breal101 wrote in post #16828437
This sounds rigid to me. Photos don't have to be perfect to be effective. We can agree to disagree but don't try to back peddle away from what you already said.
Just an aside, I've been shooting for over forty years, 35 of those making a living from photography. I once had a rigid attitude for following rules but over time, that has changed. Honestly, sometimes I wish my head wasn't filled with all that technical crap.
Again, it's not about following rules for the sake of following rules, it's about looking at the image and determining what it SAYS.
No, photos don't have to be technically perfect in order to be effective. However, unless those "imperfections" ADD to what the image is saying, then those imperfections are a flaw. Let's not sugarcoat this here. Images can be highly effective while still being highly flawed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that eliminating the "imperfections" is gonna kill the image. In many cases it is the exact opposite. If the image is that effective while being technically flawed, then it is often BETTER if the imperfections are ironed out.
And again, that's not a rule. I hate rules, I hate the idea of making decisions in order to follow rules. Screw the rule, images either work or don't. So explain what's happening in the image, how the use of space or color or whatever applies to THIS particular image. I am strongly against following rules for the sake of following rules, but I don't feel like these images quite work. I think the technical imperfections detract from the imag rather than adding to them. And yes, I may be completely wrong. If that's the case, then explain it to me. Explain to me how the technical imperfections ADD to these particular images. Again...there's nothing wrong with being "different", but that difference has to be done with intent and that has to translate to the audience. Otherwise you've just got a failure to communicate properly.