when is it OK to have flaws in a photograph/negative, or is it never OK ?

bdial · Jun 27, 2015

It's always ok, and never ok, all at the same time.
The flaw, whatever it is, shouldn't detract from the image.

The question makes me think of Pepper #30, there is a fairly obvious bruise or similar bad spot on the pepper.
If one was picking that pepper out of the pile at the market for food you might well reject it. But it doesn't matter in the photograph, and I assume Brett or Edward cut that part out when it went into the diner.

frank · Jun 27, 2015

Perfection is why I prefer digital: it has none of that nasty, flawed, grain artifact.

(kidding)

Alan Klein · Jun 27, 2015

I realize I'm a perfectionist. On the other hand, don't people appreciate good craftsmanship regardless of the trade or art? When you go in to a store to shop something, and there are two of the same items, don't you select the one that seems in better shape with less apparent defects? Who selects the inferior one? To me it seems like a cop-out for not trying harder when it comes to photography. No, it doesn't have to be perfect, but at least try to eliminate the defects. Quality of workmanship counts. Maybe once you're well known like Arbus, then you could do crappy print work and claim it's your artistic style. Until then, you're not famous enough.

markbarendt · Jun 27, 2015

jnanian said:
have seen some that look pretty darn perfect to my eye,

What you have described is a personal threshold for excellence.

I was at a photo club and almost everyone was cooing about a shot of the South Western desert with a recognizable feature in the photo. Color was great, no technical taking or printing flaws, perfectly sharp edge to edge, puffy white clouds with detail, shadows with detail........

The picture sucked as far as I was concerned.

The problem was what everyones eyes were drawn to, "the technical perfection" not the subject matter.

It was pretty but it wasn't about anything. There wasn't anything in the photo that said "Hey, I'm what this photo is about". Instead there were a bunch of competing subjects. The recognizable feature was actually tiny and in the distance, the sage brush was more prominent, but not overly so, and the grains of sand in the foreground, yeah the "recognizable feature" was even nicely placed on the thirds, and all that blah, blah, blah...

A perfectly generic shot that anyone that shows up in the American south west on a fair weather day (300 of 365) can take without walking more that 100 feet from their car.

Sure, IMO the print would have gotten high marks in a printing class as a test print, and in a camera work class for an f64 club meeting in the color category, but the specific composition and subject matter were only marginally better chosen than what you or I see out the window right now.

The photographer had followed so many technical rules that the photo lost it's soul.

Bill Burk · Jun 27, 2015

Rick A said:
For me, I strive to present the best I am able to. Can it be improved? Yes, there is always room for improvement, but if I have unrealistic expectations, I would never have a photograph to show. ... Acquiring the skills to overcome the limitations, that is what we all should strive for, and our work should exhibit those skill sets.

I'll retouch, spotting 4x5 negatives when I am aware of pinholes, and spot all prints after a few printing sessions. Sometimes I will spend a long time spotting a particular print. There was an insane serpentine hairline on a recent print from Minox that I recently shared here.

I try to follow the philosophy like you suggest... working up to your skill level.

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 27, 2015

Alan Klein said:
On the other hand, don't people appreciate good craftsmanship regardless of the trade or art?

Yes, those in the know always do.

However, good craftsmanship in photography does not always mean technically gorgeous photographs. It can also mean intentionally grainy, blurry, askew, unfocused, random, under/over exposed, and just plain compositionally unfathomable.

The key term is intentionally. When one uses the imperfections inherent in both the photographic process, and the application of that process, to intentionally communicate their message in the most effective manner possible, then the resulting photograph succeeds.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) is a notable recent example. I suspect the photographer knew in advance exactly what message he was trying to communicate.

But when a photographer has no message to begin with, then creates a photograph that contains some or all of those same inherent imperfections, all the while desperately hoping something "interesting" will materialize that he can latch on to after the fact and claim prescient success, it's quite a different story and the photograph fails.

