[magkelly]

Photography is how I make my living. My shots have to be excellent or they won't sell. That being said I don't necessarily equate being excellent with tack sharp photos. In fact I don't like really, really sharp images when it comes to the type of portrait work I do. I don't like high definition tack sharp portraits. I think they are ugly. Tack sharp can be too sharp. Just sharp enough, that's is what I want. I don't want to see every single pore on someone's face, every single blade of glass, every single hair on my cat. I see people equating good photography with that all the time though. They insist upon only working with lenses that can give them the most crisp images possible, over sharpen things to the point where it looks unreal.

Me, I like to show what seems natural, what my eyes see when I look at someone. I tend to leave the high definition stuff for the macro folks who love to see every hair on an insect's leg. There it tends to work well. Not so much when you're dealing with people's faces. Sometimes that bit of softness in an image it's very flattering. Mind you I don't mean completely out of focus, but most of the time I prefer a very conservative attitude toward sharpening. I don't want the first thing I notice in a portrait to be how sharp it is. I want to look at it and think "Oh, isn't she beautiful. Isn't he handsome? What a great expression, smile, mood etc." If the technical interrupts that thought? Then I am doing it WRONG. I like good technique, of course I do, but I don't like it at the expense of the subject, the mood, the overall story I am trying to tell. Imperfect can be lovely, sometimes, but too perfect rarely is, IMHO. It's just cold and clinical and ugly...

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Thanks for the replies! Both very good viewpoints from Aggiedad and derekkite. @Aggiedad, your comment is most welcome here, and is definitely applicable to the topic at hand. I'm glad to see it and it was worded rather well. All of the responses this thread has generated so far are fascinating to me, both in opening windows into how other people view photography/photographs, as well as helping me to figure out my own theories/viewpoints (a work very much in progress and always evolving, but seems to be headed in the direction of being an amalgam of all statements thus far). If anything, this thread seems to be sparking some interesting and intelligent conversation.

EDIT:

Thank you for your response as well, magkelly. You posted while I was writing the original response, so I only saw it once I hit submit. Another good viewpoint on the subject at hand.

[Lowell Goudge]

Let's start off with the fact that I don't think my thread title is worded properly... It's 3am and I'm having a bit of a time putting my thoughts into this post/thread in a coherent way to describe what I'm thinking. I like to both take pictures and look at the images that others have captured/created. Many times the images I prefer to look at most are ones that weren't taken by professional photogs. Something about these images, whether they're my own or by others just seem to have life and expression to them. Other times I follow links to images created by professionals, and while the photos would be considered great by a technical standpoint, they just seem.... STERILE. To put it another way, the pro can take an image of something that is meant to show something that normally would scream "look at me", but for the life of me I find them lifeless.

While I realize that optimally a "great" picture would combine all aspects in even amounts such as technical merit, subject matter, composition, etc... I tend to find that the most interesting ones are still taken by your normal everyday people. Please bear in mind that this standpoint is my opinion only, and as an amateur probably doesn't mean anything at all other than being my opinion. But what truly makes a shot great? Technical merit, overall aesthetic, conveyance of some theme or message, or just having that mysterious quality that seems to say "look at me, I have life, I'm interesting for being interesting's sake"?

If you had to choose ONE overlying quality for an image, which would you choose... technical quality, aesthetic quality, or the image that has that mystery "look at me!!!" quality. I know this is all rather subjective and that preference is in the eye of the beholder, but I really do want to hear people's thoughts on this as I'm sure everyone is going to have a differing standpoint. For the record, if I had to choose ONE quality for an image... it's going to be the one that gives the image the most life, sacrificing rules and technical aspects. Anyway, thanks in advance for putting up with my incoherent ramblings, and I'm looking forward to reading the responses.

you need to consider the intended use of the photo. quality is relative to fit for use, if the intended use is art, depending on what is being depicted, technical quality of the image (which may be purely artistic) means nothing in terms of sharpness resolution etc....
if the use is to make a mathematical model, perhaps you need excellent technical representation etc, and do not care about anything artistic, including "distracting details" because the distracting details are part of what you need to show.
If you are selling something you need to show it in the best condition possible, regardless of actual condition. (stretch the truth) which may or may not require technical quality.

first decide what the purpose is, then decide what matters