[nomadkng]

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 .

maybe it was all those years as a competitive athlete. maybe it's my parents' fault, but when it comes to photography and where I strive to be, regret is not a valid emotion. am I disappointed that in some way shape or form I failed? yes, and so I must do better the next time. that pain when I hit the delete key is the price I must pay for my failures, and the more painful hitting the delete key is, the more poignant the lesson. I dream of the day i can pry the delete key from my keyboard. it's a day i know will never come, but it's a dream nonetheless.

[manntax]

maybe it was all those years as a competitive athlete. maybe it's my parents' fault, but when it comes to photography and where I strive to be, regret is not a valid emotion. am I disappointed that in some way shape or form I failed? yes, and so I must do better the next time. that pain when I hit the delete key is the price I must pay for my failures, and the more painful hitting the delete key is, the more poignant the lesson. I dream of the day i can pry the delete key from my keyboard. it's a day i know will never come, but it's a dream nonetheless.

Ahh another perfectionists :P - I get you I really do .. despite all this and the proverbial 'no pain no gain' , I'll rather stay hesitant of delete key if it comes to somehow valuable or unique photos - in spite of all their currently perceived faults. The longer I live and the older we all get I know that either myself or someone else will see faults no more, only THAT moment

[wildman]

Thanks to all for your insights - it's been a eye opener.

Delete - thinking about it I realize I don't think in terms of what to delete but what to keep.
First I sort out the keepers and anything left I may go over once more just to make sure and then delete.
It's works for me but I rarely shot more than 20-30 frames per day.

I don't do much people shots so I'm much more looking for some interesting and challenging light than trying to capture the moment.
To me a camera is a light machine and trying to capture the nuances of light is the most interesting. But to each his own.
I guess my esthetic is still back in the 1950s with my Rollie and plus X.

This is the sort of thing I'm trying to capture...

[ZackHuggins]

Like others have said in this thread, I'm about the moment first and foremost. I certainly try to get the 'best' image of the moment possible from a technical standpoint, but if the moment is boring then technical perfection won't cut it. I just try to be ready when 'the moment' arrives, and if I don't catch it then that motivates me to be better prepared next time.

I almost never delete photos. As I grow as a photographer sometimes I'll go back and look at older photos from the archives, for a couple reasons: 1) to see what I did wrong, where I lacked the skill to make a photo work or where I just didn't catch the moment for whatever reason but also 2) to see what I did right. I've come across some hidden gems in my own work that for whatever reason I skipped over or just did not really 'see' at the time. I believe that being able to self-edit, pick out the best of your own work is a valuable skill. And sometimes a shot that I didn't see the merit in years ago, when I look at it now I can see it with new eyes.

[normhead]

There is no inherent value to technical quality..... check out the 10 most expensive... technical quality in most of them isn't even issue, and most of these are pretty large prints.... three of the 10 are Gursky's and they rare of an extreme technical quality, and a secret PP technique combining shooting the 5x7 scanning back with two different lenses and combining them to create a 3d effect , that is not visible in the small reproductions published on the web. You simply cannot sell an image based solely on technique. SO basically, if you're shooting even 645 or less, technical proficiency is secondary to content. As you go larger and larger format, the combination of technique and content can push the value of an image up. But I'm guessing none of us would be unhappy with what Cindy Sherman gets for her 8x10s shot on 35mm film.

Confusing technical quality with IQ is probably the biggest mistake made on camera forums.

A couple shots....


What is attractive to people in this shot seems to be the imagined interaction between the owl and the chickadee. In reality there was no interaction, the Owl was hunting mice, the chickadee was just fetching a seed. But people see the slight turn of the owl's head and the chickadee and are drawn ito a narrative of their own making. 780 Facebook likes for this image. Yet it's a technical nightmare.

This image was from a series of 12, post on my photo bucket site... none of the images in this series received less than 600,000 hits, the total for all 12 was over 7 million hits. It's good, but not technically spectacular.... a travelogue snapshot type photo.


I find it difficult to find technically better images that people enjoy as much. And surely IQ is a measure of people's enjoyment of the image.

[manntax]

I don't do much people shots so I'm much more looking for some interesting and challenging light than trying to capture the moment.

Where from the assumption that capturing a moment is only about people's photography ? What about a moment when the light is perfect and reveals that hidden meaning of some reflections in a street puddle ? How about that perfect moment when light is golden and your landscape just speaks the beauty of the world ? ... or its ugliness perhaps, when you capture that moment something rots and dies? How about the love , when in that single split of second you capture young fellow's admiration when he gets just a glimpse of her face... or cruelty when a war photographer captured the remains of slaughtered village just before it was set on fire ?

it is all about the moment you see

EDIT: OK, maybe apart from the product and other kinds of photography where you would have a total control of the subject, composition, light, etc. :P

[boriscleto]

This was shot @F6.3 with the Sigma 150-500. Everyone will tell you that you can't cut warm butter with the lil'Bigma @F6.3 but this shot works for me.

