Blasphemy - I could care less how sharp your photo is!

.
I am not saying that technical merits are the primary criterion that I base the quality of a photo on. . Quite the contrary. . I value most the more artistic, creative aspects of a photo - they are what matter most.

BUT ..... the technical aspects of a photo are like a pre-requisite, like the photo just doesn't count at all, for anything, until those basic requirements are fulfilled. . If a photo has proper exposure, and the parts that are supposed to be sharpest are in sharpest focus, and if there is no noise grain, nor choppy bokeh, and if there are no compositional distractions ..... then, and only then, can I look deeper at the photo and begin to assess its artistic and creative merits.

Think of it like a poem.

The most wonderful, insightful poem could be written in sloppy, almost illegible handwriting on the back of a crumpled-up napkin that someone had blown their nose on.

That may be the most beautifully worded poem in history. . It may employ a genius usage of rime and meter. . The words, when spoken, may create ethereal, otherworldly scenes in the minds of those who hear it. . The words may proffer such deep insights that those who hear it feel like they know themselves on a deeper level because of that poem - that it exposes their own desires and motives that they were never even conscious of before. . It could open their eyes to many things in the world before them, so that they understand their own existence on a much deeper level because of that poem.

BUT ..... I would never be able to enjoy reading that masterpiece of a poem as long as it is written on that crumpled-up, snotty napkin in hard-to-read handwriting. . That would be a distraction that I could not get past. . The meanings and the insights of that poem just wouldn't count at all, for anything, until they were written neatly and legibly on a clean, unwrinkeld medium. . All distractions would have to be removed before I would be able to concentrate on the content of the poem, and appreciate it for its insights and semantic merits.


.

I do NOT see that the deer are out of focus. (edit: looked at larger versions, confirmed my thoughts)

I see motion blur due to slow shutter, and that the motion was part of the image.

It makes the image.

If the deer were frozen in place with a fast shutter, it would not be the same image at all. This is a great example of where art and technical details diverge. I believe the photographer was fully capable of understanding how to achieve a sharp image of frozen deer, and I also believe (opinion) that his choice to do otherwise resulted in a piece of artwork.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #19203820
.
..... but it is the act of the herd running and that energy that is important to this image. Not sharpness.

The reason this image has stood the test of time is it shows what that herd of deer meant to the creator. Capanigro decided the motion of the herd was what was important to him instead of the obvious. That is what separates this photograph from the billions of other deer photographs where the photographers went for the obvious. The obvious is easy. It is what most do. The question i how does one make a photograph that goes beyond the obvious? How does one make photographs that capture how they feel about what is being photographed..

.
To me, the motion of running deer IS the obvious.

That motion is what almost any human would want to capture if they are photographing deer that are on the run. . The motion is, to me, the obvious, inside-the-box that thing that immediately comes to any person's mind. . Capturing that motion is just what anybody would do, if they had been there at that time with a camera in their hands.

The word "motion", after all, is a noun ..... so what he photographed was the noun; the obvious.

I prefer images that show me things that aren't quite so obvious.


.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19203827
I don't see (from that tiny internet copy) that the deer are out of focus. I see motion blur due to slow shutter, and that the motion was part of the image. It makes the image, If the deer were frozen in place, it would not be the same image at all.

Exactly!!!!!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19203827
.
I don't see (from that tiny internet copy) that the deer are out of focus. I see motion blur due to slow shutter, and that the motion was part of the image. It makes the image, If the deer were frozen in place, it would not be the same image at all.
.

.
I'll have to take another look at it. . My statements here are based on my memory from when I saw it back in 2013 .... perhaps after 9 years my recollection of just what the photo looked like is a bit skewed.


.

I looked at larger versions,
https://www.joseflebov​icgallery.com …CL178-28.JPG?v=1492664348

and have edited my post.
The deer are actually very much in focus with some of those tree branches closer to us than some of the deer, and vice versa.. they all fall within the DOF of focus.

