping at editing at the time of shooting? It's not possible. So how does cropping and editing after it's taken become some sort of major crime? There's no rules for photography, there's nothing that says cropping after it's taken is better or worse than cropping when it's taken. It's photography, it's what it's always been.</p>

<p>"What's a perfect photograph?"</p>

<p>So far, either Koudelka's photos are perfect or perhaps they are the antithesis of perfect (I am not clear on that), i.e. "flawed", which might be the new perfection, because life is not perfect anyways so why should the photograph be.</p>

<p>Try and keep up 8-)</p>

 

<p>I don't even think it was made clear it was Koudelka ...? maybe i missed it.</p>

<p>Martin Sobey: asked - What is a perfect photograph?<br>

When photography can be objective, its parameters standardized, its methods categorised and assigned strict scientific rules, when its results and consequences can be predicted. Only then can there be the perfect photograph.</p>

<p>Inherent in art is the fact that it is a subjective experience on all levels. The feeling of having achieved Perfection often does not even lie with the creator, much less the admirer. the best that any creator can say is: I am finally happy with this. It is how I want it.</p>

<p>I have seen the perfect photograph. But i doubt you would agree with me. And it is not the same perfect photo that i saw <br>

20 years before. I have been working on capturing the perfect images since i first saw one a very long time ago. Too elusive, <br>

but it has been a wonderful and dreadful journey. There was this one time I came very close .....</p>

<p>If someone see's the "Perfect Photograph" is it worth looking at all those millions of imperfect photos ever again? I think this Perfect Photograph should be locked in a safe never to be seen, or just destroyed. This perfect photo of which you speak is a threat to all things photographic.<br /> It is similar to the deadly joke from the"Monty Python" skit that killed anyone who read or heard it by laughing to death.</p>

<p>Michael, now i am glad i kept it secret all these years.</p>

<p>ROFLMAO, too many people are as the opening comments states, and the problem, too many people have become absorbed in producing a technically perefect image than an esthetic and artistically pleasing image.<br>

The shouts of idignation are usually loudest from those committed to the technical and avoid discussion that would undermine or cast doubts on the merits of their own principles.<br>

The reference to magazines, the space given to the technically perfect are usually for adverts that required a image to associate with the product.<br>

Step back to Brassi, Doisneau, Kertesz for example and again appreciate the the artistery of photography and not the talents of the Photoshop wizard.</p>

<p>Or, Exactly who is to be appreciated, the snapper, the manipulator, or the end product with all its intrinsic processes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Let's stipulate to the standards of a high quality stock photo service as "perfect". Chris has offered two alternatives, a flawed (ie, one that doesn't conform to the "perfect" standard) photograph, and a photograph that has been shabbily treated over time (Capa's shot of Trotsky). I'll add a third: photographs from Holgas and Dianas and other "toy" cameras.</p>

<p>Phylo, I think, pointed towards the falseness of this dualism of "perfect" and "flawed". I think Jack misses this point as well and creates another dualism out of the "perfect", this time with "artistic". Neither is any more compelling a notion than film vs digital, pc vs mac, Nikon vs Canon, or Ford vs Chevy. Just something that callow youth and bitter old grumps while away their hours of tedium.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129279 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1 -369098753 63 0 4129279 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

<p>Go easy on me, I'm new here! You’ve brought up a very good point. Why is it good? Well look at the discussion. Here is a point: Why have most been trained that everyone has to agree (politically correctness)? That's a whole different can of worms...<br>

1) Thank you, a good debate is a healthy exercise, and you usually learn most from it. You may even make some friends a long the way. People tend to only talk to others or associate with others whom agree with them. Hence sort of why people drive on freeways in packs as there is a false safety in numbers, and why we get the same results in this country regardless of which talking head you “vote” for.<br>

2) The end result? It's just different for everyone. Most landscape photographers learn the basics/rules first. This demonstrates that you know fundamentally how to operate the camera....then from there you move on to your idea....then the end result. I agree with you, I'd love to see a thread just comparing a raw image vs. raw+photoshop. Ansel Adams was noted from what I've been told by people who've reprinted/archived his work as having a significant number of average negatives. And no I'm not saying his work is average or that all of his negatives are average. He was however, great at composition, and was a master print maker. People mostly look at his prints, not his negatives. The same holds true for today. I think we have some great photographers, and photographers who are great at photographing + photoshop. Invariably some are more patient with one or both processes more than others. Some of us just have more time on our hands, while some of us would rather be out taking more photographs.<br>

