Excessive perfection?

This thought stems from senn's 300mm pictures and ChrisA's points about the defects in the images. I called them impeccable, Chris pointed out defects in them and I suggested this was over-critical. Let's start at that point.

By over-critical I'm thinking of the quest for perfection, for there being no defects in an image and asking if many defects are actually defects. For example, a twig out of place in an image. Should we seek to remove it or should we just accept that nature put it there?

Robby Robinson, Frankie Valli's music director, was asked what happened to a rumoured Four Seasons album. He put the delay down to "excessive perfectionism" which so far has meant it hasn't appeared. Can this be true of our images too? Are camera club judges excessive perfectionists when it comes to our images? And yet their own can be full of the defects they see in ours?

So the question is, should we leave more of nature in as it is? Or should we really try to eliminate everything that is out of place?

It's an excellent question, thanks for teasing it out.

In general, I agree that excessive perfection can be unnatural, since nature often isn't that perfect.

But macro, I think, is something of a special case. It's where the subject is (to all intents and purposes) all, and almost anything else distracts.

So the slightest OOF-ness, or distracting background, distracts much more from a macro shot (especially when the main subject is really very good indeed, as Senn's were in the original thread).

Context is everything.

A few stray hairs in a natural portrait (such as in Epithet Man's #4 that I like so much) doesn't distract at all, whereas on the airbrushed, sanitised, slimmified cover of Vogue, they might.

But in point of fact, the stray hairs in that shot actually bound the main subject, rather than obscuring it as they easily could have, thus strengthening, rather than weakening, an already compelling composition and excellently captured, intelligent expression.

It's all about whether the imperfections distract. Often they don't but often they do. And macro shots, where lighting and detail is paramount, chances are that they will.

So images that would be wonderful otherwise, are just very good. Or even delightful - I'd allow that

... just as a postscript, macro doesn't always have to be 'central super-sharp subject, plain background'.

I had to chase this cricket around for quite a while, and actually he was quite hard to see.

So perhaps the surrounding distracting detail is part of the overall impression of camouflage, and hence valid.

Offered as no better than "quite nice" at best

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/IMGP5109-sm.jpg[/IMG]

I hate the sanitisation of images

I'll always remember a landscape image that was posted in the your photos sub-forum by someone ( can't remember who, sorry ), I think it was a sunset with some trees in it. One of the trees had a dark clump, which by consensus was determined to be a large clump of mistletoe.

I was aghast that someone suggested it should be cloned out. NO offence to the owner of the image, but it it was a pretty mediocre image and the only element that gave it something different was that clump of mistletoe.


Images need imperfections, "sore thumbs", elements that grab attention to catch the eye. A sanitised image is a braindead flatliner which excites no one either positively or negatively.



.

The question itself is a very good question. I can see both points of view. I think there is a place for a naturalistic portrayal of the subject and a place for the impeccable image. I think a wabi-sabi approach works too. But a hybrid of these intentions I think is difficult. Does the inclusion of some 'imperfection' enhance this particular genre - the isolation of the insect from the background? Not for me, I think excessive perfection is an oxymoron. I agree with Chris's comments. I would be even more hyper critical by pointing out the nick in the swallowtail's wing as I think this genre is at its best with an impeccable background and an impeccable, unblemished subject. I can understand where Smeg is coming from too. But you can't please all the people all the time.

I would value the kind of critique provided by Chris with my images. I might not decide to take it on board but it would certainly direct me to examine what the camera club judge regards as impeccable and decide for myself whether I wanted to try and produce award winning images or whether is was more comfortable with a different path.

John, what you say on this forum counts for more than what anyone else says. You have the power to control what is being discussed and how it is discussed and through this you set the tone for the forum. When therefore you characterise Chris as being over-critical with his observations it gives the message that this forum is really not the kind of place for that kind of no holds barred critique, for want of a better expression. That is exactly what was being discussed in David Storm's thread.

I suppose it depends on the picture, the subject, the context and what the photographer is trying to achieve.

A gritty street shot can pretty uch be left to speak from itself but were I to take a portrait of a pretty girl who happens to have a spot on the day of the shoot or a stray hair falling across an eye then I'd definitely remove it. (Not that I ever have the chance of taking such shots.)

I always scan my landcsapes for errant tree branches protruding from outside of the frame, bits of litter, people who are in the wrong place, even telegraph poles or cars which spoil the composition. An artist would never include such things in a painting so why should we avoid a little judicious cloning?

I'm much less obsessed by detail and sharpness and have been known to degrade pictures for a particular effect. Which is why I'm still happy to use a 6mp K100 much of the time.

I appreciate that other folk are looking for different things, macro and bird photographers, for example, would crave the sharpest lenses and the most populated sensors.

That's why I like the forum: there's such a variety of different approaches and different views.

An interesting debate but I can't help thinking that we (myself included) get a little bit too hung up on the literal meaning of words used to describe what is frequently a personal, emotional response to an image or opinion.

