Who Cares?
We (I) write a lot about the technical and creative things that float our boat, drive us crazy and otherwise amuse us in our photographic and video endeavours.
Who cares?
We the invested do, a lot. We get frustrated by the short comings of camera “X”, lens “Y” or processing programme “Z”. The never ending hunt for the perfect item for our needs is well, never ending.
Who else cares?
Nobody really and if we remember that, the path to creativity is much more rewarding.
I am not saying our viewers are simple, disinterested or artistically lacking. What I am saying is the little things that we hold as important, are not important in the fleeting moment we deliver our product and that is becoming, ironically more the case as the technical limitations we have been tackling since day one are slowly disappearing.
If we release ourselves from the deep immersive self-criticism that over exposure to a process can force on us, any creative process, our appreciation falls in line with our viewer. It becomes immediate, visceral, not halting or reluctant. We are free to go “whoopee”, not “yes, but…”.
I was just watching Fargo (series 5 ep 5 to be specific). During that show, an advertisement came on. I saw onion ring Bokeh in the many Bokeh balls in the background.
I noticed it, I understood it, but I did to care, because I realised that I only saw it because I was looking for it!
I realised that what may be described as “to your taste” when reviewing or criticising actually meant to the vast majority “as it is”.
Sure, there are things that do make a difference, like the transition of focus and judder or poor colour grading, but these have to be actually noticeably bad before they begin to matter and even then do they? Most viewers may sense something is amiss, then move on or just as often assume it was meant and “above their pay grade”.
Where is you eye drawn? Is it to the subject, what they are doing or is it to the many technical deficiencies this image has. It is a screen grab off ungraded 2mp video footage. Do you find the Bokeh pleasing or offensive, the colour strong or muted and the sharpness up to snuff or not? More realistically, did you only look at these things and in the context of an assumed to be deficient file, because I prompted you to look?
Sharp corners are an example of futile perfectionism. Only the initiated, the obsessed will even look there. It is actually really hard to get people to look at the corners of your image unless you compose them that way.
Quick and honest look at this file, what is the first, then second thing you see? For me it is the man then the red bag or the fire. Then look at the image at the bottom of the post.
Honestly, when was the last time you studied the far corners of an image except for when a lens test or critical examination was involved and when you saw what you saw, were you sure why you saw it? Maybe it was just out of focus, or there was some field curvature, aberrations, or poor design?
Perfection can be the reason for an image, but if not, it is rarely that important.
Sharp and clear edge to edge and for three layers deep, this is as good as anything needs to be, but lacking a central subject or any subject at all really, its perfection is its reason for being. Even then is anyone actually measuring that perfection, or just acceptation it.
The most creative of us are likely the most focussed. They are not focussed on the little things that keep us awake at night. They are focussed on the meaning, the connection and central subject. The rest is clutter that often needs to be removed, ignored or excluded, not obsessed over.
No ball, poorly framed, forced into mono to hide some glare and strong colour shifts, this image still works for me, because the subjects are compelling and even the third figure adds context.
The more I shoot the more I realise that the people we shoot for are less concerned about any technical element we fixate on and wholely concerned with the meaning and context of the image.
That does not mean the effort we go to is lost on them, it is just assumed or invisible unless it is made visible by being flawed or poorly applied.
We must always try hard to do our best, because when we do, we always reach a point of sufficiency with extra “credit” in the bank for our less than perfect efforts.
Did you notice this clanger bottom right? Caused by an unfortunate combination of out of depth of field bright glare, it looks pretty awful, but I did not even notice it until I went looking.