Is perfection a valid goal?

[Bearface]

Inspired by Tom's excellent Joy to the World photo (and the accompanying thread), I got to thinking about how we assess our own work and more importantly how we critique the work of other photographers, as we do here. Anyway, I just thought I'd share some of my own thoughts on the subject, while giving the rest of you the opportunity to express your own views. Please bear in mind that I'm referring to situations in which time and/or control over environment and conditions is limited.

Tom posted what could objectively be described as a technically flawed image (cropped limbs, over-saturated colours...), however to my eyes (and most of the others who viewed it) it is a beautifully emotive and infectious image which completely redeems itself and in fact renders any minor technical flaws as inconsequential. Okay, a couple of people referred to these anomalies and Tom himself suggested he might address some of them, but I'm saying that the power of the shot is such that to alter or "repair" it would almost serve to remove the soul and the spontaneity that is fundamental to it; in other words it's flaws are key to it's appeal.

A couple of years back I was in a very, very, very expensive restaurant (someone else was paying... ) in the centre of London. Our main courses had been brought to us and I was tucking into possibly the most glorious seafood I'd ever tasted when the maitre d' rushed over and practically insisted on taking my food away because the dressing had been drizzled "sloppily" and therefore the presentation had been substandard. Being a crude, Northen oik I told him that the sloppy drizzling was the least of my concerns, particularly as the food itself was exquisite, and it actually took some time to convince him to shut up and go away. That said, my main course was deducted from the bill, but my point is that this guy was apparently driven by the need for absolute perfection, while I was only interested in the sheer gorgeousness of the food, not to mention the fact that his interference and pettiness was actually causing me more grief than the alleged poor presentation. Hopefully you're getting my drift...

So.......as someone who is normally very self critical when it comes to photography and getting things measurably "right", I'm suggesting that such an obsessive approach is less important than getting the right shot in the first place. No, I'm not saying that anyone should ignore or disregard what is needed in terms of the basics, but I am saying that spontaneity and capturing that defining moment is way more important than getting all five fingers of the left hand into the crop.......or whatever small issues might arise from a hastily grabbed shot which is worth way more than a religiously adhered-to rule of thirds composition or an accurately-placed catchlight...

In situations where spontaneity or time limits how technical and obsessive you can be.............take the shot and if it works for you at first glance, leave it alone - you've got your shot! Don't apologise for it afterwards and don't try to fix it.......if you've captured a defining moment then nothing else really matters.

That's what I think...........anyone care to chip in?

[Archangel]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

My personal opinion has as follows:

Usually I judge photos by three different parameters that I consider major and most important in a photo. Though I'm not being strict with that as other secondary parameters (e.g image quality, presentation, e.t.c) can contribute towards a good photo and as there are different types of photos that need judgement adjustments according to their style (touristic style photos showing just views of places, abstracts, e.t.c).
Though I believe that the 3 major parameters are those that will make a photo stand out in my mind by simply just looking at it and without getting down to technicalities.
So these main parameters for me are:

1. Theme:
What the photo shows (regardless of what is that, how cheerful, sad, e.t.c). It might sound strange, but what each photo shows doesn't have so much importance to me. What matters is the way the photographer chosed to present his theme and if he/she finally managed to transmit his feelings to others.
Here it happens one of the most serious mistakes from most people. They pay too much attention to the theme and they underestimate the rest of the ingredients of a photo. The same mistake happens in cinema, where the amateur audience judges the movie just from the scenario, forgetting that they are other parameters like acting, lighting, scene changes, e.t.c.


2. Form:
The way the photographer chooses to present the theme. The technique and the style (very wide angle views, panoramic views, dim or very dim lighting, too much abstract styles) choosen for presentation consist the form of the photograph.
Here we need to be very carefull and sometimes techniques like these should trigger an alarm. Exaggerated form can be manipulative or misleading and these are tricks used from photographers to cover other deficiencies of their photos.
On the other hand the form of a photo shouldn't be underestimated completely as it is the way of the photographer to transmit the feelings of the given momment to the viewers.


3. Container:
Is the feeling(s), sensation(s) that the photo transmits to the viewer. Is what makes a viewer concentrate, look and admire the photo. Is what will shake the feelings of the viewer and trigger his imagination. Is what will make a viewer to remember a similar moment saw or lived in his life, or even make him search his own archives for a similar photo he has.
Though here are also some tricks and limitations that viewers should be aware of and have to do with feelings exaggerations or bad framing.

