Technical perfection doesn't truly matter

[DerekW]

Re NN's comment on HiFi
a film made a long time ago by the BBC to illustrate NN's views.

https://www.facebook.com/BBCArchive/...3278384378531/

I was amused at the search for the optimum spot to experience the stereo sound.

[Naughty Nigel]

Originally Posted by DerekW

Re NN's comment on HiFi
a film made a long time ago by the BBC to illustrate NN's views.

https://www.facebook.com/BBCArchive/...3278384378531/

I was amused at the search for the optimum spot to experience the stereo sound.

I must stress that my comments on the subject of HiFi were made strictly 'tongue in cheek'.

The truth is that I have cloth ears, as I really cannot tell the difference between good quality interconnects costing (say) £50, and those costing £25,000 plus.

I have similar impairments when it comes to appreciating the true wonder of Apple devices.

[alfbranch]

Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel

Kodak Gold was crap in my humble opinion. (Do they still make it?)

Velvia though, was on another level altogether.

I am also rather partial to Kodak Tri-X, Fuji Acros and Ilford Pan F.

You can still get gold it was fine for family snaps

Originally Posted by Naughty Nigel

Looks like a Volvo driver's view of the world.

You should apply for a grant from the Arts Council.

Better still, use the same technique to photograph piles of bricks, dirty nappies and old car tyres, and then apply.

Are you taking the mick of my art

[Naughty Nigel]

Originally Posted by alfbranch

You can still get gold it was fine for family snaps.

Precisely.

I don't suppose High Street processing and printing helped.

Originally Posted by alfbranch

Are you taking the mick of my art

It has a certain charm, but if it makes you happy.

[iso]

It is a shame that a Thread on what actually is a topic of importance to many of us, should be dragged down by comments from a Poster, who above, and through their earlier comments, obviously has no appreciation of what photography is about.

[wornish]

Originally Posted by iso

It is a shame that a Thread on what actually is a topic of importance to many of us, should be dragged down by comments from a Poster, who above, and through their earlier comments, obviously has no appreciation of what photography is about.

Name names

[Naughty Nigel]

Originally Posted by iso

It is a shame that a Thread on what actually is a topic of importance to many of us, should be dragged down by comments from a Poster, who above, and through their earlier comments, obviously has no appreciation of what photography is about.

Forgive me and my warped sense of humour. I shall go and stand in the naughty corner.

I had given this matter serious thought, and wrote accordingly earlier in the life of this thread, but few people responded.

(I also note that the Complainant had made no substantive contribution to the thread.)

As the thread matured and once opinions had been stated it seemed to become quite light hearted, so I responded in similar fashion.

I sincerely apologise if I have offended anyone, as that was not my intention. I had thought it was just a bit of fun.

I have to say though, it does worry me that some members feel the need take themselves so seriously these days. I have also been reminded of why I haven't stepped foot in a camera club for many years now.

As for the allegation that I 'obviously have no appreciation of what photography is about', I will leave it to him to elucidate, and look forward to a healthy and serious debate on the subject.

[pdk42]

Naughty Nigel - no need to get on the naughty step in my opinion. I wasn't offended at all by your posts. I got the humour.

[Wee man]

Yes let's work together with a full range of responses. Think how boring this place would be if every reply was on topic and academic in nature.
Remember Nigel is naughty​ by nature so should be forgiven that is if it is he who is being referred to.

Wee Man

[Ricoh]

I enjoyed the humour once the 'semi-serious' stuff had run the distance. If photographers can't laugh at themselves, then God help them. I enjoy photography but I also want to have fun whilst I'm doing it.

[Zuiko]

Originally Posted by iso

It is a shame that a Thread on what actually is a topic of importance to many of us, should be dragged down by comments from a Poster, who above, and through their earlier comments, obviously has no appreciation of what photography is about.

Actually, I think this is the contentious comment that soured the mood of this thread. Lighten up, please.

[Harold Gough]

Getting back to the original question:

Where is the image created? Is it in the mind of the photographer prior to framing? Is it in the viewfinder? Is it in PP? Probably a blend/combination. It could be that what the photographer intended never existed and never will but at least the flavour of it may be the end result.

Some random comments:

When you look through a viewfinder, you see a rectangular image, viewed through one eye.

The naked eye sees two, partly merged, disc-shaped images.

Two normal eyes give you binocular vision, out to the middle distance. One of them cannot see this through a viewfinder, although focus gives some impression of depth.

It used to be/still is a sign of a pro at weddings, etc. that they use a medium format camera with a waist-level VF.

Part of the creation of the image is (e.g. landscape) is chosing the season/weather/time of day/night/. Then comes the lighting and the viewpoint. Some research on the subject may be needed so as to show the pertinent features.

Harold

[Ricoh]

When I look through my viewfinder I can choose whether or not to have the other eye open and see with binocular vision - but that's fairly unique to RF photography. It has benefits if you're a documentary type of photographer.

Otherwise, close one eye and see the world the way camera does. Squint and better see the luminosity levels, especially contrast in light levels.

Anyway, back to the proposition that technical perfection doesn't matter... here's a short video I came across of an Australian photographer Marcus Anderson. Definitely worth 15 or so minutes to watch this guy and the results he obtains. He uses a mix of 35mm and medium format, and in his own words he says the medium isn't perfect but it captures the essence of the street in an organic manner. He shoots with almost anything, toy cameras having an appeal due to the low quality of the optics.
Here it is: https://youtu.be/cgB5fxYjZXE

[Crazy Dave]

The great Eric Morecambe once said to Andre Prevue, "I'm playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order". One of the issues is for example, if I can produce a perfectly exposed photo, all the blacks with texture, no burnt out highlight but chose not to, persuading a critic that it is my creative intent is often very difficult. Did the guy who looked at my images two weeks ago ever see Edward Weston's profile portraits (no eye contact there), or Bill Brandt's work? No way.

So the answer to the question is Yes it does if addressed to the wrong person and No if addressed to yourself - sometimes.

David

[iso]

It was not a ‘complaint’, it was an observation.
I had not realised the Thread had moved from discussion on an important topic, into ‘fun mode’.
The topic is actually close to my heart, and I had not responded because I was weighing up what to say.
As for ‘lighten up’, anyone reading the majority of my replies to things will know I am far from serious…..
I apologise if I have offended anyone or ‘the system’, it was simply a reaction to how I saw it.
For the record, ‘Does Technical Perfection in Images Matter’ – not a lot. Ben Davis IMHO, has it right.