What is more important: Emotion or Perfection?

<p>When looking at a photograph with a critical eye, what is more important to you? The perfection of the light, exposure, or technical aspects of the piece or the emotion the picture evokes?<br>

I am reminded of Julia Margaret Cameron's work often...technically not great but the emotion she provided in her work was astounding.<br>

In any kind of art piece, should we sometimes be able to look beyond technical perfection to see the emotion the artist/photographer intended?</p>

<p>

 

 

<p >"In any kind of art piece, should we sometimes be able to look beyond technical perfection to see the emotion the artist/photographer intended?"</p>

<p >Betty-we should ALWAYS be able to look beyond technical perfection to see the emotion the artist/photographer intended. cb :-)</p>

<br />

 

 

</p>

<p>More important? Both, but perfection won't produce an emotionally inspiring photograph, just a technically perfect one, and emotion will overcome many technical flaws, as you note. Instead of perfection, strive for perfection without losing your emotion and the image's emotion. At some point, to me, perfection stops being important or even necessary. But I know many fine art photographers may disagree as perfection is the journey to the best emotional photograph. Just my view.</p>

<p>What happens when a pianist play with wrong keys all the time? Is the music worth listening to? Emotion without technical excellence is just another snap shot. Technically perfect photograph without emotion is just another photograph.<br>

That is the reason why photography is do hard to master. The photographer has to master the technical expertise first and capture the emotion once the technical aspect is second nature. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In any kind of art piece, should we sometimes be able to look beyond technical perfection to see the emotion the artist/photographer intended?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We can only guess at the emotion the artist intends in any work of art. The More important question is if the photograph stir an emotional response in you as viewer?</p>

<p>I think that the first response is emotional, the second intellectual, and the third is aesthetic. It has to pass muster on all three levels to really work. Technique without heart is nothing but emotions expressed without good technique (which includes but is not limited to technical qualities ) is an unsatisfying mess -- but that is just my opinion.</p>

<p>However some time after formulating this philosophy, I found out that Arnold Newman, Henri Cartier-Bresson, & Elliot Erwitt had all come to the same conclusion, though each expressed it slightly differently.</p>

There are more than a few people out there making their reputations with Holgas and Dianas and Lensbabies none of which I'd call perfect. The photographers seem to be getting what they want though. I've come to realize that I shoot everything to please myself first. If the editor or viewer likes it also, fine. It's also why I don't get much satisfaction from commercial and wedding work and don't do either anymore. It has to please me first. There is a technical side to that but it's a process and I don't differentiate the parts. The right tool for the job is only partly about hardware and software. Rick H.

<p>What's more important to a fine dining experience: the food or the atmosphere? Can one enjoy the delicate flavors of one's meal when thick clouds of cigarette smoke are drifting over from the next table? How about when the off-work construction workers are having a belching contest at the table on the other side?</p>

<p>Technical problems with a photo are distracting -- more so to some people than to others. It can be difficult to appreciate the content of a photo with enough distractions. Furthermore, technical excellence can create excitement that draws the viewer in and causes him/her to explore and contemplate the photo.</p>

<p>Both are important. Arguing which is *more* important is somewhat silly.</p>

<p>Following on from you Rick. just because a photographer uses a holga/diana/lensbaby doesn't mean there isn't a technique that they are attempting to perfect. i think a photographer requires a fair amount of ability to use these tools to get a great image. a photograph should be techniqually correct but correct in that it achieves the aesthetic that was intended. but i can't see a reason to be happy with an image that is poorly exposed, out of focus or badly composed unless it is the photographers specific intention. it is a matter or knowing what you want and how to get it and to be able to do it well. otherwise you are always settling for a second rate image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Furthermore, technical excellence can create excitement that draws the viewer in and causes him/her to explore and contemplate the photo."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What do we see if we take a hard look at Eddie Adams'<a href="http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics5/71757a.jpg"> iconic photo of the Vietnam war</a> ? It invokes emotion, but why? Is it technical excellence? Is it "aesthetics"? Or could it be due to ones shared experience at some level which allows us to understand without explanation?</p>

<p>I think, as viewers, we need that intangible level of shared experience in order to intuitively appreciate a picture. Without it, is when we begin to search for elements which can explain why it captivates us. This in turn results in appreciation through an intellectual process, albeit emotional at first.</p>

<p>How would one critique or analyze Eddie Adams' picture? I believe most people won't because it is unnecessary.</p>

<p>Excellent point, Michael!</p>

<p>Perfection is for the Gods.</p>

<p>When Robert Franks' The Americans came out, the reviews from the status quo complained about their grain, tone, blur, too-real lighting, fluid compositions, etc. They called them unamerican, anti-american, too.</p>

<p>Pop Photo criticized the work as: "“meaningless blur, grain, muddy exposures, drunken horizons and general sloppiness.” Imperfection? It took years before many critics caught up to where Frank was coming from in the 50's & began to understand the pictures. Priced one lately?</p>

<p>Elliot Erwitt on Frank: "Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy - the tone range isn't right and things like that - but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention.</p>

<p>William Eggleston's work was initially greeted with similar comments like: “Perfectly banal, perfectly boring,” sniffed one writer; “erratic and ramshackle,” snapped another; “a mess,” declared a third.</p>