The converse example here might be anything by Winogrand. He likely never had a clue what he would end up photographing when he headed out in the morning with a loaded camera. His proof sheets were likely always a huge surprise to him. But the crucial point is, he also knew exactly what message he was trying to communicate before he ever released the shutter.

The so-called imperfections were simply his means to an anticipated end. That is why his photographs succeed, and a poseur's similar-appearing attempts do not.

Ken

Bill Burk · Jun 27, 2015

Rick A said:
I see the current trend among wet plate photos, is to include flaws. I own several tintype and ambrotypes from the late 19th century, no flaws. Does this mean modern wet plate artists are incapable of perfection, or does it mean the images presented are perfect with the flaws, and because the artist wanted them that way?

I am very curious about this as well. For example... I know my retouching skills are second-rate (but good enough for my needs - to camouflage spots). I know when I go backpacking, I can't assure spot-free negatives on 4x5 (I know some people bring vacuums and dust-off into the backcountry but that's not for me). I know when I develop film by tray I get some scratches. The list of flaws goes on, but they are just limitations that I know how to live with. I try to and hope for their effects to be minimized, and when they rear their ugly head... I just do the best I can with it.

But the example of wet plate and tintypes has me fascinated. I would think that the current practitioners could coat more evenly than they do. But I don't think they want to. I think the look is something they celebrate. Unless I'm mistaken. Maybe it is very difficult to coat large plates evenly, maybe it is the best they can do. Maybe the vintage work comes from people who had to do better due to profession, maybe they had ten times the experience because they did it for a living and had to be very productive at it. Or maybe the pieces were just smaller, and crops of larger plates with coating flaws outside the crop.

I wouldn't ask anyone to try to reach for perfection in the process though, because I find the defects are very beautiful.

MattKing · Jun 27, 2015

A "flaw" is a sort of failure.

Something only fails if it doesn't succeed in achieving what it is supposed to.

So if there is some artifact in your photograph, or if there are parts that are blurred, or if the colours are strange you need to ask the question: "do those attributes stop the photograph from achieving what it is supposed to"?

Sometimes, we are trying to create that absolutely clear window into another world. An extraneous artifact will get in the way, and will make success difficult. Other times, we are trying to create a two dimensional representation which depends highly on mood, inference and "presence". The artifact that got in the way of the clear window into another world may instead enhance the mood, inference and "presence" of your two dimensional representation.

Bill Burk · Jun 27, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists) is a notable recent example. I suspect the photographer knew in advance exactly what message he was trying to communicate.

And by anyone, I mean... I wouldn't want Illumiquest to change a thing. I'm just curious if it's deliberate or practically inescapable to have coating flaws.

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 27, 2015

MattKing said:
A "flaw" is a sort of failure.

Something only fails if it doesn't succeed in achieving what it is supposed to.

So if there is some artifact in your photograph, or if there are parts that are blurred, or if the colours are strange you need to ask the question: "do those attributes stop the photograph from achieving what it is supposed to"?

Precisely, Matt. And "achieving what it is supposed to" implies prior intent. An idea behind the photograph. A message. A goal.

A photographer can't form a valid judgment regarding the success or failure of their attempt unless they have something with which to compare it. And that something was their original motivation.

If there was no original motivation behind the creation of the work, then every work may be cast as a success after the fact. Or recognized by others as a failure.

Ken

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 27, 2015

Bill Burk said:
And by anyone, I mean... I wouldn't want Illumiquest to change a thing. I'm just curious if it's deliberate or practically inescapable to have coating flaws.

Having never practiced that process, I cannot speculate. He would need to illuminate us on that aspect.

But it sure is effective, at least to me. And I suspect he was well aware of that effectiveness in advance, and used it accordingly.

Ken

Rick A · Jun 27, 2015

Bill Burk said:
I am very curious about this as well. For example... I know my retouching skills are second-rate (but good enough for my needs - to camouflage spots). I know when I go backpacking, I can't assure spot-free negatives on 4x5 (I know some people bring vacuums and dust-off into the backcountry but that's not for me). I know when I develop film by tray I get some scratches. The list of flaws goes on, but they are just limitations that I know how to live with. I try to and hope for their effects to be minimized, and when they rear their ugly head... I just do the best I can with it.

