Are there discernible boundaries between taste and mistake? What is 'wrong'

[thetraveler]

In an early episode of the TV series the Big Bang Theory, Stuart, the owner of the comic book store, tells Sheldon that 'he couldn't be more wrong.'

Sheldon replies, approximately, that 'wrong' does not allow qualification, it is a binary state.

Stuart replies:"It's a little wrong if you call a tomato a vegetable. It's very wrong if you call it a firetruck.'
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

The post processing is a matter of personal taste ...........

I had commented on the processing of an image pointing out what I had considered technical failings and Sergio M (who was not the maker of the photo), a member whose work I like and respected, replied with this statement above.

And that made me think a bit.

Is there a point where you look at a photo and decide that the maker/editor, in his/her handling of the image, has made or ignored a technical error - and that becomes a deficiency rather than a matter of taste?

And can you define that point?
?
?
?

[Urbanflyer]

A professor of art I greatly admired once told me-"-if someone calls you a horse, forget it. If two people call you a horse, forget it. If seven people call you a horse, go and get a saddle." Some artists/musicians/photographers, diverging from the norm, are not appreciated until years later. If someone suggests a change in a photo posted here, I say, try it. If you like it, keep it. If you don't like it, don't keep it. Be true to your own taste but do not let that taste become stagnant by stubbornly refusing to even consider that your work could be improved.

[Donald]

That's a fascinating question and it will be interesting to see how members respond.

[Sergio M.]

Lew, I too like The Big Bang Theory and remember that episode.

I'm not very good at explaining myself, but I will give it a go. When I look at a photograph I try to look at and get the gist of what he/she is trying to convey to me. I usually ignore technicalities unless they are so blaring they interfere with the message. Things such as sharpness, saturation, position of subject, contrast, decision on crop, etc, are technical qualities that have a different appeal for different people as we have seen countless times on this forum. Does this mean we shouldn't point these things out? Of course not. What I consider just the right sharpness may be soft to someone else. What I consider garish colors might be perfect for others. These are technical qualities that can be pointed out, but the personal taste of the individual can be different.

I know and realize there are elements and priciples of design which can help us to construct and organize our shots so they can be more pleasing and appealing. I also know that in general people respond in a certain way to these design principles, but I also know that there are other factors such as geographic location, culture, upgringing, personal psycology and experience that can affect just how we react to those elements.

If you look back on my posts I think you will see that I have seldom told anyone to change anything. Why? I have enough difficulty trying to figure out whether what I have created is right, and telling someone else what to do--even though tehnical--might just be my personal taste. I'm in no way am saying others should not do this. It's just that I don't feel qualified to do so. I myself appreciate the critique given by others and how much the forum members benefit from this.

That said, for me personally--except for on rare occasion--have I found that point where something can be defined as "deficiency" rather than "personal taste". Perhaps that shows lack of knowledge and understanding on my part, but I still consider myself to be a student rather than teacher. Thanks, Lew, for starting this discussion; I am sure that it will be one that I will learn from.

Sergio

[Urbanflyer]

I have also learned that unsolicited critique is not likely to be appreciated. I learn by looking at other photos and seeing what I would do differently if it were mine. But I rarely comment unless comment is requested. Then I try to say that these are my approaches and may not be the approach of the photographer.

[rpcrowe]

What really bugs me is when I notice something that should be corrected in an image and, am either in too much of a hurry or too lazy to make the correction. Then after posting, many of my friends remark about the correction needed. I feel pretty silly saying, yeah, I noticed it! But I was to lazy to correct the problem. Obviously, the solution to this problem would be to make the correction needed when I notice it! I will try to do so in the future so that any comments will be about something I didn't notice.

[thetraveler]

It seems to me that is is pretty difficult to separate two different paths - corecting inadequacies in the original image and editing to make the picture what the photographer wants.

For example, this path

sharpening to correct the unsharpening effects of digital firmware->sharpening things to make them pop out -> sharpening causes visible halos and grittiness in the shadows.

And there is also the eye of the beholder. My neighbor is a decorator and his eye can make color distinctions that I may not even be aware of. When I was picking trim colors for our house, I asked him for his opinion. Ditto, my wife and room arrangements.
I've been looking at 30-100 pictures a day for ten years and, with this exposure, I am aware of horizons that are off by half a degree and, since most pictures aren't that impressive, that amount of 'offness' detracts.

[mknittle]

Whenever possible I try to make tasteful mistakes.