<p>The world is inundated with technically (close-to-) perfect, perfectly cliche'd, boring, utterly forgettable pretty photographs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><< what is more important to you? The perfection of the light, exposure, or technical aspects of the piece or the emotion the picture evokes? >></p>

<p>Usually, a superb photo that evokes an emotional response contains multiple technical expertise that may not be readily apparent to the audience's eye until analyzed. Sometimes a lack of "perfect" lighting can be that deliberate touch of perfection.</p>

<p>The following link leads to the series of images that led to a Pulitzer Prize for Jack Dykinga. Having met the man and seen how he works, I can probably say with confidence that every composition was deliberate. Little or nothing was left to accident.</p>

<p><a href="http://disembedded.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/photo-portfolio-of-the-day-the-mentally-ill-in-illinois-1971/">http://disembedded.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/photo-portfolio-of-the-day-the-mentally-ill-in-illinois-1971/</a></p>

<p>Mary</p>

<p>Any photo that works for me is perfect. Emotion is there. There is nothing like consensus on the technical side at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The following link leads to the series of images that led to a Pulitzer Prize for Jack Dykinga. Having met the man and seen how he works, I can probably say with confidence that every composition was deliberate. Little or nothing was left to accident."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In fairness, it should be said that the subject matter can contribute greatly to ones perception of "quality".</p>

<p>Photos of the mentally ill will account for a significant percentage of invoked emotion than, say, a sunset, which is experienced globally once a day. The former, though real, presents many more opportunities for personal expression while staying true to the lived experience. A sunset, on the other hand, is more of an absolute reference which can be immediately objectionably recognized if altered - there is also little room for personal expression, and its all-too-common experience devalues its worth regardless of its author's competence.</p>

<p>Just trying to identify attributes which can contribute to the perception of great photos.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Some very interesting thoughts here. And I think since the technical side of photography is discussed on this site quite a bit, it's nice to see the emotional side come out once in awhile. Not silly at all!</p>

<p>Betty, your original post was quite thought provokingly phrased and the topic is actually frequently discussed. You may see less of this type of discussion in the critique forum because a picture, once in existance, is already committed in so many dimensions which leaves only technical matters as viable options in its furtherance. The exception on this site, I think, is the Picture Of the Week discussions.</p>

<p>I look at this two different ways. Being a photographer, i'm going to look for something close to perfection. That is lighting and composition wise. I also have to remember that a photograph isn't just about the technical side though. It's about the moment in time that has been captured. Emotion can over power a mediocre photo. I also know that overthinking the technical detail can ruin an image. It's all about what story your looking to create.</p>

<p>Like many photographers, I was initially impressed with the work of Ansel Adams due to his magnificent mastery of the medium and his glorious subject matter. As time went by and I was exposed to the work of other great photographers, I learned there was more to photography than the technically perfect photograph. Over time, I've realized that I respond more to the feelings a photograph evokes than any textbook perfection. Robert Frank's work is a good example as is the work of Sally Mann. Rather than detract from the photograph, I think technical limitations can add to the emotion evoked. <br>

</p>

<p>I would tend to vote emotion; the ability to confer what <em>you</em> see in the image you chose, edited and presented to presented to your audience.</p>

<p>As a caveat, I will contend that (financially?) succesful art must appeal to a broad audience and the appreciation / understanding of technical expertise may be lacking in such an audience.</p>

<p>Before I look at a photograph with a critical eye it has to have reached me on some emotional level. Perfection can be emotionally boring, when it comes to photography. Lee's example of Adams' work is one of the best.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i would love to know what everyone's definition of technically perfect is. and why is a photographer such as sally mann so technically incorrect and someone like ansel adams technically correct anyway? i would think they both have the skills and knowledge to achieve their aims. neither is better or worse. doesn't each photographic style require a different and equally valid skill?</p>

<p>In my little humble experience, technical correctness (focus, exposure...) is always the second thing I look to in my images (and other people's). The first is "what does this photo tell me"? I guess this is close to what you call "emotion". Then, I try hard to produce technically correct photos and to post-produce the best possible way, and to print them well, and there is obviously a limit to how technically messy a photo can be, and still deliver.<br>

And yet, looking trough my gallery right now, there are at least 5 images which I know were affected either by some (unwanted) motion blur or by poor focusing (perhaps you cannot notice always from the web-resized version). One of them got the best feedback of any photo I did, another two are as well among the ones more liked by other people here. I guess this more or less settles the question for me.</p>

<p>Then, it depends on the genre: some are more technically demanding (in the sense of demanding more precision) than others. The one I'm most after (street) is probably the one most tolerant of "sloppiness". And if you are doing, say, a paid product work, then of course technical perfection becomes a crucial issue.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>Some of us, me especially, are tired of people making excuses for incompetence.</p>

<p>Occasionally a good or great photo will happen by accident with poor technical quality. It is only accepted because of circumstance, not because of poor quality. In any art or craft, a practitioner should always endeavor to improve his skill level (for some of us it took several years). </p>

<p>Lynn<br>

 

 

MODERATOR NOTE: Long string of titles removed according to Photo.net rules. Please see this link:

 

http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00QbV5