3) Culture: Overall your thoughts bring up the bigger picture in a lot of sense. Most, like myself, were sat in front of a TV growing up. My mind has been trained to an extent to value the perfect composition, lighting, etc over one that is not. So is this good or bad? Am I the only one today that just cannot listen to the radio anymore on my commute to work? Sports talk, politics, and the music are usually the same rehashed, mass marketed, and culturally acceptable ideas. So then we move on to the extreme marketing as a reaction: the "reality" show. But even that isn't truthful as it's carefully choreographed more often than not. I guess we’re left just with shows like “Cops,” and the Blair Which project on the extreme end of the spectrum. So that's what we have in America for the most part. 99% of people I meet and talk to all pretty much agree to agree with one and other and carry on the same thoughts, values, ideas, and overall way of life.<br>

4) Corporations, Profit, and Goals: This is the most significant part of the problem for the majority of people. A corporation is afraid to take risks, as the more risk the more likelihood of "someone" being offended. All media we see on TV and other forms of advertising are produced by corporations. Think of how much the News made it a point to make "Politically Correctness" the "in" thing to be in the '90's, maybe I don’t want to “accept” everyone!!! Think of all of the meaningless/mindless chatter you overhear from people while you're working at your corporation. I cannot just speak openly and be "me" as I might "offend" someone and then in up being fired over it. So blame whomever as I'm not sure where it started, but this notion that we all have to have the same values for 40 hours a week (I'm sick of the same rehashed sports conversations at work by the way)... Maybe the hourly wage is supposed to cover masking of ones identity, however it’s interesting that it does for some, while others it’s not even close.<br>

5) Everyone on this forum if they are not already, would rather be out getting paid to take "perfect" photographs rather than sitting in a cubicle or whatever else people do for a living on here. (hopefully not telling people to just mail the bank their keys like I get to do). I know I have the same mundane talk about home equity accounts over and over to where I now repeat the same 5 ideas over 30 conversations per day. Exciting! So for some, they pursue the "perfect" picture, as that is the only way they know how to make money with their work. Photo editors and stock photo agencies generally want "perfect" landscapes unless they support a very small “nitch” market.<br>

5) Degrees of Difficulty and Boredom. Most people eventually either learn how to take the "perfect" photo, and then become bored. Once boredom sets in, they run out and try to take even more perfect photos, and they want the more perfect camera, and the cycle continues...(just like consumerism and debt in this country). Some people see the light. They eventually face the fact that they will have to find new ways to challenge themselves, and learn to take risks (stop spending money, and learn to value other things). Those people get to what you speak of: images that stand out. Think of the musicians, image makers, etc that stand out to you. They are usually the ones that were the "first" to do x or y. As media changes over time, historians will categorize photography based on style: Film/wet process/dark room/printing vs. digital and photoshop. No different from taking Art history where painting styles reflected the culture of differing times. Maybe for the gifted few, they just have something to say, and they do not care what others think; therefore being "safe" is not anywhere on their priority list. Ask a woman if she likes the bad boy (unpredictable) or the nice guy (predictable). Most women secretly lie and state they want the nice guy, but they don't, atleast not until later in life. Again, most photographers start out in the pursuit of perfection, to hopefully their own individual voice. No different when you probably had no opinion about the Federal Reserve 10 years ago.<br>

6) Leaders and Followers: As it's been said: "lead, follow or get the _ out of the way." Maybe it's not that simple. Maybe for some it depends from one day to the next or from one stage of their life to the next. Think of all of the musicians/artists/etc that have to "sell out" in order to just get their work distributed, as again, see #4. Once they "sell out" they are then more able to do what they WANT to do over time. This is truer today than it was 30-40 years ago. <br>

7) The FCC and Rupert Murdock. Hopefully most people on here know of one or the other. While people were running around trying to buy homes they could not afford, the FCC was busy relaxing its standards on corporate media regulation. There used to be rules. One guy could not own every tv station, newspaper, and radio station in town. The idea was to get differing view points which would hopefully benefit society. Well thanks to laws passed in 2004, we now get Rupert Murdocks corporate slave approved viewpoint on pretty much 85% of media we're exposed to. Don't believe me? Try calling a radio station and requesting a song you've never heard them play over and over before! Try it. Chances are you'll be dead before they even play it, and if they do play it, it'll probably never be played again by the same DJ as he/she will be collecting unemployment shortly thereafter.</p>

Okay, I’m done. Again, thanks for bringing up a topic that makes people think. I know the TV doesn’t.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Life is not perfect, so why should the photograph be?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? <i>Because </i>life is not perfect. Isn't there already enough ugliness in the world without me adding to it? There are so many images of war and disasters and accidents and crime scenes and human suffering - isn't it okay for some of us to want to make pretty pictures instead?</p>