[Sagitta]

It has to be the mood the shot gives the viewer.

This is one reason so many vintage city shot sites are so popular - what was an absolutely boring "oh look, another shot of cars driving" photo in 1960 is now a "holy cow, look at all those classics" shot today. Its also why a shot that you might be amazed by today ("Look at this macro of a rose!") could just be a boring textbook style shot in 50 years.

If you catch a moment worth saving and impart a mood however, a shot is great despite whatever technical flaws it may have.

[DSims]

It should say "look at me," then have the aesthetics to back it up as one continues to look at it.

Usually easier said than done. But sometimes we manage to get it.

[normhead]

It should say "look at me," then have the aesthetics to back it up as one continues to look at it.

Usually easier said than done. But sometimes we manage to get it.

And sometimes we mange to get it using really good gear....

[TaoMaas]

It should say "look at me," then have the aesthetics to back it up as one continues to look at it.

Usually easier said than done. But sometimes we manage to get it.

True! I came from a world where everything was controlled. But then I was exposed to a situation where things were just grabbed on the fly. I quickly saw that my very composed shots were inferior to the shots caught by someone who had no knowledge of composition. The emotion trumped all. The primary rule is to create an emotional response in your viewers.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

All of these replies are great so far! It's truly interesting to see everyone's views on this subject.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Huh... this thread died in a hurry... lol.

[AggieDad]

I originally posted this on another thread, but I think it really belongs here. So please indulge me as I repost.

I remember walking into the Phillips Collection in Washington, DC and seeing Renior's Luncheon of the Boating Party for the first time. I was in absolute awe. It has always been one of my favorites, but seeing it "in the flesh" was totally special.

But here is the thing. The painting is special in its totality. I had no desire to look closely and see if there were a few bad brush strokes in the corner or if a particular woman's dress didn't quite have the right shadow. In other words, I did not pixel peep. I looked at the entire painting and soaked in beauty of it.

My wife and I are members of the Museum of Fine Arts of Houston (not connoisseurs, but just folks who enjoy art) and sometimes visit the special collections and shows. No matter the artist, you can always find things wrong with a work of art - that's part of what makes a piece special; it is one of a kind. Even DaVinci's Mona Lisa has an unfinished background.

I read somewhere on the Pentax Forum the other day about a guy who said he can spend over 20 minutes judging an individual photograph. Really? What great master's work could stand up to that kind of scrutiny? Certainly not Bruegel or Van Gogh; and I dare say I could probably find something wrong with Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring in 20 minutes of scrutinizing.

Sometimes it is hard to keep this in mind. We expect photos to be perfect - unrealistically so. I often read about a lens being "too soft," yet I am not sure what this means. Is there not enough detail when I have a magnifying glass on it or it is blown up to a 36" x 60" wall print? Or does it look fuzzy when I put it on my website at 1024 pixels? In other words, what is the context?

So I try to look at my photos holistically, not worrying about any one small detail, but whether or not the overall photo is pleasing or has merit to me. Do I like it? There are photos I love that I wouldn't think of posting here on the forum. And I am sure there are other photos I have posted that some folks have wondered why I bothered.

But is a photo "good" or "bad"? Who cares? It is your photo. It is your call.

Do you like it? For me, that is the important question.

[derekkite]

Technique is a means to capture what you want. It is possible to get a great shot by happenstance, capturing a moment, or a particular shadow or light. That is fine.

But put yourself in a different context. You are at a location where something is happening, it is happening once and you want to capture it. Happenstance won't cut it.

I see the cold perfect shots as well. I appreciate the skill involved, knowing how difficult it is to master them. But I've also seen warm perfect shots as well, where the photographer captured something that elicits a feeling. A master photographer can through technique paint a photo that expresses what he wants to express. That photographer couldn't do it without having excellent working knowledge of light, the digital sensor characteristics, a very good lens, and repeated use of all his gear so it is second nature; that is what allows him to express.

It isn't an or situation. It is an AND situation. Technique, excellent gear, lots of lighting stuff and the like allows a photographer in a wide array of circumstances elicit a feeling. That stuff in someone else's hands will produce a cold perfect image of nothing.

In my world, equipment and hard learned technique is the only thing that allows me to get anything reasonable. Something like this. It was a long ways away, light was low, handheld and I had one chance. Bad technique, a shorter lens or slower lens, inadequate autofocus, inadequate post processing, indeed any number of things would have made this an interesting shot instead of one that catches your breath. And yes that is a common reaction to it.