RustyBug Online Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Random pull from wedding photos - looking for editing suggestions | |
AuntiPode wrote:
That's why I assume it's likely images posted here that have distortions and processing that seem off are more likely to have capture or processing errors than intentional artistic license.
Of course there's always the chance that what looks like a rookie mistake is intentional and the original poster didn't mention it, but odds are against it.
Playing the other end of the artistic intent ... if the artistic intent conveys error moreover than obvious intent, then it has come up short on its ability to convey its desired message.
Not a major issue (small amout) here, but one of my "pet peeves" (if you will) is images that have a color cast to them, and people say "Oh, I wanted it that way.", yet they have no understanding of how to correct it. The fact that they want it that way is fine ... up to the point that they have not yet developed the ability to contend with it other than to clarify it with "That 's the way it came out of the camera" (so it must be how I wanted it, since I don't know how to control it or correct it). Note: I didn't understand color worth a darn either in years past, till others helped me learn.
This can apply to anything from WB to posing to DOF to Our command & control over the many attributes of an image varies as we grow and learn. Imo, those who truly desire to grow and learn are willing to acknowledge the difference between where we have command & control vs. where we don't. Personally, I don't have command & control over posing / evoking people's emotives, so if I were to endeavor to shoot people again ... well, I'd need plenty of help from folks showing me the error of my ways (for the goal of improvement) vs. saying "that's what I meant to do" and dismissing the opportunity to learn.
Back on the matter of artistic rendering intent. It's been my observation that the general population politely goes along with the "that's what I meant to do" "that's what the camera did" game very well ... when lack of command & control gets portrayed as artistic rendering. We have a long history of bringing images from one rendering to another. Sometimes that is mere "tweaks", others it is a "technical correction", other times it is an "artistic rendering", and yet other times it is lemon to lemonade territory.
The reality is that any of the four are viable and S&P to taste always applies ... but, at the end of the day, what the image conveys is the what the image conveys. And if an "artistic rendering" conveys a lacking in execution / technical issues moreover than conveys "I can see the intentional rendering" ... well, that 's what it conveys.
Doug's favorite "selective color" is probably one of the most obvious "artistic renderings" where the intent is very clear (debatable to its aesthetic) and is difficult to misinterpret as anything other than artistic intent.
Many of Steve's images ... they include elements that are "cut off" (thinking about the man walking to the corner, etc.). To the casual observer, it might seem to be a "rookie error" ... BUT, when you study the image you can see the INTENT behind it and realize it was not happenstance.
Lacking the ability to clearly discern the INTENT for the artistic rendering, the audience is left with the premise that NO INTENT was afforded to such artistic rendering (i.e. the foreshortening effect). As such, it then falls into the category of a technical issue (by default) ... particularly for critical review.
To the degree that such issue matters in the image, that's highly variable. Sometimes it is a small issue that is merely a nit that doesn't significantly detract from the what the image conveys. However, when such detractors DO interfere (or alter) what the image conveys, then it is a different matter of concern.
In the case of this image ... "sockless Joe", the foreshortening effect and the leading lines to crotchville combine as synergistic detractors from the "Tres Amigo" and the emotive they are conveying in their faces that are appropriate to the celebratory occasion. The amount of combined detraction items affords competition with the weighting of the emotive message.
As noted before, if "sockless Joe" is part of the desired message to be conveyed ... well, then that tips the scales in shifting an item from what is a detractor vs. what is desired to be conveyed. For those who "know Joe", it might be part of the message. For those who don't "know Joe" ... it might not seem to be.
Generally speaking ... the wedding party is "well dressed", and while the personality of Joe might be in play, it might be an unexpected oversight that doesn't show when standing, but in this particular seated position, it is revealing itself as a "not so well dressed" (i.e. potentially embarrassing).
Gone long ... but, the point is that when we are imparting artistic rendering ... it should be done with a clarity, such that it isn't misinterpreted as error. To the degree that our artistic rending is misinterpreted as error ... well, then that's the degree that we've missed the mark, and it is still on us.
As to this image ... I'm with Doug & Karen that I do not believe it was artistic intent, but rather a contemporaneous capture of the moment. That's not meant to be critical of the issues for a quick snap / grab ... because the look on the boys faces are very emotive and kudo's for capturing that. It just means that if we did pick up some detractors along the way ... let's see if we can reduce the amount of detractors competing for the viewers attention, and let the good stuff shine through with a shift in weighting.
The bottom line is that the degree to which we have command & control over our pre-production, capture and post-production endeavors work together to become our final image, which leads us again to:
As always, your message, your pic, your call.
|