Sometimes it is not all about the sharpness and lack of noise

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

jeffnles1

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
As we, myself included, obsess over image sharpness, feather detail, seeing every eyelash, minimizing noise and if our camera/lens combinations are producing images up to par, a photo sometimes comes out of our cameras that we like in spite of its lacking in all those other attributes. This is one such photo. 99% of the time I would toss an image like this without giving it a second thought. It was shot well after sunset, ISO 12,800, at 1/1600 second (don't ask I had been shooting short eared owls in the field a few minutes earlier and didn't even think to reduce shutter speed when these deer walked by). I shot it more as a way to remember the end of a very enjoyable day out in the fields.

However, the more I looked at it, the more I liked the way the layers of winter colors lined up, the dark shadows of the deer and the noise gave it a Pointillist kind of look like a Paul Signac painting. I don't know, but there is something about the photo that I like in spite of its lack of fidelity, excessive ISO noise and poor lighting. I guess it's not always about the perfection of the image as much as it is about the perfection of the experience.

Here is the image. I keep telling myself it is a garbage image by all measures we typically discuss here but, there is something about it I like and cannot bring myself to delete it.
_T3A3624.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
It's an endless discussion, but while I think that generally speaking sharpness and all makes for better images, there's a point where it's "sharp enough".

There's also the artistic lean of "if you like it, you like it, sharpness doesn't matter". And in some cases, being not sharp is the point.

I like the image, but I also like my shot of a deer (even if it's not the sharpest, or best image in the history of images) because it was something I don't see often, and us both staring at each other for a bit since neither of us expected the other.

Z90_3195-NEF_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I am digging all your comment. It's so true that many get down right hateful if they see a speck of noise in the photos, that - or the photo is totally ignored.

Happy you like the photo. Keep it
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
It's an endless discussion, but while I think that generally speaking sharpness and all makes for better images, there's a point where it's "sharp enough".

There's also the artistic lean of "if you like it, you like it, sharpness doesn't matter". And in some cases, being not sharp is the point.

I like the image, but I also like my shot of a deer (even if it's not the sharpest, or best image in the history of images) because it was something I don't see often, and us both staring at each other for a bit since neither of us expected the other.

View attachment 76276
Click to expand...
Most of the deer I see are also in tall grass, behind brush or in the shadows. I like your photo. She's a pretty little lady. Sometimes the quality of the experience is far more important than the quality of the photo.
 
Member's gallery
Charles Loy said:
I am digging all your comment. It's so true that many get down right hateful if they see a speck of noise in the photos, that - or the photo is totally ignored.

Happy you like the photo. Keep it
Click to expand...
Thanks.
I may never print it and it surely isn't "contest" material but I do think I will keep it, if for nothing else, a memory of a beautiful winter day out taking photographs with my wife and some other good friends. Years from now, I may look at the image and smile at the beautiful memory of my wife standing in the afterglow of the already set sun watching the same deer cross the same field.
 
Member's gallery
What you have there is a happy little accident :).
Painters have been studying light and color and how this impacts an image and it's viewers for centuries if not millennia ... It will improve your photography if you take inspiration from them and try to apply it to your shots.
After all, one of the most popular lighting schemes for portraits is not called Rembrandt Lighting for nothing.

On a more general note, it helps to think of subject positioning, sharpness, focus, noise, depth of field and so on as the grammar rules of wildlife photography.
You must use them in order to take a shot that makes sense but, just like with the English language, if you want to do more than write a shopping list, you need to know when and how to bend and break them :p.
 
I think if one digs into what makes an image "painterly" it's some of the things you mentioned. Top of the list is that values are compressed. Instead of having every one of 256 levels of brightness there might be only 10 levels of variation. There is still contrast from one area to another but within an area there is less variation. Next maybe is texture and detail. Grass might not reveal individual blades but rather a textured green. Saturation would similarly be compressed with less variation, and maybe hues themselves. A painter would have a much more limited palette with less variation. So those are some things one would do if trying for a painterly effect, you got some of them by accident. Good or bad, you'd have to put it in critique section for that.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
Most of the deer I see are also in tall grass, behind brush or in the shadows. I like your photo. She's a pretty little lady. Sometimes the quality of the experience is far more important than the quality of the photo.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we were both surprised to see each other. Took a solid second or two for me to get the camera up and shoot.

I do like it a lot though, because of the emotions and story.
 
Member's gallery
StefanSC said:
What you have there is a happy little accident :).
Painters have been studying light and color and how this impacts an image and it's viewers for centuries if not millennia ... It will improve your photography if you take inspiration from them and try to apply it to your shots.
After all, one of the most popular lighting schemes for portraits is not called Rembrandt Lighting for nothing.

On a more general note, it helps to think of subject positioning, sharpness, focus, noise, depth of field and so on as the grammar rules of wildlife photography.
You must use them in order to take a shot that makes sense but, just like with the English language, if you want to do more than write a shopping list, you need to know when and how to bend and break them :p.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
I sometimes play with abstracts, especially with macro photography and introducing camera movement during the exposure. My last experiment was introducing vertical camera movement in photos of Christmas lights. Some of them had the effect I was searching for and some were well, let's say experimental. I also have used a diffused out of focus technique on fall color shots. The one posted here was, as you said, a happy accident. I was mainly capturing the image as a closing to a great day and a memory instead of any kind of image I would share. My wife and I had a wonderful evening out capturing images and it seemed a fitting way to close out the day before heading back to the car.