But the example of wet plate and tintypes has me fascinated. I would think that the current practitioners could coat more evenly than they do. But I don't think they want to. I think the look is something they celebrate. Unless I'm mistaken. Maybe it is very difficult to coat large plates evenly, maybe it is the best they can do. Maybe the vintage work comes from people who had to do better due to profession, maybe they had ten times the experience because they did it for a living and had to be very productive at it. Or maybe the pieces were just smaller, and crops of larger plates with coating flaws outside the crop.

I wouldn't ask anyone to try to reach for perfection in the process though, because I find the defects are very beautiful.

My thoughts are, if this guy can pour giant plates, why can't everyone else do a better job of pouring the little ones?
http://petapixel.com/2012/04/03/wet-plate-photography-with-a-giant-format-van-camera/

Bill Burk · Jun 28, 2015

OK big flawless plates are possible with $500 of material.

Maybe I don't need to know more.

But I could continue to talk about flaws in my work since I have first hand experience with that.

removed account4 · Jun 28, 2015

i wasn't getting down on giles. his work is beautiful and seems effortless, beautiful imagery ..

i know what you mean bill about hoping to be able to be able to fix mistakes ..

i appreciate folke who have responded to this thread and taken it in stride and not
taken it as a contentious thread. people have different thresholds of ; tastes good, looks good. feels good
ans ot seems people LIKE ME!!! may seem to believe it doesn't matter BECAUSE IT DOES !

i mentioned i post threads like this to suggest it is OK to not do thing like the high tide of people
who might love thing to look or be a certain way, but it is in NO WAY to suggest any other way
might not be OK &C .... my philosophy has always been whatever works ... and if works means flaws / thats OK
thanks for reading this thread for what it is, not as a contentions thread.

NedL · Jun 28, 2015

Probably each of us has certain things that bug us more as "flaws". Maybe a horizon that is not level or dust spots or blown highlights or whatever it is. I just can't stand lint spots on my prints. But what Ken mentioned is right and can be taken even further: sometimes the intention is to let things happen, including whatever "flaws" might happen ( light leaks, stains, drips, tears, emulsion coming off, whatever ). When I put a solargraphy can in a tree for a year, sometimes the emulsion is completely gone or covered in little bugs but that's actually an important part of what happened to that photo paper over the course of a year. It's part of the reason to do it. In pinhole too, we often try to allow for "happy accidents", and let go a little bit of the rigid control over the results. But I gotta admit, I don't like lint spots on pinhole any more than on darkroom prints.... so it all depends what your intent is.

Richard S. (rich815) · Jun 28, 2015

Wabi-sabi

"Wabi-sabi (侘寂?) represents a comprehensive Japanese world view or aesthetic centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection. The aesthetic is sometimes described as one of beauty that is "imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete".[2] It is a concept derived from the Buddhist teaching of the three marks of existence (三法印 sanbōin?), specifically impermanence (無常 mujō?), the other two being suffering (苦 ku?) and emptiness or absence of self-nature (空 kū?).

Characteristics of the wabi-sabi aesthetic include asymmetry, asperity (roughness or irregularity), simplicity, economy, austerity, modesty, intimacy, and appreciation of the ingenuous integrity of natural objects and processes."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

Bill Burk · Jun 28, 2015

For a moment I was thinking of the Native American practice of including one deliberate flaw in their designs.

Then I noticed a difference between that and the imperfections in what I show. I am talking about (at least for my own work) accepting a work as-is because it is the best I can do, though I know it is a less than the best that has ever been done.

There is a difference between what I do, sending up my best which is imperfect... And deliberate flaws in Native American designs. I don't make mistakes on purpose. There's just a hundred things that can go wrong and if ten things go wrong, I am still OK with it.

