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

[removed account4]

in the past few weeks there have been handfuls of threads and posts that inch towards this
but i will ask it outright.

when is it OK to have flaws in an image?
everyone who makes a negative or print ( not matter the method )
has in their own mind what flaws are OK to have and what flaws aren't OK to have.
it sort of in the "good enough" sort of realm. im not asking when a negative or print is "good enough"
but asking when it is OK to have flaws, sometimes blatent flaws that are faults in composition, dust, scratches
developing artifacts damaged film or paper &c some flaws might be made on purpose --- i look at gandolfi's work
in his series called " kill your darlings" and they are perfectly-flawed, that's part of their being. i look at lartrigue's race car photograph
with the ovoid wheels and it says SPEED, it leans it shakes, but to some who might have a more wishful idea, or who in present day 2015
photograph the indy500 they might say, "its all wrong" and have a list of things wrong with it, but the wrong is the right, its part of the image's beauty.

there is the old saying that goes somethign like: know the rules and then break them ... which makes all of it ( the whole act of making a negative +/- print ) fair game
so, ... is it OK to have flaws ?

or do flaws just mean sloppy photography?

 

[Rick A]

It's my image, i'll display it how I see fit. I don't make images to satisfy others, only myself. If you like what i show, fine and dandy, if not, who cares. The only rules I follow are my own.

 

[winger]

It's my image, i'll display it how I see fit. I don't make images to satisfy others, only myself. If you like what i show, fine and dandy, if not, who cares. The only rules I follow are my own.

+1

 

[removed account4]

i totally understand what you say rick,
but a lot of folks for good or for bad
follow "rules" ... rules of composition, rules of aesthetics
rules of presentation ... rules of exposure, rules of development
and rules of printing and if rules aren't followed
people are turned off thinking the images are mediocre,
or could have been better if the head and limbs weren't cut off of a portrait
(weston style) &c ... or if there is too much space of the left or right, or
there isn't about 1/2 the length of a thumb between the top of the head and the image edge
if it is a head-shot ... or perfect toothy smiles, or ...
some people are able to pull it off so to speak
while others aren't ...

 

[Rick A]

Learn the "rules" like a pro -- bend them like an artist.

 

[ColdEye]

Learn the "rules" like a pro -- bend them like an artist.

+100

 

[pdeeh]

It's a photograph.
What does it mean (really mean) when it is presented apparently without flaws?
Is it more of a "real" photograph?
Is it a "more real" photograph?

Making a photographic image "perfect" and apparently without flaw seems a matter of significant pride for many, and lead some to dismiss others' less-than-"perfect" work as amateurish or dilettante. As if somehow there really is some natural law that lays down how a photograph must be, to be considered good, or fine, or expressive, or whatever one's favourite guru says .

Like all things where photography is concerned, I wonder why different criteria might be applied to the judgement of a photograph than other media?

I don't look at one of Bacon's "screaming popes" and think, well, it's OK but it would have been better if I couldn't see the marks of his palette knife ... or one of Hepworth's stone pieces and think, well, it's OK but she left a few chisel-marks in it ...

If someone looks at a photograph 100 years after it was made, who's to say a dust spot is an aesthetic choice or sloppy workmanship?

 

[Peltigera]

I'm not sure what a flawless photograph means. Except that if it has the focus I want, the contrast I want, the composition I want, and so on, then surely it is flawless.

Actually, I am not concerned about flaws. I prefer artistic genius.

 

[Rick A]

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?

 

[cliveh]

If you feel the image satisfies your artistic judgement as something that works in an aesthetic sense (regardless of flaws or no flaws) then that image is king. Sometimes when making work you may purposely induce so called flaws during artistic endeavour, but that doesn’t mean they always work and you may destroy lots of images in trying to induce “a flaw” that doesn’t quite cut the mustard. A perfect example of an image that works with flaws is Derriere la Gare Saint-Lazare.

 

[chip j]

I saw a Diane Arbus show once, & it had dust spots and big lint spots in the prints. What a turnoff!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It all depends on whether the flaw detracts from the image. But if there is a flaw forget about working with a gallery they demand the very best print.

But if you have name recognition then things are a bit different. Lisette Model once quipped, "Darling, if you think my prints are bad you should see my negatives."

 

[Rick A]

I am an imperfect and flawed person. Why should my photographs be anything more or less than a reflection of me.