I like your English Language analogy.
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I think if one digs into what makes an image "painterly" it's some of the things you mentioned. Top of the list is that values are compressed. Instead of having every one of 256 levels of brightness there might be only 10 levels of variation. There is still contrast from one area to another but within an area there is less variation. Next maybe is texture and detail. Grass might not reveal individual blades but rather a textured green. Saturation would similarly be compressed with less variation, and maybe hues themselves. A painter would have a much more limited palette with less variation. So those are some things one would do if trying for a painterly effect, you got some of them by accident. Good or bad, you'd have to put it in critique section for that.
Click to expand...
Thanks and I agree. As for critique of the image, well, it isn't good by most of the standards we discuss here. It is an image I kind of liked but my own critique is "it is really a dreadful image.".
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
Yeah, we were both surprised to see each other. Took a solid second or two for me to get the camera up and shoot.

I do like it a lot though, because of the emotions and story.
Click to expand...
Yep. I'm not a professional. I shoot for my own enjoyment. I sell an image here and there (usually for whatever it cost to print and frame it no profit involved), I like the story of your deer image. To me, it is the quality of the experience that counts as much as the quality of the photo. Without typing up the description, it is difficult to communicate the experience with an image and we (again, myself included) jump right to sharpness, noise, is it in the "rule of thirds", other compositional elements, exposure, shadow/highlight detail etc. when in fact, the story behind the photo is usually just as important as the image itself.

There have been a number of photos posted on this forum where my first reaction was "umm... decent shot... but then I read the story behind it and was impressed and sometimes touched by the story..
 
Member's gallery
Back when I started photography as a hobby I saw plenty of people trying to justify poor images by the story behind the shot.

And it made it very difficult for those people to evolve as photographers as they were more attached to the story behind the image than the image itself and they would take negative critique very hard.

As such, my take on the issue has always been: an image should stand on it's own merits. The story behind it can enhance a good image but it never should be the focus of it (unless you are doing a journalism piece, and even then you should aim for stronger images).
 
Member's gallery
StefanSC said:
Back when I started photography as a hobby I saw plenty of people trying to justify poor images by the story behind the shot.

And it made it very difficult for those people to evolve as photographers as they were more attached to the story behind the image than the image itself and they would take negative critique very hard.

As such, my take on the issue has always been: an image should stand on it's own merits. The story behind it can enhance a good image but it never should be the focus of it (unless you are doing a journalism piece, and even then you should aim for stronger images).
Click to expand...
constructive criticism should never be seen as a negative. I don't mind it at all and, typically, I am my own worst critic. I do; however, enjoy reading the story behind the shot and the emotions the photographer was feeling when the shutter was pressed. The world is full of really great images and really bad images and most somewhere in-between. To me, a beautiful photo is enhanced when I know why the photographer captured the shot and any emotional response he/she may have had in the capture.

In the case of the image I posted at the start of the thread, it stinks. It is a dreadful image. However, there is something about it that I like. It captured the mood at the end of a wonderful day. The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly) is there is more to what makes an image meaningful and important than how sharp it is, how many mPIX the sensor has, what F stop and how much background blur is present. I know I sometimes (OK Frequently) lose track of that. I will judge my own photos by the measurable factors and not by the emotional aspects. Art should elicit some emotion even if that emotion is "that really stinks". :)

Thanks for commenting and carrying on the discussion. I enjoy these esoteric kinds of topics and discussions. Always interesting and enlightening to hear other perspectives and better understand where someone is coming from.
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
that's a great shot. Looks good to me.
Click to expand...
Well, when the cat walks in front of you 20' away and stares at you with a rather threatening face, you take the shot with whatever lens and camera settings you have right then. And no, you don't get down on your knees to get level with the subject. That ain't no puddy tat.

Tom

BTW, this cat was not like a big tabby, more like a medium sized dog.
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
Well, when the cat walks in front of you 20' away and stares at you with a rather threatening face, you take the shot with whatever lens and camera settings you have right then. And no, you don't get down on your knees to get level with the subject. That ain't no puddy tat.

Tom

BTW, this cat was not like a big tabby, more like a medium sized dog.
Click to expand...
for sure that! Bobcats (assuming it is a bobcat or a close relative) are not house cats for sure. Never turn your back or try to get down to their level. No need to look like prey when you're around a predator.

Cool story to go with it. I've seen several bobcats in the wild but never close enough or for long enough to grab a photo. High on my list of shots I want to capture and hopefully some day if I do, it will be as nice as this one. well done.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
As we, myself included, obsess over image sharpness, feather detail, seeing every eyelash, minimizing noise and if our camera/lens combinations are producing images up to par, a photo sometimes comes out of our cameras that we like in spite of its lacking in all those other attributes. This is one such photo. 99% of the time I would toss an image like this without giving it a second thought. It was shot well after sunset, ISO 12,800, at 1/1600 second (don't ask I had been shooting short eared owls in the field a few minutes earlier and didn't even think to reduce shutter speed when these deer walked by). I shot it more as a way to remember the end of a very enjoyable day out in the fields.

However, the more I looked at it, the more I liked the way the layers of winter colors lined up, the dark shadows of the deer and the noise gave it a Pointillist kind of look like a Paul Signac painting. I don't know, but there is something about the photo that I like in spite of its lack of fidelity, excessive ISO noise and poor lighting. I guess it's not always about the perfection of the image as much as it is about the perfection of the experience.

Here is the image. I keep telling myself it is a garbage image by all measures we typically discuss here but, there is something about it I like and cannot bring myself to delete it.
View attachment 76275
Click to expand...
The Pointillist kind of look can be very pleasing, although a matter of taste to be sure. I understand why you like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top