Rick A · Jun 28, 2015

Bill Burk said:
For a moment I was thinking of the Native American practice of including one deliberate flaw in their designs.

Then I noticed a difference between that and the imperfections in what I show. I am talking about (at least for my own work) accepting a work as-is because it is the best I can do, though I know it is a less than the best that has ever been done.

There is a difference between what I do, sending up my best which is imperfect... And deliberate flaws in Native American designs. I don't make mistakes on purpose. There's just a hundred things that can go wrong and if ten things go wrong, I am still OK with it.

Amish quilters purposely put a flaw in their work, because only God is perfect. I know my work is flawed, because I am flawed, but I still strive to give it my best effort.

Bill Burk · Jun 28, 2015

Rick A said:
Amish quilters purposely put a flaw in their work, because only God is perfect.

I'm there with you... I'm not deliberately making mistakes yet.

But when things go wrong, sometimes it's OK...

Old Faithful, Geyserville, CA

Rick A · Jun 28, 2015

One of my favorite photos has a flaw, it looks like a cloud in the upper portion near the top border. The reality is, a development flaw, I have trouble loading film into reels these days, and this one was misloaded and had a spot where the film touched itself. I love the photo, and can live with the flaw. It's matted and framed, hanging on the wall, and everyone raves about the cloud.

I have it cropped to where the mat just covers to the bottom of the actual touch mark, leaving a "rising mist" at the top of the print.

Richard S. (rich815) · Jun 28, 2015

Bill Burk said:
For a moment I was thinking of the Native American practice of including one deliberate flaw in their designs.

Then I noticed a difference between that and the imperfections in what I show. I am talking about (at least for my own work) accepting a work as-is because it is the best I can do, though I know it is a less than the best that has ever been done.

There is a difference between what I do, sending up my best which is imperfect... And deliberate flaws in Native American designs. I don't make mistakes on purpose. There's just a hundred things that can go wrong and if ten things go wrong, I am still OK with it.

What specific flaws do you find in your photographic work that once seen by you cannot be "fixed" next time or with a re-do?

Vaughn · Jun 28, 2015

Any one can know the rules -- they are written down everywhere. And that is not enough to get away with breaking them. I'd leave that to those who understand the rules...

markbarendt · Jun 28, 2015

Vaughn said:
Any one can know the rules -- they are written down everywhere. And that is not enough to get away with breaking them. I'd leave that to those who understand the rules...

Rules of art are kinda like the rules of physics, the written rules don't always match the real rules. In fact much of what is written about photography is misinformation or oversimplified information.

No one can break the real rules of physics, instead the best we can do is update our understanding.

I think Art is much the same. It's not too tough to break the one third two thirds "rule" and still get a good picture. The one third two thirds rule is actually not much of a rule, more like a good suggestion a coach might make to help a player get better.

If intuition gets us past that rule before we understand it, that's cool, for many that's even normal.

cliveh · Jun 28, 2015

markbarendt said:
Rules of art are kinda like the rules of physics. No one can break the real rules of physics, instead the best we can do is update our understanding.

I think the rules for art are more akin to those of quantum physics.

Bill Burk · Jun 28, 2015

I can't go back and take the picture of Dad, Ava and Princess Summer again because Princess Summer has passed on...

(Links to galleries break, so if you are a subscriber and want to see this picture, look in the Gallery, within my images, look for Dad, Ava and Princess Summer.)

Flaws? Well the chief flaw is my father is out of focus. But the picture stands OK with me as a glimpse of his love for small animals and the joy that is natural, seeing a cherished trait passed along from father to son to grand daughter.

If there is a flaw that I see ruins a picture at a basic level, and I have the ability to re-take it. I will. I've told the story of a picture I took of a friend where I can tell who he is, but a baseball cap covered his face so another friend didn't recognize him. So I retook that one the following year when we had the same father-daughter campout. Still yet to be developed and printed. But it's in the can.

when is it OK to have flaws in a photograph/negative, or is it never OK ?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency