Do you want perfect photos? If so, you are probably planting the wrong tree. In your quest for perfection, you are missing an essential element from your image.
Strict rules were put in place by the earliest testers from the very beginning of photography. When Nicéphore Niépce, the French inventor of photography, said his aim was to “reproduce in all its authenticity,” accuracy was always at the forefront of his mind. He wrote to his brother in 1816 about his successes in producing negative prints with the camera obscura, saying that he had to give more sharpness to the representation of subjects. Sound familiar?
This was an early sign of the attitude towards perfection in what the French today call La Belle Époque. Perfection through precision was the driving force behind the early development of photography with a scientific approach considered more important than artistic expression. That is a dominant attitude today.
At the same time, photography became the democratizing force behind portraiture. Whereas in the past oil-painted portraits were extremely expensive and were preserved by the aristocracy, portraits have suddenly become widely available.
While those early images were well composed, the poses were often stiff and unnatural. That’s partly because the length of the exposure requires people to hold still. Early photographs are often seen as formal and aloof. However, that style matches the need for realism in images.
There are those who have opposed this approach. Julia Margaret Cameron, on her 48th birthday in 1863, was given a camera by her daughter. She became prolific for the remaining 11 years of her life. Sometimes adopting a soft focus style, her work was criticized by her contemporaries as lousy. Whether the soothing, dreamlike quality of her photographs is intentional or the result of an inability to achieve accuracy is sometimes debated. However, I believe it was intentional as she has also produced critically acclaimed portraits of Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Sir John Herschel, Charles Darwin and Edgar Allan Poe. So, maybe the criticism is theoretically wrong.
Technical flaws in photography, while once annoying, have changed to become accepted or even glorified over time.
Look at Robert Capa’s famous photos of the D-Day landings on Omaha . Beach in Normandy during World War II. Many of these images are of poor quality by today’s technical standards. However, blurred images due to camera shake add a sense of danger and despair to the photos, conveying the dangerous atmosphere of the battlefield.
Henri Cartier-Bresson’s most famous images, Derrière la Gare Saint-Lazare, Paris, France, 1932, is another example. The subject looks blurred, but it’s undeniably a great photograph, a perfect illustration of his defining moment.
Stick with Magnum photographers, one of the Eve Arnold classic photos of Marilyn Monroe fixing her hair in the bathroom. Technically, the picture is poor. The composition is very odd, the camera angle is skewed and Monroe’s hand, left elbow, and foot are partially amputated. However, it captures an intimate moment in the life of an iconic character in a private moment. The subject becomes all that matters, and the technique of the photography is unimportant.
If we go to the other extreme, Ansel Adam’s photos seems to be motivated by a desire to achieve perfection. Today, his compositions and pursuit of perfect tones are rarely criticized. In the context of the time when they were taken, when considered alongside the possibilities of contemporary technology, the perfection of his photographs is a high achievement. However, an argument arose between perfectionists and those with a more casual style.
At the time, Swiss documentary and fashion photographer Harper’s Bazaar, Robert Frankpublished her groundbreaking book, Les Américains.
On the one hand, Frank is commended for his casual style and uninteresting in tonal accuracy like Adams. His work highlights the bleak lives of the average American, and his disregard for technical excellence works well with that theme. But that style also met with criticism from the photography establishment. Frank’s images were denounced by the editor of Popular Photography magazine as “pointless blur, grainy, muddy exposure, drunken horizon and general sloppiness.”
Meanwhile, photographer Elliott Erwitt said Frank’s work was far superior to that of Adams, who had “the quality of a postcard”. Perhaps he was right, on the shelf above my desk was a pamphlet titled “Ansel Adams. Winter photo. Folio book in postcard format. ”
This is a dichotomy. First, we have visuals that challenge in telling their stories. They’re not technically perfect, but that imperfection is part of the story. Then we have beautifully crafted photographs. However, they lack the same closeness and intimacy. They fulfill little of the viewer’s needs. In perfect photographs, people are captured by the beauty of the photo, not by the subject itself.
Currently, the photography community is moving towards technical perfection. This is partly because perfect images are easier to like and don’t necessarily have to be educated to like them. There’s no problem with that. After all, most professional photographers are shooting to please clients – customers want technical perfection – and enthusiasts are trying to please Instagram. Furthermore, judges of photography competitions focus on the technical prowess of the photographer and rarely award prizes to those whose photographs have blurred horizons and are drunk with nonsense.
Another reason for the dominance of perfectionist efforts is due to what controls photography today: camera manufacturers. Every other art is motivated by the art itself, not by the tools used to create it. Artists are not hung on the brush they use but on the images they create. Likewise, musicians love their instruments, but their driving force is their music. They are not so fanatical about any brand of piano, violin or drums the same way photographers use their cameras.
It is the competition and aggressive marketing of the manufacturers behind the fervent extremism towards camera brands. They incentivize their followers with a cult-like fervor and certainly when people are drawn to high-demanding mainstream religions, people are drawn to camera brands. Those manufacturers promise paradise of increasingly higher resolutions and tell photographers they have to upgrade to achieve perfection.
My proof for this? If I were to write an article about cameras, it would get thousands more readers than my articles on using artistic techniques in photography. If I dare criticize any of the big three, I guarantee I will be trolled and my inbox will receive hate mail. I wish they put as much passion into photography as they do when they worship their camera god, they would take much better pictures. Sadly, many photographers care more about the camera they’re using than the art they’re creating.
There is room to explore both extremes. Some of the best photographers do just that. They combine carefully constructed photos with spontaneous shots without much care for technique. Their beautifully composed, well-composed photographs delighted the public and the camera club judges. Meanwhile, artists and collectors are intrigued by images that are more interesting and less likely to have wider appeal.
I hope that we will see another twist with that perfection to be more perfect and interesting. Why? Perfection is getting boring. There are many similarities with everyone trying to achieve the same product. Photography has become a sausage machine. It will be great to see more improvised, unique, interesting pictures besides perfection.
Finally, it is very rare to have exceptional photos taken at random, but also perfectly composed and exposed, and sharply pinned in the right place. Do you have any of these in your portfolio?
What is your photography style? Are you aiming for perfection? Do you feel hot-eyed if someone criticizes your camera brand? Or, do you explore the world and don’t give two reasons about the establishment’s rules and expectations? Great to hear your thoughts.
