[Kevin B123]

A photograph that's technically perfect but makes you feel nothing is a dead butterfly pinned to a board in a drawer that nobody but the original dead butterfly collector cares about. Who gives a damn if it's the most perfect example of that species ever captured and killed, since you had to kill it to record it so accurately? Real life is fast, blurry, all tilted angles and out of focus. Take photos of things that are alive, not specimens to be preserved in their immaculate purity.

Well said, along with many contributors here.

This image would have been less iconic if taken in the perfection of today. The imperfection was of its time and acceptable for that time and endearing because of it.

What we need is a yesteryear emulation to 'correct' the perfection, some photos would benefit but then it all becomes some what fake or digital art like some photoshop images and would anyone look twice at it? who knows.

[Kevin B123]

Are we really dragging this poor old horse out of the barn again? My lord, she can barely stand and there you are trying to trot her around the stable.

Yep. Its a better conversation than some, and we need to, you know post stuff

[Wheatfield]

Yep. Its a better conversation than some, and we need to, you know post stuff

Right. These giveaway contests based on post volumes do tend to bring out the reruns of I Love Lucy. Apparently Ansel Adams should have saved his back and shot everything on a Minox.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Right. These giveaway contests based on post volumes do tend to bring out the reruns of I Love Lucy. Apparently Ansel Adams should have saved his back and shot everything on a Minox.

Or perhaps people should stop trotting Ansel Adams out like some poor pony from a barn and accept that he represented just one particular aesthetic, rather than being the sine qua non of all photography. Those of us who have always preferred Lartigue are entitled to our own preferences too.

(Smiley emojie because I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just trying to say that we are all entitled to our own personal preferencies, and nobody gets to define any absolute of what is right.)

[Dartmoor Dave]

I misspelt "preferences" the second time. . . oh, the shame. . . the eternal disgrace. . .

[Wheatfield]

Or perhaps people should stop trotting Ansel Adams out like some poor pony from a barn and accept that he represented just one particular aesthetic, rather than being the sine qua non of all photography. Those of us who have always preferred Lartigue are entitled to our own preferences too.

(Smiley emojie because I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just trying to say that we are all entitled to our own personal preferencies, and nobody gets to define any absolute of what is right.)

I could trot out a whole bunch of other photographers. The entire f/64 group, and Fred Picker come to mind immediately.

Surely people can come up with better topics than the weekly advocating for the photographic equivalent of Cream of Wheat cereal.
If not, expect pushback from those of us that believe a photograph should have minimal technical merits.

To speak more directly to the topic, a great photogtaph hits the buttons required to make it a great photograph. If the image calls for a high technical level but instead is a mushy mess, it fails the test.
uld be the case, then all the sharpness in the world won't help it.

If the image calls for a full tonal range and it's soot and chalk, it fails.

If a high technical level actually gets in the way of the image, and I can think of a scant few times this is the case, then it fails.

[jersey]

A photograph that's technically perfect but makes you feel nothing is a dead butterfly pinned to a board in a drawer that nobody but the original dead butterfly collector cares about. Who gives a damn if it's the most perfect example of that species ever captured and killed, since you had to kill it to record it so accurately? Real life is fast, blurry, all tilted angles and out of focus. Take photos of things that are alive, not specimens to be preserved in their immaculate purity.

No one cares until 200 years later grand grand children of photograph discover perfect picture or long extinct species. And then suddenly everyone cares about it.


Take a look at pictures of Edmund Osterloff, he was living in XIX and XX century and shooting pictures that were heavily influenced by landscape paintings (so static, with humans being only a filler), he is one of most important photographs in Polish history. No live, no blurriness, tilted angels. And I more then sure that he would sell his arm and leg to get 645, heck, even K-50 in his hands.

[BigMackCam]

Some of my favourite portraits by Jane Bown - whilst certainly well-focused - aren't quite spot-on; you can see - for example - the eyebrow or cheek is slightly sharper than the eye (quite understandable when focusing manually at close range with an 85mm lens at f/2.8, and working with limited time). This takes absolutely nothing away from the beauty of those portraits, and it really makes me wonder about today's obsession with eye-focus technology. I appreciate that one should focus on the leading eye, but "good enough" really is good enough, in my opinion.

Here's one of my favourite portraits by Jane Bown, a playful shot of Björk. [It's a large file, so you can click on it to enlarge and examine it in detail]

See how the focus is slightly in front of the leading eye? The eyebrow and some of her fingernails are in better focus than the eye. What's more, there's a good deal of grain that does no favours for fine detail. As for tonal range... large areas of her black hair show no detail whatsoever because they're so dark...

... and I wouldn't change a thing about it... not one thing. To me, it's perfection.