[Shanghai Steve]

An image which is perceived to be straight by the author but is not, is a mistake. An image which is pleasing to the author but is not pleasing to the viewer is wrong to the viewer and right to the author. I remember once I missed focus on a building and the image ended up dreamily fuzzy: I immediately declared it "right" and kept it that way. Some really good shots were created completely by mistake or are a result of coincidences which the author had no way of knowing would be present in the frame, especially when using a high frame rate. They are right, but not a result of the "vision" of the author except as far as the author had thought something interesting might happen in that situation. When it comes to processing, right or wrong is at times an ethical choice, at times aesthetic, at times it is difficult to separate the two. The only clear mistake would be like the first example above: if you think your image has a technical aspect which it doesn't, such as being straight or corresponding to the rule of thirds, this can be challenged and proven to be wrong. On my very first day of using a camera as an adult, I managed to capture a shot I was tickled pink with....until someone pointed out there is very slight motion-blur and the image is not very sharp: this was a mistake on my part. But if you think an image is very nice, i.e. right, but others don't, i.e. wrong, there is not much anyone can do about that.

[pnodrog]

becomes a deficiency rather than a matter of taste?

I think Sheldon would be happy to argue that deficiency and matter of taste are not mutually exclusive states...

I like burnt chops from a BBQ.

[Shadowman]

As it was my image that started this discussion I thought I'd show the original as shot and the results of my post processing. There was some sharpening applied in-camera but I undid for this comparison.

[Black Pearl]

If you point out something like a wonky horizon and the author goes "Oh sh*t, I missed that" it is wrong - if they reply with a reason for it being skewed then its right.

[ionian]

It sounds like (for once!) most people are in agreement on this issue, and it can be summed up in one word: intention.

If the artist intends for the image to look the way it does, then that is all that matters. What if the audience dislikes it? Well, it is possible that the artist wanted the audience to dislike it, as maybe that conveyed her message most effectively.

I often try to experiment with styles I have seen - I remember one portrait that I blew out to create a ghostly look but other, more knowledgable photographers felt it was a poorly over-exposed image. My intention was to create that look and so I achieved my aim - I also learnt that this was not appealing to an audience of photographers!

[thetraveler]

There is another interesting issue that came up in a thread (Testing the Waters).

Although these images are cropped so that they are straight, according to a cropped off horizon, to me they look slightly rotated as they are presented due to the actual real slant of the beach.

In this case, should the maker persist in reality, keeping the 'real' slant in even though it may seem to be an intrusive technical defect to the unknowing viewer or should the picture be edited so that the view is most normal (although actually unreal)?

[george013]

There is another interesting issue that came up in a thread (Testing the Waters).

Although these images are cropped so that they are straight, according to a cropped off horizon, to me they look slightly rotated as they are presented due to the actual real slant of the beach.

In this case, should the maker persist in reality, keeping the 'real' slant in even though it may seem to be an intrusive technical defect to the unknowing viewer or should the picture be edited so that the view is most normal (although actually unreal)?

Is that a right assumption?

Beside that, correcting the horizon is not changing the world, the reality. It's correcting a not being level camera.

George

[ccphoto]

Interesting that my image is helping this discussion "do something" though I am not yet sure what.

Lew's suggested edit is quite likely the best edit for the shot. For me, (and faulty or otherwise) I tend to forget the audience is not familiar with the original setting and will correctly assume I presented it as it should be. And, the odd dichotomy here is that both answers are correct. I did in my original test cropping do Lew's edit but I felt at the time it lost the dynamic tension of the young lady pushing the boundaries. Straight on, she is just looking, and leaning (which is the correct aspect) to my thinking, she is challenging the waters.

To find two or even three photographers that will share the same vision is damnably hard. I do appreciate all suggestions and will sometimes if nothing else but for fun, will change my shot. Mostly though, as I noted in another thread, I'm just an old toot having fun.

[chauncey]

My belief system is simple...If ya like it hanging in your living room, nothing else matters.

[thetraveler]

My belief system is simple...If ya like it hanging in your living room, nothing else matters.

This is really interesting statement - and I'm trying to understand the intent.
Does chauncey really think that there is nothing behind the concepts of 'art' and composition, nothing to know or just that he doesn't know what they are?

In either case, this is a statement like 'I don't know anything about art but I know what I like' that is meant to trump any other discussion.

[Manfred M]

If you point out something like a wonky horizon and the author goes "Oh sh*t, I missed that" it is wrong - if they reply with a reason for it being skewed then its right.

Exactly - the issue is really the degree of the tilt. If it looks like a mistake, then it probably won't work, but if it looks like it has been done deliberately i.e. a "Dutch tilt", then it does work. It may not be to everyone's taste, but that is not really the question here.

[thetraveler]

This is a great example of how intentionally confounding the expectations of the viewer works and adds to the impact of the shot.

The photographer knows what he/she is doing and uses the tilt.