Posts
Let me state outright that perfection and greatness have very little to do with each other. Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant Mother' image is miss-focused (the shirt is sharp and the face isn't) but it's not noticeable from normal viewing distances and small prints and is completely irrelevant to everything the image means anyway.
Perhaps this means that the greater the image, the more we are likely to forgive lack of perfection in the image. Maybe that explains why boring photographs need to be shot with a 4X5 - if they aren't very interesting, they'd darn well better be real close to perfect.
Could it be that we are spending too much time working on perfection, and perhaps not enough on greatness?
After the fact, what is the impact of flaws in working with images - are there flaws, damn flaws and fatal flaws?
Let's describe a theoretical picture - it's a rock formation that is rounded and smooth and sensual - the image makes you want to reach out and hug the rock, to stroke it and caress it. You are proud of the image, excited to be working on making a good print which will show off this image to it's best.
In working on the image in Photoshop at 100%, you notice that the top of the rock is out of focus - when you print, if you look carefully you can see that you didn't quite get the depth of field right. In every other way the image is gorgeous - when shown to non photographers, they think it's great. When you point out the lack of sharpness at the top of the rock they have no idea what you're even talking about.
When you show the image to other photographers, they like it. They can see the lack of sharpness if you point it out and may commiserate with you. Problem is, you know the rock is out of focus slightly and it bugs you. You think of it every time you look at the image.
So, do you reject this image from any submissions, portfolios and shows? Do you tell yourself to get over it and enjoy the image?
Seems to me there are flaws which are minor and don't weaken an image and while they might generate some wishfulness, don't detract from the enjoyment of the image, nor magnify in irritation the longer you spend with the image.
Other flaws could be small but they niggle - the irritation only gets worse the longer you try to persuade yourself the image is ok. It might be that a flaw that drives me batty doesn't bother you at all, and the other way round too.
Well, so perfection and greatness are not the same and perfection is relative and is pointless without greatness but the opposite is not true - you can have greatness without perfection. Hmmn...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Much of the current documentary genre, done in the Eugene Richards style, almost depends on imperfect images to make they're impact. Bresson was imperfect, as was Lange, and most of the early LIFE staffers, as well.
Unfortunately, too many of us get stuck in the old F/64 rut: hyperfocal distance, mirror locks, "perfect" compositions, tripod, cable release. We run the definite risk of our images looking like everyone else's because we all have the same criteria for, as George put it, perfection rather than greatness (style?).
Unfortunately, though, "greatness" is out of our hands. That's one things we have to leave to everyone else.
Given that many of the great historical figures we all know were more than likely not perfect individuals, why should we expect more from a simple photograph?
Post a Comment