Interesting commentary on "bad" images at Luminous

Check out the following "what's new" entry for Aug 26th by Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape:

August 26, 2004

 

Most photographers are interested in having their images display as high technical quality as possible. Fine grain film, hi-res sensors, top ranked lenses — we have always been focused on (pardon the pun) achieving optimum image quality. Regrettably though, with the advent of Internet chat forums (some at least), along with digital camera, and software that allows us to look at things at the individual pixel level, this has escalated to a fetish for some people, and in my opinion a destructive one at that. It has little to do anymore with creativity, the joy seeing, and the making of images.

 

With this in mind today I am publishing a photograph taken recently that displays both green and red chromatic aberration, is out of focus, has motion blur from hand-holding, is highly underexposed, and which basically looks like crap at 100% onscreen in Photoshop. It is the latest entry on my Miscellaneous Moments page. I humbly suggest that Caravaggio might have approved.

Here's the image he's referring to. I got to thinking about something similar while reviewing some photos the other day. Sometimes, no matter how technically correct a photo might be (in focus, sharp, follows rule of 1/3s, well exposed) it's just not good, simply because it's boring or doesn't evoke any response. Conversely, a "bad" image (out of focus, underexposed) sometimes works better because it does what the technically correct image can't.

Just thought I'd share as we get into the new camera season surrounding Photokina and we see all these great new cameras and lenses with newer better faster specs...

Cheers

Tom

Tom, thanks for posting....he kind of hit the nail on the head ....sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees :!:

In my case, my photographic knowledge has grown immensely from internet forums and exchanges of ideas and information...while it's possible to get too technical, all information ultimately leads us to better photographic results, IMHO..

Karl

I think everyone learns a lot from these forums, and especially gets a good idea of what sort of shots to be taking, and how to take them.

I think that even though he is right we are in a lsightly different area, you don't often see people using soft filters underwater. I know some people do studio style photography underwater, but we are more in the area of wildlife photography and so getting a subject and capturing it in a way that shows us the subject be it either in it's natural full form or in a abstract artistic way is what we strive towards.

Our difference is we have the water taking away light and contrast and so we try to put it back in, and if you are going to go to the trouble of having a colourfull contrasty photo why not put it in focus and expose it well. Now exposing well in my mind doesnt mean by the book perfect, i often underexpose shots, or hide he strobe behind some coral so only par the frame gets lit just to create an atmosphere, by hiding some of the frame i feel like I am in the hiding fishes head who's thinking .. he can'tsee me.

Did i share too much then ... ya think i'm weird now ? Giles thinks he can read fishes minds... what a freak !

anyway ... I don't think I have seen many out of focus arty uw shots, however I have seen some great shots that you may call out of focus mainly because of the long exposure and high ISO.

like this

photo by Calverley Julian HotLinked from Wrecks Online

or this

photo by David Doubilet Hot linked from National Geographic

First, I don't want anyone to think that I don't value or appreciate the gear and technique discussions we engage in. Quite the contrary, I tend to focus more on the technical aspects of UW photography right now, and really enjoy the new stuff discussions. I LOVE new toys...

Did i share too much then ... ya think i'm weird now ? Giles thinks he can read fishes minds... what a freak !  

Now? No, actually some of the best fish photos I've seen show the subject's "personality". For example, the draw of the pic you posted the other day is intriguing because of the "expression" the fish had.

I think the point MR was trying to make was more that photos don't always have to be perfect to be good, and I agree with that. The two photos you posted are very good examples. The wreck photo has a lot of grain / noise in it, but that adds to the impact for me. The photo of the sea lions has a good sized blown out sun in the middle of the frame, which we generally struggle to avoid. Does it make the photo any less compelling in this case?

Mostly, just trying to get people thinking about impact rather than technology this morning...