If this had been taken with the most recent DSLR or mirrorless camera with perfect focus on the eye, little or no luminance noise and the shadows lifted to bring back all that great detail that's missing, it would be a different shot. Maybe it would work just as well, but I defy anyone to suggest the end result would be more aesthetically pleasing. This is just a great photo, period...

[Kevin B123]

I could trot out a whole bunch of other photographers. The entire f/64 group, and Fred Picker come to mind immediately.

Surely people can come up with better topics than the weekly advocating for the photographic equivalent of Cream of Wheat cereal.
If not, expect pushback from those of us that believe a photograph should have minimal technical merits.

To speak more directly to the topic, a great photogtaph hits the buttons required to make it a great photograph. If the image calls for a high technical level but instead is a mushy mess, it fails the test.
uld be the case, then all the sharpness in the world won't help it.

If the image calls for a full tonal range and it's soot and chalk, it fails.

If a high technical level actually gets in the way of the image, and I can think of a scant few times this is the case, then it fails.

And you would be right in everything you have said, it's just that sometimes none of it matters.

Catch the energy and emotion and you have a winner, whatever technical aspects have been abused.

I misspelt "preferences" the second time. . . oh, the shame. . . the eternal disgrace. . .

Tut Tut

[Dartmoor Dave]

Here's one of my favourite portraits by Jane Bown, a playful shot of Björk. [It's a large file, so you can click on it to enlarge and examine it in detail]

See how the focus is slightly in front of the leading eye? The eyebrow and some of her fingernails are in better focus than the eye. What's more, there's a good deal of grain that does no favours for fine detail. As for tonal range... large areas of her black hair show no detail whatsoever because they're so dark...

... and I wouldn't change a thing about it... not one thing. To me, it's perfection.

If this had been taken with the most recent DSLR or mirrorless camera with perfect focus on the eye, little or no luminance noise and the shadows lifted to bring back all that great detail that's missing, it would be a different shot. Maybe it would work just as well, but I defy anyone to suggest the end result would be more aesthetically pleasing. This is just a great photo, period...

That photograph is a great example of why technical quality in terms of sharpness and resolution is rarely the most important thing. If it was much sharper and less grainy and had more dynamic range then it wouldn't really be any better as a portrait, and if it had even more grain and less sharpness then it wouldn't really be any worse. The things that make it a great portrait are almost entirely unrelated to its technical quality on the level of camera/lens/film used. What makes it a great portrait is Jane Bown's legendary skill at engaging with her subjects and revealing things about them that other photographers couldn't.

[Wheatfield]

That photograph is a great example of why technical quality in terms of sharpness and resolution is rarely the most important thing.....

Sorry, but it's only rarely the most important thing in some genres. In others, it is the most important thing.
In fact, in most genres technical quality is what makes or breaks the picture.
If high technical quality was "rarely the most important thing" manufacturers wouldn't be bothered with trying so hard to make flawless equipment.

[kiwi_jono]

I'm probably too picky on some things. Especially when I think about the number of photos that I really like the composition and / or action that I have discarded because I missed focus!
I probably should sit on those longer.

That photo is a very good shot, obviously, but nothing being in focus does drive a part of me wild for some reason. Maybe I need to evolve more!

[house]

I intentionally shoot and select blurry photos as well as ones where i strive for good technical execution.

This is a non discussion.

[othar]

Sorry, but it's only rarely the most important thing in some genres. In others, it is the most important thing.
In fact, in most genres technical quality is what makes or breaks the picture.
If high technical quality was "rarely the most important thing" manufacturers wouldn't be bothered with trying so hard to make flawless equipment.

While I agree that there are many photographic genres where technical quality of the image is key, I don't think portraits and street photography or variations thereof are one of those.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there is anything wrong with sharp portraits and in many cases it would look weird if they weren't in focus, but especially with energetic images like the one in question it is more important to capture the essence or mood of the moment than to get a technically clean image (even in landscape photography, when I take some images numerous times from the same position, do the technically perfect images not allways turn out to be the best pictures of a certain scene) .

As for the equipment, yes it is easier and in many cases faster to achieve perfect focus and correct exposure with new equipment (and more pixels are nice too as long as you have the disc space), but a technically flawless image can be done with nearly any camera, no matter if its 1 or 50 years old.

[tvdtvdtvd]

"Rock's most iconic photograph"? Ever?

Opinion, obviously, as most superlatives are. Curiously, most who have objected to this conjecture have not offered an alternate contender. Suggestions?

Even ignoring the hyperbole, it is a powerful image that captures the spirit of youthful rock n roller. Does that not an iconic image make? Again, suggestions for
an image more iconic(*).

* Hendrix at Monterey, lighting his guitar on fire? Not so much iconic rock and roll as counter culture moment, IMO. How about a shot of Townsend leaping off a Marshal
stack, legs apart and doing a pinwheel strum on his guitar? Yeah, I'll go for that. But it has to be suggested first to contend......