Which is more important?

Alan Browne wrote:
TheDave© wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Which is more important? Composition or technical
excellence/perfection?

Composition, hands down. Good composition will compensate for
technical faults, while technical perfection won't change a
boring photograph.

Not all the time. I was moonlighting a while back for the local
cops, and they wanted, and needed technical perfection. In this
special case, nobody cared about composition, as long as all
the required elements were in the picture. What they wanted
was the ability to extract detail from the crime scene photo.

That's not photography. It is documentation required for an
investigative process.

I had written a response saying how, while not untrue, it wasn't
really the same thing or even the same topic, but chose to not send
it as I could not phrase it without sounding too critical, and I
did not want to do that. Your answer is better than what I came up
with.

I think we're all too pins-and-needles about offending people with
the style of our replies. This group is stifled when people don't
reply out of fear of offending. (This excludes personal attacks, of
course).

I think you're right. Sometimes I get a little skittish because
something I'll say will be taken in a completely different light than I
intend it. Anywhere on the internet, not just here. The reader will
get all offended when I didn't mean what they thought I meant at all.
Part of it is black-and-white words on a screen with no human voice
inflection or facial expression, I'm sure.

In my own reply to the above I removed "photography as implied by the
OP." but I really don't know what the OP's 'limit' on the word
photography so I cut that out.

You would have been correct if you had left it as originally typed. I
see forums like this as sort of an extended or long-distance
discussion, and when people talk in person they normally don't feel the
need to include every single minute exception and nuance whenever they
ask a question or make a statement, and it's generally understood. On
the internet, however, it seems one always has to include disclaimers
lest someone else point out some extreme exception that is techincally
correct but doesn't really apply to the topic. My original
(non-posted) response was more to that effect... ok, in the case they
cite yes, but it doesn't really apply to the question. I'm not
suggesting that people need to read minds, but it's also not
out-of-line to expect others to be reasonable, too.

Cisco Kid wrote:

A good analogy would be music - would you rather listen to a musician
who puts his soul and emotuions into every note but technically is just
okay - or listen to a computer generated piece that has absolutely no
human emotion in it? The choice is obvious.

In the narrow question I would agree.

How about an artist that has mastered the computer as an instrument. Each
innovation regularly has had its detractors only to find a new class of
artists. The piano was once viewed as the beginning of the end for
expression in music. Even sheet music was once viewed taking something away
from pure musicians.

Digital cameras offer a new medium some new skills and some skills not so
essential anymore. Dark room techniques are exchanged with photoshop and
other post processing packages. A skilled photographer with a digital
camera produces very competent results with artistic merits competitive
with his film contemporaries.


w..

TheDave© napsal(a):
Alan Browne wrote:

TheDave© wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

Which is more important? Composition or technical
excellence/perfection?

Composition, hands down. Good composition will compensate for
technical faults, while technical perfection won't change a
boring photograph.

Not all the time. I was moonlighting a while back for the local
cops, and they wanted, and needed technical perfection. In this
special case, nobody cared about composition, as long as all
the required elements were in the picture. What they wanted
was the ability to extract detail from the crime scene photo.

That's not photography. It is documentation required for an
investigative process.

I had written a response saying how, while not untrue, it wasn't
really the same thing or even the same topic, but chose to not send
it as I could not phrase it without sounding too critical, and I
did not want to do that. Your answer is better than what I came up
with.

I think we're all too pins-and-needles about offending people with
the style of our replies. This group is stifled when people don't
reply out of fear of offending. (This excludes personal attacks, of
course).


I think you're right. Sometimes I get a little skittish because
something I'll say will be taken in a completely different light than I
intend it. Anywhere on the internet, not just here. The reader will
get all offended when I didn't mean what they thought I meant at all.
Part of it is black-and-white words on a screen with no human voice
inflection or facial expression, I'm sure.


In my own reply to the above I removed "photography as implied by the
OP." but I really don't know what the OP's 'limit' on the word
photography so I cut that out.


You would have been correct if you had left it as originally typed. I
see forums like this as sort of an extended or long-distance
discussion, and when people talk in person they normally don't feel the
need to include every single minute exception and nuance whenever they
ask a question or make a statement, and it's generally understood. On
the internet, however, it seems one always has to include disclaimers
lest someone else point out some extreme exception that is techincally
correct but doesn't really apply to the topic. My original
(non-posted) response was more to that effect... ok, in the case they
cite yes, but it doesn't really apply to the question. I'm not
suggesting that people need to read minds, but it's also not
out-of-line to expect others to be reasonable, too.
Composition is important and "sharf" tongue, of course if you want to
sell your photographs. If you own the Leica or Saliut, it´s not
important, by the way.
Lento van Eyta

would you rather listen to a musician
who puts his soul and emotions into every note
[but has absolutely no technique -- let's keep the
analogy fair, ed.]