So, these are in a short description the 3 most important factors that I personally judge the photos and without being strict only to those 3 as I may take into account according to the photo other secondary parameters.

As far as Tom's photo is concerned, I rated his photo as I wrote in his thread with 9.
I judged his photo using these 3 parameters and cut him one point for not so well framing of his container.
Other image issues like oversaturation are a point of commenting but not a point of subtracting grading points as these things can be corrected afterwards and as these have secondary meaning in relation with his photo.
What cannot be corrected afterwards is the capture of the given moment with the expression on these kid's faces and thankfully Tom, didn't miss that expression moment.



George

[bigbob]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

All this is too long winded for me .
I just know what i like .
Sometimes i can put it into words , but most times it's just a feeling, an emotion that captures the moment .
B..

[Bearface]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

All this is too long winded for me .

I just know what i like .
Sometimes i can put it into words , but most times it's just a feeling, an emotion that captures the moment .
B..

This is almost my point really.............often the image is so emotive or poignant that it cancels out the need for technical analysis or in-depth critique - it's greater than the sum of it's parts

[Stephen]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

All this is too long winded for me .
I just know what i like .
Sometimes i can put it into words , but most times it's just a feeling, an emotion that captures the moment .
B..

I can sympathise and identify with your point of view B..
Essentially, it seems to me, Tim is making an extremely valid point. We should not necessarily beat ourselves up over not getting the perfect shot, but rather use our instinct to capture the moment. Something which you admit to doing.

I'm personally not especially into the analytical approach mentioned by Archangel, though he does say he usually knows just by looking at a picture whether its a good one. The technicalities, as he puts it seem somewhat irrelevant then in my opinion.

I would argue, in answer to the question though, that we should strive for perfection in our photography, second rate stuff does us no favours, but also use some passion and spontaneity to capture the moment before its gone. The result can often make for our best photos.

[Bearface]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

I would argue, in answer to the question though, that we should strive for perfection in our photography, second rate stuff does us no favours, but also use some passion and spontaneity to capture the moment before its gone. The result can often make for our best photos.

Yeah, we should always try to maximise every opportunity and try to produce the best images we possibly can. However I'm sure you'll agree that there are definitely some scenarios which grant you far less control over the technicalities than others, and that in those cases it's more important to "get the shot" than to worry about minor rule infringements. After all, if the shot truly speaks to the viewer on an emotional level, they're unlikely to even notice the flaws in any case

[Stephen]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

.................................................. ..After all, if the shot truly speaks to the viewer on an emotional level, they're unlikely to even notice the flaws in any case

I'd agree, and Toms picture of the 3 Chinese boys clearly proves that point.

[ash]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

Im amazed that profesional photographers have entered a debate about Tom's picture!
Surely you guys now that its not about the technical perfection of an image, if you are there and you see the frame in your eyes, then you take it, its not gunna hang around!
Ash.

[Pol]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

Yeah, we should always try to maximise every opportunity and try to produce the best images we possibly can. However I'm sure you'll agree that there are definitely some scenarios which grant you far less control over the technicalities than others, and that in those cases it's more important to "get the shot" than to worry about minor rule infringements. After all, if the shot truly speaks to the viewer on an emotional level, they're unlikely to even notice the flaws in any case

Well ... that kinda sums up the essence of good documentary and photojournalism, doesn't it? Not always time and opportunity to get a level horizon, vertical verticals and think too much about the rule of thirds but for goodness' sake get the picture, grab the decisive moment.

As for striving for perfection ........ I certainly agree it's a very valid goal. However, I also feel we should also aim to enjoy the striving, enjoy self assessment, take pride in our efforts even though we sometimes give ourselves 6/10 when we'd been hoping for a 10/10. At least it means yer glass is more than half full, eh.

Pol

[Stephen]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

Im amazed that profesional photographers have entered a debate about Tom's picture!

The 'debate' is not about Tom's picture Ash, its simply being used to inspire the discussion and to illustrate the point being made'

Surely you guys know that its not about the technical perfection of an image, if you are there and you see the frame in your eyes, then you take it, its not gunna hang around!
Ash.

A slightly simplistic assessment of what the discussion has largely been about, so I would have to agree with you However the implication of your comment suggests that you think that we should not be discussing it

[Pops]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

Deep but very interesting and thought provoking.
While I'm sure the professionals among you need to be very conscious at all times of how your shots are going to turn out the amatuer or hobbyist can afford to be more relaxed. I'm certainly not suggesting that the amatuer should not strive for improvement just that the 'Fun Factor' should not be buried or forgotten at the expense of attaining perfection.