That being my personal view - I will add just one more word to the debate:

Subjective

Carl

I'm not into excessive cloning out of things, but how you choose to frame and crop every image involves decisions about what to include or eliminate. And your shooting position affects how the elements of a shot line up with each other.

For instance in the dragonfly shot on the other thread, I don't find the OOF purple splodge that distracting, but I don't care for how it is aligned centrally with the dragonfly.

I agree and I think we should offer our own opinions (and style of critique) on an image, rather than running other people down for offering theirs.

That's very interesting, thanks for picking up what I intended, a debate over something where all sorts of views are perfectly valid.

Personally. I've thrown away airbrush style techniques for portraits and moved to a more naturalistic feel, making more hopefully of the character of people rather than creating plastic replicas. I've also tended to clone out things from cityscapes and landscapes, leaning more towards a realistic acceptance of what is there. Obviously there will always be exceptions, but I mean just as a general trend of thought.

An example of a grittier portrait:


It's harsh, the lighting makes it more so, but it does I hope show the true grit of her personality. I don't think it could be softened without making it pointless, and the background, for me, adds context.

Sometimes a degree of messiness is inherent in a scene, and can be part of its attraction. Sometimes it is a distraction in an otherwise 'perfect' shot and yet could not be avoided at the time of capture. I am a failed purist when it comes to such imperfections. Mostly, I leave them alone. Partly out of indolence, partly because I want to be as true as I can to what I've seen with my own eyes. But I am not above a bit of visual cheating. One of my shots from a while back, taken with a fisheye, included in prominent position the famous London Transport emblem. It was part and parcel of a scene on the Underground little changed from the 1940s (and so not just any view), but the electric roundel was showing its age and glowing orange rather than red in a number of places. I filled the roundel, courtesy of Photoshop, with approved LT red. A cheat? Of course. It gives the photograph more impact at the expense of potentially disappointing (in a rather modest way) anyone who goes to this magnificent station having seen my photograph.

So, I'm in no position to offer a lecture on the sins of cloning & c. But if it's done, it should at least be done openly. Posters should perhaps be encouraged to tell us whether they have bent nature or the built environment to their will.

As for the photographs that stimulated this discussion in the first place, they are exceptionally good. But I also appreciated the criticisms, which made me look at them afresh. They didn't alter my initial judgement, but nor did I think they were 'overly critical'.

My take on it is that it is the impression that is given to the viewer that counts more - not any realities that may have been experienced by the photographer.

In the case of that mistletoe blot on MrBs Marlow shot ... well, thing is, it didn't look like anything other then some kind of dirt splot on his lens. Ruined the shot because of that. So should have been cloned out. A dirt splot does give any further interest or quality to a photo.

If something appears to be a technical defect, and you can't reasonably expect the average viewer to zoom in to 300% and carry out a microscopic examination to make an expert judgement, then we should treat it as a technical defect.

Another example I remember which caused debate was one of David Storms shots with some bright lit cloud bases right tight on the horizon. The effect was of a halo, a kind of processing artifact that is caused by adjusting the different tonal zones against each other. David said it wasn't, it was a natural effect that was 'there'. I wasn't too convinced by that, but even if we except the explanation on here that commentary is not available to the general audience. If it looks like a technical issue then I say treat it as one, and get rid of it.

Depends the client and context, be it yourself, for a competition, magazine, for an employer etc.

I would echo DrO's point and David Storms recent thread and ask just what standard of critique are we expecting on here? We get complaints every so often demanding more, but what do we realistically expect?

For instance we've had many good landscapers come and go on here, but could any of them really give you an insight into the mind of Charlie Waite to help you start winning prizes or indeed - HIS prizes? I like taking 'scenery' shots but could only give you a my impressions up to a certain point but really what worth they would be to anyone desperate to 'improve' I'm not so sure.

We like to slag off 'nice shot' comments, but in reality and certainly with most of the big sites, gauging you work by these comments and the number of views is really all you can hope for, and in a way, is perhaps not that bad after all?

Anything more than that then your average interweb photo critic is being particularly generous with their time IMO.

Carl has hit upon one of the points I was going to make in one word: "subjective". People often post images asking "does this "work?"" - but what criteria are they asking for it to be measured against? Clearly it works in the main for the photographer as they've taken the shot in the first place. Does it meet all of the supposed rules - thirds, odd numbers, triangles etc? maybe, maybe not, but then unless you are working to a specific brief or theme it does not have to if you are happy with it.

Levels of critique are all very well and in the main welcomed by all - but there have been a number of comments lately about this or that image being the best seen here in a long time (what it says about every other image posted is more relevant than the praise of the work in question) or how a shot is "clichéd" - I don't think these types of comment are particularly helpful especially if someone is new to the art or the forum. We all had to start somewhere...

I only went to my local camera a few times and stopped going because the judges where so negatively critical. Some of the shots presented I liked be clause they where imperfect or had faults that gave them carachter but where well and truly slagged off and yet the judges never said what they did like about the shot. Maybe it's because I went to art school and was taught how to critique or analyse imagery that makes me see the good and bad, when I do offer criticism it's along the lnes of this will make it better etc...