Does DxOMark Matter?, article.
This has resulted in a whole generation of photographers who have been constantly reinforced in the notion that "image quality" is an essential building-block of a successful photograph. Actually, it isn't. Actually, it isn't at all.
It is remarkable to me how hard this is to learn. I'm still working on it. I acknowledge that most of the photos I admire the most can be beaten technically be my most humble camera, and yet I continue to have a craving for the newest "best".
I guess I can just try to at least separate my ideas about artistic quality and technical quality.
There's a parallel in fine art. Take the ten most successful painters in history. Hardly any of them could draw very well. And of those who could (Picasso for example), few of them used that skill in the art which made them successful.
Nice !
ReplyDeleteActually, for photography, I totally agree !
For painting... well, technical knowledge is knowledge, not technology, it is part of the painter. So the parallel is interesting, but does not work that well in my opinion.
Hey Eolake, you hit the film canister right on the head. Indeed, the king has no clothes on!
ReplyDeleteI have a friend who I find a great critic and admirer of my photos, she's seen most of what I've shot over the last two years, and one that she loved the color and composition of most was actually shot on my cell phone and not on my DSLR. It was one of those shots I had to take, and I had no camera with me except the phone. The phone (Samsung Alias2) had good enough resolution for a full screen wallpaper, and that is where it lived for a month.
ReplyDeleteMy favourite recent shots were on film, one from a camera I know was failing, and the other from a camera I was learning to use and got a happy mistake from.
Heh... my lovely Pentax ME Super back in the day actually underexposed a bit, and I never fully realized it, I guess. A couple of my best pics were helped by the fact that I had forgotten to reset composure compensation from double! (Or maybe I used the ASA/ISO setting, I forget.)
ReplyDeleteThere's a parallel in fine art. Take the ten most successful painters in history. Hardly any of them could draw very well. And of those who could (Picasso for example), few of them used that skill in the art which made them successful.
ReplyDeleteIn fact all of them would be able to draw well. Picasso wouldn't even make the top 50. He's an example of a guy who turned to that style of art because he wasn't good enough to do what was popular at the time. Anyone who doesn't believe me just has to look up his early work when he was trying to do something realistic. He couldn't.
The top ten would include a lot of Renaissance, pre-Renaissance, and Baroque painters.
This is from Wikipedia, but you can find similar statements in just about any Picasso biography:
ReplyDelete"Picasso demonstrated extraordinary artistic talent in his early years, painting in a realistic manner through his childhood and adolescence. During the first decade of the 20th century his style changed as he experimented with different theories, techniques, and ideas."
I guess this means that there's still hope for us fauxtopraphors.
ReplyDelete:-)
Why don't you look up his early work instead of listening to the oh-so-reliable Wikipedia? Make up your own mind. He definitely did not demonstrate outstanding or even average ability.
ReplyDeleteA few examples . Oustanding? No. Not terrible, but not outstanding. We wouldn't know his name today if he had stuck to this, and he only turned from it due to being mediocre. Also, ask yourself if the later work for which he's famous is worthy of its reputation for genius.
ReplyDelete