 

[eddie]

Daniel-I think your contention that large format is for egomaniacal, anal types is a load of crap. Just because it wasn't for you doesn't mean those that choose it have those attributes.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

in the past few weeks there have been handfuls of threads and posts that inch towards this
but i will ask it outright.

when is it OK to have flaws in an image?
everyone who makes a negative or print ( not matter the method )
has in their own mind what flaws are OK to have and what flaws aren't OK to have.
it sort of in the "good enough" sort of realm. im not asking when a negative or print is "good enough"
but asking when it is OK to have flaws, sometimes blatent flaws that are faults in composition, dust, scratches
developing artifacts damaged film or paper &c some flaws might be made on purpose --- i look at gandolfi's work
in his series called " kill your darlings" and they are perfectly-flawed, that's part of their being. i look at lartrigue's race car photograph
with the ovoid wheels and it says SPEED, it leans it shakes, but to some who might have a more wishful idea, or who in present day 2015
photograph the indy500 they might say, "its all wrong" and have a list of things wrong with it, but the wrong is the right, its part of the image's beauty.

there is the old saying that goes somethign like: know the rules and then break them ... which makes all of it ( the whole act of making a negative +/- print ) fair game
so, ... is it OK to have flaws ?

or do flaws just mean sloppy photography?

Sorry 'good enough' is not part of my vocabulary';I'm a perfectionist and don't want it any other way!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Those who can't take flaws are long gone on digital. Joined by pixel peepers.
I was going to learn photoshop to emulate film flaws, but because my brain is still functional I went back to film for pictures which I want to be not so boring.

 

[Rick A]

Sorry 'good enough' is not part of my vocabulary';I'm a perfectionist and don't want it any other way!

With that in mind, define "perfection" for you.
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. One must always draw the line at where expectations and reality meet. Some times I share a work in progress, other times I decide that is all I want to do to a print, and deem it "good enough". I can always revisit a negative and change my mind on how it should be shown. As for flaws such as prints needing spotting or there was dust on the negative, I try never to have those show on a finished print. That is an indication of a sloppy person or someone who doesn't care about them self or their work.I always strive to make a technically proficient negative, whenever possible, conditions do not always exist for that, so you accept the limitations of the moment and work with it. Acquiring the skills to overcome the limitations, that is what we all should strive for, and our work should exhibit those skill sets.

 

[markbarendt]

when is it OK to have flaws in an image?

Has there ever been a truly and absolutely flawless photo?

 

[pdeeh]

Its one of those false distinctions.

The very idea of flawless or perfect - beyond what is no more than personal preference - is simply a chimera when considering a photograph

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's my image, i'll display it how I see fit. I don't make images to satisfy others, only myself. If you like what i show, fine and dandy, if not, who cares. The only rules I follow are my own.

Well said.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Learn the "rules" like a pro -- bend them like an artist.

+1

 

[gone]

When it looks right to you.

 

[removed account4]

hi mark and pdeeh

i don't know if there is any such thing as absolutely flawless photograph.

i have seen some that look pretty darn perfect to my eye, the tonality
is beautiful, no spots, uneveness, presented like the mona lisa as if in a museum

maybe it was the presentation ? maybe i didn't look with my nose to the glass ...
in any case it was as perfect as perfect could seem.

i have also seen some ( not in real life but on the internet ) that maybe weren't flawless
but the flawed areas didn't detract from the image ...

 

[Arklatexian]

Learn the "rules" like a pro -- bend them like an artist.

+1

 

[removed account4]

I discuss it at length here, around the middle where I talk about 4x5.


nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/what-is-the-best-camera-in-the-world/

hi daniel

while it may be true there are people with egos who use large format,
and some are ansel inspired photographers, and perfectionists and other things you
suggest in your blog essay ... there are also people who wear those shoes who shoot MF, and 35mm, and
pinhole images. i know of people, have read others who post posts, who do the zone system with different similar 35mm cameras
i know people who are anal retentive who make pinhole images, and others who painstakingly slit larger film to fit their beloved submini cameras.
it is a broad brush you paint people who use 4x5 or larger negatives with, but every format has people who love precision and knowing what will become
of a negative before it is developed into a print ...
your suggestion that everyone who uses a lf camera is an elitist who possesses those rigid traits doesn't offer any leeway for people who gladly expose
without being an egoist, or anal retentive, or ansel admirer who don't care for what others deem absolutely perfect images ... is a bit off

i often start threads like this because people forget there is an " across the street" where people aren't as rigid and it is OK ...
and if someone wants to secretly over expose and over develop to get grain and print with a #2 filter, with straight developer ...
the world won't end ... i know people might be tired of these threads that might ask if it is OK not to have perfect images or use print developer to
process film or use film or paper of unknown origin, but the side of the street that loves new film, rodinal and d76 and everything being PERFECT
is very loud, and clear and people might not realize ITS OK not to do that ....