And then it hit me....

posiview

posiview

Suspended / Banned
Messages
19,304
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I was in Waterstones his morning, having a coffee :), and was flipping through a Nat Geo book. I happened across a photograph, and the first thing I said to myself was, "clipped foot".

I thought to myself,"Really!?, is that what is important in this photograph??".

The whole was much greater that the sum of its parts or what I perceived to be a rudimentary error.

The photograph in question was of two ballerinas, overhead perspective and one was applying makeup to the other. It really was a cracking photograph and I was somewhat annoyed for thinking about the damn foot.

Purpose of this post? Not really sure....catharsis maybe.

Regards.
 
It's all about how the viewer perceives the photograph. Sometimes breaking the rules makes a good shot.
 
I know what you mean. Too often when an image is viewed, the minor faults are picked out and pointed out, without looking at or commenting on the overall picture. Does a clipped foot really matter? well to some, yes, but in a lot of cases it shouldn't.
 
Non-photographers (that is, most people) don't notice things like clipped feet. They don't even know what it means. It always amuses me how many of my friends look at some of my photos on flickr and think they are absolutely 'amazing' when I can see so, so many technical errors in them! :lol: Believe me they are FAR from amazing (as anyone who's seen my posts on here can testify to! :lol: ) but I suppose it's all relative. The more you know about photography, the more refined your definition of an 'amazing' photograph becomes.

But it just goes to show that you don't have to get bogged down in technicalities to get a great shot. It depends on what photography means to you. Is photography about trapping forever a certain instant in constantly evolving time, or is it about nailing all of the technical aspects to produce a nice clean, crisp, sharp image of a chosen subject?

For me I suppose it's a bit of both...
 
Is this not one of the perils of trying to get better at photography. I find myself doing the same whenever I see any photograph. But I think that comes from reading some advice that went along the lines of, "be critical of other photographs. Think about what the photographer was trying to achieve. Think about the settings that were used, the viewpoint the photographer has chosen." I try to do that but inevitably end up thinking about what is 'wrong' with the shot. I think I need to stop getting bogged down in the details and just try to appreciate great shots.
 
Very interesting post. A brother of a friend did a degree in film studies and now can't just sit and enjoy watching a film without looking at the technicalities of it. I find that quite sad.
So although I've learnt loads of this site and I'm trying not to make the silly mistakes, I also try and keep the balance of a photo actually being about capturing a moment.

(and I've never had someone look at my photo with shock and ask whether my daughter only has one foot. Just because I missed it out of the photo doesn't mean very much!)
 
Leslie said:
Is this not one of the perils of trying to get better at photography. I find myself doing the same whenever I see any photograph. But I think that comes from reading some advice that went along the lines of, "be critical of other photographs. Think about what the photographer was trying to achieve. Think about the settings that were used, the viewpoint the photographer has chosen." I try to do that but inevitably end up thinking about what is 'wrong' with the shot. I think I need to stop getting bogged down in the details and just try to appreciate great shots.
Click to expand...

TopBanana said:
Very interesting post. A brother of a friend did a degree in film studies and now can't just sit and enjoy watching a film without looking at the technicalities of it. I find that quite sad.
So although I've learnt loads of this site and I'm trying not to make the silly mistakes, I also try and keep the balance of a photo actually being about capturing a moment.

(and I've never had someone look at my photo with shock and ask whether my daughter only has one foot. Just because I missed it out of the photo doesn't mean very much!)
Click to expand...

Indeed. After all, does a clipped foot really matter with a wonderful photograph, and the average person in the street would not even notice.

Cheers.
 
We're all assuming that the photographer clipped the foot and not the publisher..
 
Matt_C said:
We're all assuming that the photographer clipped the foot and not the publisher..
Click to expand...

No we are not, we are commenting on the image, not who took it or published it. The question is, 'does it really matter if it isn't technically perfect?' and to look at the image as a whole.
Many, many of the 'Great' images of the past are far from perfect, but that shouldn't (and doesn't) make them any less a great image.
 
I always make a point of looking at the whole photo first and if I like it then I'll start looking at the individual features of it such as dof, lighting and focus etc. At least that way I can easily decide whether I like it or not, even if it has got mistakes or omissions from it.
 
I try to work out why I like a photo before I look at he faults, but it's very difficult sometimes! I guess it's the price we pay for knowing a little.

But don't worry, it's not exclusive to photography. I work in ventilation, and can't walk through a public building without looking up at the ductwork. It's really very sad :( !
 
Matt_C said:
We're all assuming that the photographer clipped the foot and not the publisher..
Click to expand...

Matt's quote has been missed I think as it's a very important point. Just because the picture was missing in the printed version doesn't mean the photographer clipped it. Books invariably differ in size to a digital chip or a 35mm slide, so some clipping has to occur from the whole image.

If you've ever had work published you'll know the feeling of seeing your image cropped in a way you won't have done it. But the designer has to do the best with the space they have to work with.
 
photogav said:
Matt's quote has been missed I think as it's a very important point
Click to expand...

I don't think it was missed, it just wasn't really relevant. The question wasn't "did the photographer mess up", it was "does it matter that the foot's clipped"? It's not really important who clipped it, just whether or not it spoils the shot.
 
wontolla said:
No we are not, we are commenting on the image, not who took it or published it. The question is, 'does it really matter if it isn't technically perfect?' and to look at the image as a whole.
Many, many of the 'Great' images of the past are far from perfect, but that shouldn't (and doesn't) make them any less a great image.
Click to expand...

Southdowns said:
I don't think it was missed, it just wasn't really relevant. The question wasn't "did the photographer mess up", it was "does it matter that the foot's clipped"? It's not really important who clipped it, just whether or not it spoils the shot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for me, this is it.

It frustrates me when I spot details and fixate on them at the detriment of the photograph as a whole.

Even the greats, as mentioned, made 'errors'.

Anyway, I hope that I continue to notice these things but look beyond the, and see the beauty in photography.

Cheers, all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top