On 3/14/2012 10:48 AM, Matthew Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Daniel J. Matyola
<[email protected]> wrote:
In a recent thread, many sharply criticized one of the most famous
images of AA. Is HCB such a god that he is beyond criticism?
I don't think that's really the issue here. Rather, I see two main points:
(1) The commenters are oblivious to the fact that it's a famous
photograph, showing a weakness in the commenters' understanding of the
history of the art form they're critiquing. I see some merit to this
argument, but, really, all of us have to decide where to focus our
attention, and we all have strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in our
knowledge.
As a neophyte, this is something I can appreciate more than most on the
list, I suppose. That's why I'm so hesitant to offer critiques on
others' works and instead choose to learn from the critiques that others
offer. A case in point: Mark's photo of the columns from a few days ago.
My eye really wanted to see that image in a horizontal perspective. But,
after looking at it again, I understood that it simply wouldn't have
worked nearly as well that way -- perhaps for the very fact that it
would have been a concession to the eye's natural inclination.
(2) Most of the complaints were about the technical quality,
particularly sharpness. This illustrates a widespread belief,
especially in this sort of Internet forum, that perfect technical
quality is essential to a good photograph. If that's someone's
well-considered belief, fine, but it seems like a lot of people hold
this belief without really thinking about it, or without appreciating
how many of photography's past works would be rejected under it. Today
I was engaged in a discussion about whether the Nikon D700 and D800
are suitable for making large prints (in the sense of "Maybe the D800
is, but maybe not the D700.") My response was that if that kind of
statement seems reasonable to you, you're saying there haven't been
many adequate prints in the history of photography. It's a narrow
technical view that, even I as a sensor and instrumentation geek, am
getting weary of. I'm glad for the ever-increasing capabilities of our
equipment, but at some point you need to just look at the picture!
This phenomenon actually makes me revel in my blissful ignorance. Not
having any preconceived notions of what a photo "should" look like when
I take it, I tend to gravitate toward taking photos that look how I
"want" them to look. Having a great deal of technical knowledge can
obviously help to achieve that end, obviously. But, there's a certain
freedom in not being burdened with the strictures of technical perfection.
That's not to say I wouldn't love to have all the knowledge that the
gearheads on the list have; it would certainly help me to cut back on
the number of clunkers I shoot. But, for the time being, I find it
extremely satisfying when my images come out the way I envisioned them
when I hit the shutter button. And if that turns out to be pretty
crappy, at least I'll know the problem is in my eye and not the camera
-- which is a much less expensive problem to fix.
-- Walt
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
