A&P Technical details vs Composition/Emotionals

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Redliner7, May 23, 2007.

  1. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Blair

    Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
  3. quid

    quid I Piss Excellence OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    50,352
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    california
    IMO, if the end product is worthwhile then its a good pic. it can be the biggest pile of dog shit, and if you can post that bitch into greatness then good for you.

    what if the photographer just wanted 4x6's out of it, or to be a design element of a web page?

    it does bother me however when im searching for stock photos on royalty free user posted sites when i see the one i really like and its like the one you posted, good from far but far from good lol.
     
  4. TurkeyChicken

    TurkeyChicken New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    42,913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    what's the point of this thread?
     
  5. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    proper viewing distance ftw. pixel peeping ftl
     
  6. GregFarz78

    GregFarz78 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    64,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly, PA
  7. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    Curious, b/c I see a lot of ppl on this forum immediately complain about 'noise' and 'pixel' even though it's a good picture.

    So why?

    To me, it doesn't bug me. If it's a good picture, it's a good picture. So why does everyone bitch about noise and grain and sharpness and whatever?
     
  8. quid

    quid I Piss Excellence OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    50,352
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    california
    the first one (small) is a good picture, the second one (big) is crap.
     
  9. 19Godfather86

    19Godfather86 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't like one any more than I like the other because they're the same photo. How the photo has been resized is irrelevant. I'd like to have any photo resized to the optimal viewing size before I judge it, obviously, the same way I wouldn't judge how much I like a billboard standing a foot away from it.

    That being said, technical clarity in any type of medium is considered important because it increases immersion. A sharp, colourful, accurate, non-grainy photograph of a sunset is considerably more immersive than an out of focus, mis-coloured, and grainy photograph. The message and the atmosphere conveyed by the more technical of the two is greater. That isn't to say that extremely moving content can't push through technical imperfections, but technical perfection combined with extremely moving content makes a photo that much stronger.
     
  10. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ahh. So even tho the message from the composistion may still come across to the viewer, a technically perfect picture could help translate that message better. I guess that makes sense...

    I guess I'm trying to show that technical clarity doesn't have to be there to be a good picture. But I can definately understand that the lack of technical clarity could...get in the way.

    Just thought it interesting, when I saw some good pics from someone here, and the first post back was "noise :hsugh: "

    To me, it was still a good picture... :o

     
  11. 19Godfather86

    19Godfather86 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    OT can be dicks sometimes. Calling "noise" on a good photo is equivalent to "pointy elbows" on a hot chick. If you like a photo then like the photo, regardless of its technical merit. There's clearly something about it that stands out for you. It just might not translate to a wider group, especially if it's especially grainy/technically flawed. I'm learning to not sweat it and take what I like (slowly) and I think it's making me take better photos, and I'm definitely enjoying it more.
     
  12. quid

    quid I Piss Excellence OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    50,352
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    california
    [​IMG]

    thats a crop from the 100% version of the pic. thats hardly pointy elbows
     
  13. Hypnos_VI

    Hypnos_VI JENGA!

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    personally i think the argument of noise or grain is completely relevant. you can have a great picture, perfectly composed, and visually striking, but so noisy that it distracts you, then its no a good photo. imo a good photo is one where the audience looks at it and thinks to themselves "that is a good/great/awesome photo". but if i look at it and imediately think "damn, thats a lot of noise" then its not a good photo and should have been shot differently.

    as far as pointy elbows...the liquify tool can do wonders. that video of the fat chick for example...
     
  14. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,718
    Likes Received:
    362
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    this seems like a good thread for:

    [​IMG]

    :rolleyes:

    One photo isn't any more "technically" perfect than the other one because it's the SAME damn photo.
     
  15. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    the better photo is the one YOU like and prefer to look at. it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks unless you're taking pictures for THEM to look at...then you alter it to their preferences
     
  16. Hypnos_VI

    Hypnos_VI JENGA!

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    very tru, until you post it and ask the opinions of others. at that point it is open to debate. you may still like it, but everyone looks at something different.
     
  17. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    Way to contribute to a legit question.

    Same photo, but you couldn't see the imperfections in the 1st one, thereby showing that it was a decent picture.

    Then I tried to see if people would complain about the same picture being poor quality when blown up, b/c it's not 'technically' perfect.
    I was just trying to prove your damn point: it's the same pic, does it make it any worse if it's not 'technically' perfect. :ugh:

    Just trying to learn why some people are quick to call great shots 'bad' b/c of noise/grain/etc. Elitest AP FTL.

     
  18. quid

    quid I Piss Excellence OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2004
    Messages:
    50,352
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    california
    if that mini version was printed and enlarged to that big version, every single person would complain about poor quality.
     
  19. Hypnos_VI

    Hypnos_VI JENGA!

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    he has a point, the little version does look good. the big one, at the same viewing distance, does not. so in this application, the little one wins. hell, i printed 8x10s of my hot import nights pictures, and in my book, thye look fine, if you press them to your face, you can see the noise and accented grain caused by my photoshopping. also on the screen it is noticeable.

    valid argument, but you left out the concideration of the application variable
     
  20. NJGuy

    NJGuy "Fuckmefuckmefuckmefuckmef uckmefuckmefuckmefuckm OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    22,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    wtf, USA
    It all comes down to print.
    If u print that at 4x6 is wont look too bad.
    Id still be able to tell its crap.

    You print it any higher and everyone will see its crap.

    I pixel peep like a mother fucker.
    But I want all my photos to be able to be hung on a wall or be hung in a gallery (for sale :naughty: ).
    For me if it cant be printed out at 8x10 at least then im unsatisfied with it.

    If he is doing web design or shooting for postcards then great.
     
  21. IntheWorks

    IntheWorks windin film.. takin pics Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    16,928
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    earth
    you can't really take what other photographers say to heart.. we look at images completely different than joe blow off the street.... they probably wouldn't even notice the noise, or would think it was intentional (which, sometimes it is)
     
  22. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,718
    Likes Received:
    362
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    It's not a legit question, it's a pretty retarded one. Of course you are going to see more flaws in a photo the larger it is, it's always been that way. For example, you could shoot 400ISO film and it looks okay at 4x6 print size but when you went and got the 11x14 enlargement of your favorite shot of your dog fluffy, it looks like hell because the grain becomes noticeable.

    Is the shot suddenly a shit photo? Of course not, and that why this is a dumb question. "Technical" perfection is one of those things that the dpreview crowd masturbates over, and it has little application in the real world. Honestly, I don't remember seeing anyone say (seriously, and not just joking around) that a photo posted here was bad because of grain or microfocus. I think you have your forums confused.

    A lot of photos posted here are shit because of lousy composition, serious over/under exposure, borked white balance, ham-handed photoshop work or pelf'd horizons. Sometimes they are completely out of focus or motion blurred, but none of these things are subtle and turning an otherwise good photo into crap.

    Making my point? No, you completely missed my point.

    For the record: BOTH of the photos you posted are crap, and it has nothing to do with the size. Just because the first one is smaller doesn't make it any less :ugh:
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2007
  23. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just making sure that most people judge a photo based on that still...I didn't mean to bring up a measurbating debate, just pointing out that it sholdn't matter all that much :rolleyes:

     

Share This Page