Finally detaching myself from taking "technically perfect" shots

thedcmule2 wrote in post #16828329
Shutter speed is a completely personal and creative choice. Did I ever say no motion blur was technically correct thing to do? NOPE! You are disagreeing with something I never even said or implied.

Not really. Let's stop sugar coating it.

I could have used any number of examples, composition, exposure, processing, etc. All these rules get broken and can produce interesting photos. Rigid compliance with rules is a distraction for creativity.

The picture works for me, the OP should be encouraged to continue the quest for nice images, not blasted for not following the status quo. Just my opinion.

I never said to rigidly comply with rules, and I am all for encouraging to bend them. You can sit and call the shots great but the OP won't learn anything from that.

And "blasted"? Seriously? lol whatever

thedcmule2 wrote in post #16827063
Detaching yourself from taking technically perfect shots is a bad idea. In these two examples they didn't help you at all, you are still left with very dull, static images where the subjects are dead center and the balance is off. So if your goal was to be artistic and have stronger composition, I can't say you achieved this.

What you should be aiming for is technically perfect AND well composed shots. With practice the technicalities become second-hand and you can focus on composition. You should not sacrifice one for the other.

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.

You can keep interpreting my posts as awkwardly as you want to. Truth of the matter is OP doesn't look like he has a full understanding of how to make an effective photo just yet but he is getting there, so learning how to be technically perfect first, and then breaking all the rules he wants is fine.

And you have been shooting for over 40 years and you think OP's photo works? I highly question your understanding of photography then, but we can agree to disagree since this is all personal taste anyway. OP can do whatever the hell he wants to at the end of the day, and I am all for it.

thedcmule2 wrote in post #16828446
You can keep interpreting my posts as awkwardly as you want to. Truth of the matter is OP doesn't look like he has a full understanding of how to make an effective photo just yet but he is getting there, so learning how to be technically perfect first, and then breaking all the rules he wants is fine.

And you have been shooting for over 40 years and you think OP's photo works? I highly question your understanding of photography then, but we can agree to disagree since this is all personal taste anyway. OP can do whatever the hell he wants to at the end of the day, and I am all for it.

You really amuse me, you can question my understanding of photography all you want. Obviously you're a newb.

breal101 wrote in post #16828452
You really amuse me, you can question my understanding of photography all you want. Obviously you're a newb.

Wow an old man using the word newb, now I've seen it all

breal101 wrote in post #16828404
The picture works for me, the OP should be encouraged to continue the quest for nice images, not blasted for not following the status quo. Just my opinion.

The BEST reply in this entire thread!!!!

I like both images. Not perfect. But emotive and dramatic. Capturing and conveying emotion is not a bad way to go.

xravexboix wrote in post #16827233
I actually only crop photos if they need to be sized to fit something. If I were to crop it, should I stick to a specific aspect ratio or freely crop to whatever may look best ?

I always crop them the same ratio or quadratic. Because looking through a gallery and the frame jumping from one ratio to another seems very annoying and distracting to me.

But its personal preference as many do it like you described.

Nice pics. Like no 1 more. Second one would be perfect without the man in the center. Another framing would work better there i guess

Terry Richardson made around $58,000,000 in 2013 and his images are 'TECHNICALLY' a load of junk.

I have a shoot in a few hours so I'll do my usual thing but try a few of the recommendations as well and see what results I have. Thank you for all the comments and critique. It's the only way to improve, right? Haha.

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16827560
You and your rule of thirds! I feel the image works very well with her in the center because of all the stuff in the BG. It works in this image. Actually, in the second image, his face falls right on the cross hairs of the RoT's, but it still doesn't work. RoT's is a very good rule to follow when starting out, keeping your images well composed, but the rule is not set in stone.

He/she didn't say anything about the rule of thirds, he/she commented on the use of space. And I agree. The face is dead center with a lot of background stuff to the right and just a blank background wall in the left. Think of it in terms of balance. All of the background "stuff" is on the right, while a huge portion of the left is devoted to empty space that does nothing. Don't get me wrong, absences can be important, but I don't see what that blank wall contributes other than just making the image unbalanced.

That said, I find image impact to be generally more interesting than tchnical perfection. Show me a technically flawed image that I've never seen, and I'll likely be more interested in it that a technically perfect image that I've seen done thousands of times. But as has been said before, one should strive for interesting imagery AND technical perfection. And these, despite being technically imperfect, just look to me like images that I've seen before.

breal101 wrote in post #16828297
I couldn't disagree more. You would tell Earnst Haas to shoot at a faster shutter speed so the bullfighter pictures showed no motion blur? Then they would be just another pic of a bullfighter.

Same here the OP achieved what he wanted to, something different. I like #1, the background lines support the center composition.

Yeah, but "different" isn't enough. It has to be done with purpose, and whatever point was trying to be made by being different has to translate to the audience. Being different isn't an end goal, it's just something that you do if that's necessary to say what you needed to say.

The real question here is how the technical imperfections benefit the images in this particular case. And sorry, but I'm not seeing it.

I can see where the OP is coming from here. I used to be really 'fussy' with my shots & would happily delete while chimping/shooting if I didn't like them instead of trying to salvage in PP like some people do. In the past year or so I have learnt to capture images esp of the children that mean something, capture an emotion/event, give happy memories etc I still kick myself to get a good composition, the right exposure, accurate focus etc & I'm not 100% happy if I don't but to me the image still works & means something which is the important part for personal photos at least.

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.