Bethany

I think this could be improved if the image was cropped to just above the chin. As it is the framing is too high and unbalanced. I was looking at it on the iphone and viewing the site on landscape mode crops and frames the image perfectly.

Screen grab from the iphone

Have you changed systems to Apple now Gary?

Yes I seem to be turning into a right turn coat lol

Just need to hold on there for a FF iPad!

I think that's true for many photographers. Sharpness mainly, but dynamic range and other technical aspects have certainly taken priority over the actual subject and composition.

Personally if an image has a certain something then technical imperfections hardly matter to me and even can add to the character of the image. I don't think that's the case here.

I agree with DrOrloff. Cheap cam and instagram, The Q and pinhole lens or even get into Lomography

I agree with Smeggy and the Doc. If you want this sort of image, why use a high-tech camera? A Diana or a smartphone would do just as well.

Saying that, I've messed around recently with dSLR shots processed on my phone, so I may be the pot calling the kettle black.

We are out of touch with the mainstream.

My wife complains about all the pictures I take of her and then puts awful phone selfies on facebook that make me cringe.

I photographed a Wedding for a friend of a friend and the only shot I'm aware the bride wanted a printed enlargement of was a similarly out of focus and heavily processed shot from a guest. The kind of photo I would have immediately binned. Made me feel great...not

Is that a bad thing?

We have photography as a serious hobby and for some even as a profession.

Having different ideals in regards to what we want from photography may put us in a different photographic zone and apart from the pros who have to sell to clients we photograph things and in manner in which to please ourselves.

I certainly don't take pics to please others, I do it for self enjoyment. I like to show other people my pics and if they like them that's a nice bonus.

So if the bride does love the OOF abortion that you would have binned does it really matter? You can't be responsible for someone else's tastes

Quite. Just as well, as few of my pictures find favour with others these days.
Thank goodness.

The fact is, though, that the bride doesn't love the OOF abortion because it's OOF. She loves it despite that because she can see whatever else it may have.

Likewise, John's picture would still retain whatever appeal it has to the Facebook mums, if it was in focus - and I bet actually if it was, they'd gush even more.

Obviously, a picture that has some aesthetic quality independent of its sharpness may still be a good picture because of that. Just as it might if it's lit badly, or framed wonkily, or whatever.

Doesn't mean that there's any intrinsic value in the technical faults, or somehow virtue in not striving to eliminate them. Mainstream usually just means 'doesn't usually get to experience any better', and mainstream can usually tell the difference when shown it.

Equally there's no excuse for concentrating on technical perfection at the expense of the soul of the image. But if you can get both (and I'm reminded of this excellent series from the Smegster), the result is better than soul on its own. If they'd all been blurred, the impact would have been lost.

Yes exactly. I hope I didn't imply otherwise. I didn't mean to



Thanks Chris

I'd forgotten about that set, and frankly I'm genuinely humbled and flattered it's left such a lasting impression.

It's not often you can get to look at your own pics with the perspective of a 3rd party, but because it was an unexpected reminder I was able to do so. So thanks for that

But in terms of the technical facet of an image I pretty much forget about that while shooting. My mental attention is 99% concentrated on what I can see rather than what the camera's dials are set to.

Not at all. That's been my life. I had considered doing some paid work but wondering if I should start to look at what people want rather than what I want?

Because of that I found this discussion interesting and it put me in mind of my own recent experiences.

At the end of the day I feel out of touch to the extent that it would not be fruitful and/or I would dislike what I was doing to please the majority if I changed it.

You were one of those kind enough to help out with my last thread creation Smeggy, which was part of my efforts to create images I liked but would also be popular with the masses. Can I please myself and others? I'm working on finding out.

Thinking out loud, I guess, and using you guys as a sounding board. At the moment the opinions of my fellow Pentax User's matter more to me than the majority people but I fear that is a wavelength thing rather than a popular one, which matters if I want a customer.

Would I be better keeping my 3 Pentax cameras at home and then prostituting myself with my smartphone, a green screen and some cheesy Android App? I'm actually frightened to think I would. "Ooh a poor quality image of me with Hugh Jackman outside the Whitehouse looking 20 years younger and 2 stone lighter"

Discuss haha

P.S. Between John's PP and Cabs Crop the image ended up Pop Culture Cool. To me at least.

For doing paid work I have two trains of thought. Do what you like and attract clients who like what you do or do what the client wants you to do. I find most of the time majority of clients don't know what they want in the first place.

There is now very little connecting 'us' (serious amatuer / semipro photographers) with the 'mainstream' (I'd call it the masses image making and sharing activities). Our pursuit is the development and continuation of what it always has been - photography with the ideal tools of the day, learned about, practised and discussed ... pursuit of an ever increasing technique, skill and creativity combined.

Before I continue, let me be clear that I understand perfectly that any of 'us' can also be some of 'them', and thats perfectly OK.

What the masses do now is something entirely new, born of social media, something new in technique & equipment terms as well as intent. They are not driven by the same objectives as 'photographers' - they are driven by the need to fuel their online 'status' with supporting visual evidence, and a desire to ensure that evidence distorts their daily reality.

The many 'one-shot' effects services available now are needed to promote peoples images (their online 'persona') as more exciting, more popular, more fun, more involved than they actually are, to add some drama, style or other artificial element to their images in support of this aim.

Another fundamental change is the now lack of documentary, recording, or historic value to this new mass style of image making. By this I mean images are of very limited time value - they are of the moment, snapshots that vanish down a timeline, most never to resurface or regain their value.

Here's a personal example ... I take loads of shots of the family out & about, and many I treasure, not only because they are great images of my kids, but because they were technically proficient as well, they look 'professional' and polished. I don't have nearly enough time to edit and print out these better shots, so they stack up. Sometimes I'll finish working on one and show my wife ... 'hey, here's a great one of .... do you want to put it up on Facebook?' - she looks strangely at me ... ' no, thats from last year!' I'm thinking, so what? Its a beautiful photo, something that we'd love to have on the wall and everyone who visits would look at admiringly. She would love that too. But to her, it has no place on Facebook now ... its time has past there.