My wife has a small Olympus, which is virtually welded on 'Auto Everything', which she uses when visiting the children or when they are visiting us. When I put them on the computer for her she is delighted to see the shots full of background clutter. When I try to explain that the subject appears to be lost among the clutter she says "but that clutter is what I want to see because when I look at them I see things that are mine and I can remember everything as it was then" In other words she is just having fun and doesn't care one iota about the appearance or presentation.
Now when I take shots of the family I try to avoid 'clutter' and bring out the subject carefully focused and will often take a couple of test shots first.

When all is said and done does it matter...we are both enjoying the shots in our own way.

[Archangel]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

I'm personally not especially into the analytical approach mentioned by Archangel, though he does say he usually knows just by looking at a picture whether its a good one. The technicalities, as he puts it seem somewhat irrelevant then in my opinion.

A professional, a hobbyist, an amateur, or even someone not related to photography can express an opinion of liking or disliking a photo without having specific knowledge of all or even some of the basic judgment criteria.
What makes a person liking or disliking a photo even by just simply looking at it? Even without knowing or having certain photographic knowledge the feeling of liking or disliking a photo is triggered by something. What is that something? Even without knowing it all people like or dislike a photo according to some inner concise criteria.
These criteria are specifically addressed (have names) in photography and are related to human feelings.

Speaking of Tom's specific photo what makes people like the photo only by just looking at it? The answer is:

1. The photo shows three cheerful kids. Everybody noticed that.
That belongs to parameter/criteria "Theme"

2. Tom asked about cut feet and elbow and everybody commented on that of how much or not at all that degrades the photo.
That belongs to parameter/criteria "Form"

3. Everybody felt and liked the feeling that the photo transmits and the photographer managed to pass that feeling to the viewers.
That belongs to parameter/criteria "Container"

In other words, all people whatever their comments were in terms of theme, framing and feelings and even by simply just looking the photo they expressed their opinion. Opinions even without noticing it are based on some criteria/conditions, some inner judgment force.
What I did in my previous post is that I just gave names to these criteria that all of us used in order to say that we like the photo.

Just for the proof of it, I could ask all of you the following questions:
Why did you like Tom's photo? or
Why don't you dislike Tom's photo?
There is always a reason/criteria/condition for liking or disliking something.

So I don't see any irrelevancy in my previous post mentioning these three parameters/criteria of judging a photo, while at the same time all of our opinions are based on these, even without noticing it and even without knowing what to call the reasons we like or dislike a photo.
"By simply looking at it" is only the cause in order to express an opinion.

I haven't mention any technicalities Stephen (e.g. type of photography, framing styles, shooting angles, proportions, added dimensions, lighting, camera settings according to environmental conditions, e.t.c).


George

[Tom]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

Leaving the merits or otherwise of my photo to one side, I think it is a good example to use as a basis for this discussion. I have always enjoyed looking at the three boys and have come back to it often just to see the three boys again but it was only when my wife looked at it, and wanted a copy of it to display at her library for Chinese New Year, that I started looking at it more seriously for faults; and finding them.
While I honestly would prefer to have elbows and feet included and am still dissappointed with myself for not getting it right in the viewfinder, I feel totally comfortable with the fact that all was not lost.
When I look into the viewfinder I look for a composition/shape/form that I like and the rules of thirds etc etc don't even enter my mind and never have done; I try to get the exposure right and I just click when I like what I see. Not a great recipe for 'perfection' perhaps.
But this approach would not work in all areas of photography and I'm sure there are areas where 'perfection' is more essential.
But Perfection is a bit like Common Sense, does it really exist?

[Andrew Thatcher]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

Perfection is the headlong pursuit of running around in circles
I think if you have the basics covered like taking the lens cap off your fine. You need some motivation to improve your photography so a fundamental pursuit is good but if it takes control of you thats the time to worry. In the end if the image moves you then the flaws should not come into it.

[cowcrzy06]

Re: Is perfection a valid goal?

Bear,
I believe your point is captured in my picture sunset delight.I was driving down the road and saw what could be a beautiful picture. So I hit the brakes checked behind me and grabbed my camera. I had only mere seconds to get the picture and go.I was in a bad spot in the road a car could come at any time . I rolled down the window took the picture and went on my way. I believe the only mistake I made in my haste was the picture was not level and a little bit needed to be croped off the top. Any way what I wanted to show was that you made a very valid point.

Jennifer