Tom the print quality of the silver gelatin print of the one I saw was amazing. So it was not like looking at a snotty napkin. The obvious would be a photograph of a deer that looks like the hundreds of millions of other deer shots. This one is special and has stood the test of time. Partially because the creator created and photographed how he felt about it in a way that others usually don't. if it were to look like all the others it wouldn't be special and we wouldn't be discussing it.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19203840
I looked at larger versions,
https://www.joseflebov​icgallery.com …CL178-28.JPG?v=1492664348

and have edited my post.
The deer are actually very much in focus with some of those tree branches closer to us than some of the deer, and vice versa.. they all fall within the DOF of focus.

.
I am looking at it again, and re-assessing my recollection of the image. . The fact that the spruce foliage above the deer is sharp does not bother me as it did years ago when I originally saw it.

I like the extent to which the deer are blurred due to their motion. . It is pretty much perfect - like, if one could take several practice frames at different shutter speeds, and chimp the results, the shutter speed he used is what one would choose to use.

I also like very much that the 4th deer from the front of the herd is a yearling, so much smaller than the others. . That makes the image infinitely more interesting to me than it would be if all of the deer were same-size adults.


.

Wanted to add this. Tom you certainly are free to not like the image and I would never say you were wrong to not like it. We are all free to like and dislike whatever. I am just saying the reason I believe it is important. Even if the deer were not in focus I don't believe that is all that important to the intent. I personally don't care for Witkins work but I see perfectly why it is considered important.

With today's digital imagery and manufactured images, I personally think that images like that no longer hold an attraction as they might have in the past. It is an interesting photo, but the first thing I thought of was "is this photoshopped"? And the answer could very well be yes with today's tech, which means it holds my attention a little bit less.

However, with Tom's ram picture, which held my attention for quite some time, it was a great image, and I could almost imagine being on that cliff with the ram. I wish we had scenic areas near me, but I would have to drive at least 10 hours to get to an area like that, being in the midwest.

The best I could muster would be a cow or horse shot with the "rolling" plains in the background which are more flat than round.

The deer photo is correctly focused.

I am interested in some of the other comments. How can someone be drawn to an image without correct focus? I would like to see an example of such an image that is not an art/abstract image? An image that is appealing without correct focus. I honestly cannot think of one I have ever seen.

I can see I am very much against here but we are arguing the most fundamental of photography fundamentals.

What is "correct" focus? Do you mean nothing is in focus, or what you think should be, isn't?

I just need to know before I bring out all my Bigfoot pictures that I sold for thousands of an OOF creature standing at the edge of a treeline...

I could see the argument that there are seldom shots that are keepers where nothing is in focus. However there are times where a shot where nothing is in focus is still better than no shot at all, I have some where it was impossible to get focus on the subject, but the images are still keepers.

However when it comes to something not being in focus that one feels should be but instead something else is, that is interpretation of the viewer, and quite possibly not the intent of the shooter.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19203942
However when it comes to something not being in focus that one feels should be but instead something else is, that is interpretation of the viewer, and quite possibly not the intent of the shooter.

Yes, this!
It's not interpretation, it's very clear what should be in focus to create a good photograph. I'd love to see some examples where the rule is broken and the photograph is not a fail.

Robert Frank from The Americans. This is not a fail.
https://www.artsy.net …s-angeles-movie-premier-1
And there really are no rules.

Here are some great words of wisdom by some of the greatest to push a shutter.

A little video by one of the greats.
https://vimeo.com/1166​92462 It's short and really worth a watch.

And some words by some of the greats.

"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston

"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams

"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals

"There are no shortcuts, no rules." - Paul Strand

"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt

"I came from the outside, the rules of photography didn't interest me... "-William Klein

"...... a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. "-Garry Winogrand

and maybe my favorite " ......so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston

Fleury29 wrote in post #19203995
Yes, this!
It's not interpretation, it's very clear what should be in focus to create a good photograph. I'd love to see some examples where the rule is broken and the photograph is not a fail.

Again a "good photograph" is subjective, and what should be in focus is what the photographer wanted to be in focus. Whatever you feel about the photo is subjective and won't be universally accepted by others.