[Auzzie-Phoenix]

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.

[manntax]

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.

For me it is all about the moment. No matter how perfect the technical side of photo is - if it doesn't capture an unique moment - it is just another shot.. Yet I have seen and shot many somehow imperfect photos that are actually best from the whole bunch. And the reason was simple : an unique moment captured that makes the subject's appearance having special meaning, carrying much more than just the physical likeness of it.

[tromboads]

Yep.

And I want a story, a connection, something to engage with. A technically good image is still boring if there is no clear intent as to why the image was taken.

Give me blown out highlights, iso mess and muddy shadows with a naritive anyday

[Dartmoor Dave]

Above all, I want a photograph to make me feel something. I want the photographer to show me his or her own personal response to the world and the people in it, and I'm willing to forgive all kinds of technical imperfections in exchange for a photo that hits me on a gut level.

Sometimes I see a photograph that combines the photographer's unique vision of the world with immaculate technique, and that's my personal definition of art..

[arnold]

Yes, my first requirement is that the picture means or says something; a comment on life so to speak. I agree with the OP about sterile pictures, sometimes they are technically near perfect "calendar" pictures that lean towards the cliche. Beautiful but not very interesting. That is why I like pictures that show life as it is lived. Street pictures are usually not very well composed or exposed due to their clandestine nature, but they are usually interesting. If you can make a good picture as well as one that speaks about life (think Nat Geo Afghan Girl) all the better.

[wildman]

If you had to choose ONE overlying quality for an image, which would you choose

Mystery.

The more explicit and literal an image is the less interesting, meaningful and compelling for me.
The photographer may "take" a picture with a camera but it's the viewer who in turn "takes" a picture of the photographer's picture and then makes a final image in his mind's eye according to what his subjective imagination "sees".

I tell the picture what it means not the other way around.

The whole matter of human perception is very zen.

[biz-engineer]

The difference between Technical quality vs just liking the overall appearance of a shot...?

It's simple. If you like the shot very much (good composition, balance, lighting etc) and consequently you want to print it large, for yourself or selling, whatever, technical quality will allow to do it. If the technical quality is not there, the nice looking shot that you like will look ugly when enlarged.

[pathdoc]

This is why I'm turned off by YouTube reviewers who are obsessed with bokeh. They drool over the out-of-focus performance of their lenses like a lustful teenage boy slobbering after a short-skirted girl, which annoys the hell out of me because I always thought the whole idea of photography as an art-form is to create an image, not a background. By all means, if the lens creates a pleasant blur then say so, but treating it as a buying criterion strikes me as missing the point.

I suspect that street photographers in risky parts of the world and wildlife or war correspondents are inclined to worry a whole lot less about what their background is doing "on film" - they've frequently only got a fleeting opportunity to capture their foreground before it's gone forever, and technical quality is the last thing on their minds when they press the shutter - more like "Will what I'm photographing try to kill or eat me?"

That being said, in this day and age they are probably also the photographers most likely to do fixing in post and be forgiven by the purists for doing so, provided of course that they live to do the fixing.

[Anthen]

I would say "objectivity vs. subjectivity" would've fit the title better.
As to the question, i think its a matter of whether the emotional response to the content or the quality of the shot is more important to you or to the viewer. Personally, i find both quite both are important, but emotional response comes first. ONLY when it achieves an emotional response, then its time to look at the techniques and "quality" that helps bring that emotion out.
So to answer your question, liking the overall appearance is most important, at least for me.

[tromboads]

And thank god that no one thus far has mentioned "sharpness" :P

[pathdoc]

Sharpness? Hmpfh. What use does one have for sharpness? Eventually bokeh will take over as the prime measure of a picture; a model's sole task will be to give the photographer something to lock onto and then step out of the way, leaving the entire picture to be rendered in that lovely, creamy blur... Or Adobe will develop a plug-in to enable those nasty in-focus areas to be corrected in post...

[Wolfeye]

For me it is all about the moment. No matter how perfect the technical side of photo is - if it doesn't capture an unique moment - it is just another shot.. Yet I have seen and shot many somehow imperfect photos that are actually best from the whole bunch. And the reason was simple : an unique moment captured that makes the subject's appearance having special meaning, carrying much more than just the physical likeness of it.

So true. I have a shot from just this past weekend, a slightly blurry image of my son laughing joyfully on a ride at a waterpark. I like it. That's all that matters. Do I wish it was in focus? Absolutely. I hope to reshoot it some day. But for now, the moment *is* captured.

[6BQ5]

I think the technical aspect of a photo should be strong enough to enable the aesthetics and the artist qualities. Anything beyond that won't hurt the image but it should never overpower it.

Do we like to pixel-peep and zoom onto eyelashes? Sure! Who doesn't? But I don't shoot just to be able to zoom onto them.

[nomadkng]

i'll weigh in and say this a "chicken vs. the egg" argument.

as a photographer do I try to capture a "moment" or tell a "story"? if I'm not shooting stock, of course I do. But if it's not up to minimum technical standards it's useless.

conversely, a technically perfect image that has no story or emotional impact is just as useless.

I have sent thousands of technically perfect but boring images to the recycle bin, as I have sent thousands of photos of once in a lifetime moments to the recycle bin. both hurt equally as I hit the delete key.

and maybe that's a good thing, because that pain is what drives me the next time I take out my camera. i'll remember my technical failings or my aesthetic failings and try not to repeat them again. as much as I'd like to say "it's good enough", I've learned "good enough" doesn't make me a better photographer. I struggled with that idea for a few years when I first waded into the murky pool of marketing my images. it took me awhile to figure out what separated (and still separates) me from the true pro's of the photo world. it's consistency. day in and day out being technically perfect every time you press that shutter button, AND it's being at the right place at the right time to capture that moment.

you can't have one without the other. if you fail as a photographer in either aspect it's JUST a useless file taking up space on your hard drive. flog yourself appropriately, vow to do better the next time, and make sure that next time is sooner rather than later.

[manntax]

But for now, the moment *is* captured.

For me that's all that matters really

I have sent thousands of technically perfect but boring images to the recycle bin, as I have sent thousands of photos of once in a lifetime moments to the recycle bin. both hurt equally as I hit the delete key.

I bet you were some point regretting of deleting some of these capturing unique moment with less than acceptable technical side of things .. for that reason alone I never delete any photos that capture great moment which tells the story or highlights some uniqueness of moment or the subject or all together - better safe than sorry as they say. Besides, certain photos just get only more precious with time - no matter they are blurry or shaken or not perfectly framed .