RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
+1 @ Doug.
beanpkk wrote:
A picture that is perfect technically gets trumped easily by a picture that has a masterful composition, background, angle, etc. Just ask my wife!
Which is very much in line with my assessment that if the lesser contribution (in this case the technical) doesn't negatively obliterate the greater contribution of composition, then the greater contribution trumps the lesser one.
The point of constraints is really in play here @ which aspect of any given image ... technical, composition, message ... is the restraining aspect.
A picture of a rock can be made technically awesome, and can have incredible composition and still be a picture of a rock. It can be an awesome display of lighting, scale, mass, tonal values, detail, hue, etc. ... or it can be a boring pic.
A picture of a child crying can be a technical mess, with poor composition and still have a powerfully emotive message that tugs at your heart.
My mother recently posted up some pics of her as a child on FB. They were a wreck @ poorly focused, lousy contrast (poor scan to boot) and composition that wasn't anything to suggest any knowledge of such things. However, they captured a moment in time that delivered a message of her youth and the spirit she had as a young girl.
I get what you are suggesting that folks can skip out on the technical and still get "improved" pictures by advancing themselves in the area of composition. I would add that they can improve their overall images, by improving their message content, even if they don't improve their technical. I can't disagree that an improvement in composition is a contribution to the overall improvement of the image, anymore than I can disagree that an improvement in message content is an improvement.
I get that many folks don't want to get bogged down by the technical aspects. Many a great image has been made from "f8 and be there". Where a person deems technical, composition, message content "adequate" and has no perceived gain from one of the attributes is a matter of personal discretion.
In the case of "birders" or "floral" for instance ... the message content remains relatively consistent within the genre. As such, the relative value of increasing the technical and/or composition becomes more paramount than changing from a white orchid to a purple orchid. A picture of a cardinal with poor technical and poor composition pales in comparison to a picture of a cardinal with excellent technical and excellent composition (i.e. same message content).
The crux of the question lies in the context of "improve" ... which I still maintain that it is going to be relative to current state of adequacy and competency for each of the areas of consideration. If the "A" on the camera is "A"dequate for technical competency, then it is not a major deterrent to the other aspects of image making and one can proceed to improve in the areas of composition and content without improving their technical skills. I agree that today's camera's can indeed be very "adequate" in many regards, but that adequacy does provide a degree of limitation ... which takes us right back to the points of constraint.
Short version ... what is holding you back the most?
A) Technical (yours or the camera's)
B) Composition
C) Message
Whichever is a person's weakest link ... to the point of interfering with the delivery of the message ... that is where the most immediate improvement can be made. If the technical is sufficient via the camera, then yes it may very well be that a person can focus to improve in the other areas before reaching a need to concern themselves with improving their understanding of the technical, while remaining dependent on the camera for such technical adequacy. My wife has some awesome images from our trip to YNP that was without her having any real knowledge of the technical aspects. Some of her images are worthy of competition, while others could be much improved technically.
That said ... teaching a group (teachers jump in here) in a one session seminar is a different matter from teaching a curriculum or mentoring an individual person. Could some individuals who took the "technical improvements" course been better served by taking a "composition improvements" course ... sure, but that depends on knowing where the individual is on the matter. Once again, point of constraints.
I can't help but wonder if the course outline indicated a concentration on understanding your camera vs. understanding composition or was it balanced or Matching one's current (in)adequacy of skill set (self or equipment) to the area of improvement being addressed is always going to have a better gain of improvement than a mismatched one. I don't think you can isolate one as being the more correct for all ... imo, it really depends on where the person is and where they are trying to go as to which is the better path for improvement to be addressed at any given time in their growth.
In other words ...
You can't know what to improve, until you know where the weak link is.
Just be glad the course didn't include how to improve your images with CMYK color correction theory.
|