A 2 year-old banging the pots and pans together?

to a computer generated piece that has
absolutely no human emotion in it?

Well, that would have to be pure noise: no human
intervention needed at any stage.

In the limit it is hard to tell the difference.

As to the question of technique Vs. content,
IMO other questions in the same vein a

o Which sounds better: the right hand clapping or the
left hand clapping?

o True or false: which is better?

o White or black: which is more important in
a photograph?

o Have you stopped beating your wife?

Q: Technique or content?
A: Both.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Norm Fleming wrote:
"Doug Robbins" wrote in message
...
Well, two very widely respect photographers, Henri Cartier-Bresson and
Robert Capa, are known for work that is often technically less than
perfect in terms of sharpness, etc., but deeply moving and perceptive of
the human condition. On the other hand, you have photographers like Ansel
Adams, who combine great compositional skills with technical mastery.

Probably get crucified for this - but anyone else out there find much of
Adams' work boring ?? Honest now !

If you've seen one Ansel Adams photograph, you haven't seen them all.
If you have seen two Ansel Adams photographs, you have seen them all.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
TheDave© wrote:
Which is more important? Composition or technical
excellence/perfection?

Composition. However, without some technical ability, pleasing images
will be more difficult to come by. My SO is an example, she naturally
composes well but did not understand exposure and DOF. With some
coaching, she now turns out image after image with merit all around, and
often has stunning images.

Any artist needs to get a good command of the technical aspects of his art
before he can expect to turn out decent work.....Van Gough spent ten years
drawing with charcoal and paper before he started to paint with oil on
canvas. If you just concentrate on composition without knowing how to use
your camera, then you are just ruining a lot of canvasses by throwing oil
paint on them without knowing how to draw first........It's not hard to
learn how to use a camera....It certainly shouldn't take ten years.......Ten
weeks would be much more reasonable. But, in any case, it should take
importance over all else until it's accomplished.......

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
POTD.com.au wrote:

But then this is photography and recently I saw the worlds most expensive
photo be sold for millions and it was both crap technically and
compositionally...... go figure????? lol

What photo was that? Link?.

Sorry no link, I saw it on the news. It went for about 2.4 million.... from
memory and it was a blury photo of a darkish room and in the background
there was light coming though a door with a person's silhouette.

It really was a nothing photo IMHO... it was the kinda pic that you take
when winding a new roll of film on.

"POTD.com.au" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
POTD.com.au wrote:

But then this is photography and recently I saw the worlds most
expensive photo be sold for millions and it was both crap technically
and compositionally...... go figure????? lol

What photo was that? Link?.

Sorry no link, I saw it on the news. It went for about 2.4 million....
from memory and it was a blury photo of a darkish room and in the
background there was light coming though a door with a person's
silhouette.

It really was a nothing photo IMHO... it was the kinda pic that you take
when winding a new roll of film on.


OK... it seems that the one I descibed may have been beat. Here is one that
went for $US2.928 million

http://www.staleywise.com/collection...hen_4410_b.jpg

Again I do not rate this one highly.

"POTD.com.au" wrote in message
...

"POTD.com.au" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
POTD.com.au wrote:

But then this is photography and recently I saw the worlds most
expensive photo be sold for millions and it was both crap technically
and compositionally...... go figure????? lol

What photo was that? Link?.

Sorry no link, I saw it on the news. It went for about 2.4 million....
from memory and it was a blury photo of a darkish room and in the
background there was light coming though a door with a person's
silhouette.

It really was a nothing photo IMHO... it was the kinda pic that you take
when winding a new roll of film on.


OK... it seems that the one I descibed may have been beat. Here is one
that went for $US2.928 million

http://www.staleywise.com/collection...hen_4410_b.jpg

Again I do not rate this one highly.

Hey! - I can identify with that....I got one better than that at our local
flea market, and it was only $2.5 million.........

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Kinon O'Cann wrote:
Which is more important? Composition or technical
excellence/perfection?


Composition, hands down. Good composition will compensate for
technical faults, while technical perfection won't change a boring
photograph.


Not all the time. I was moonlighting a while back for the local cops, and
they wanted, and needed technical perfection. In this special case,
nobody cared about composition, as long as all the required elements were
in the picture. What they wanted was the ability to extract detail from
the crime scene photo.

That's not photography. It is documentation required for an investigative
process.

So unless there's some artistic presentation, it isn't photography? Really?

Sorry, I was getting paid as a photographer to produce photographs to be
used as photographic evidence. My mistake. I'm sure all the sports shooters
who also don't rely on artistic presentation may also feel slighted that you
don't feel that their profession is simply documentation of an athletic
event. And maybe the photojournalists are just recording events for history,
again, not photography by your definition.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.