Sharing a laugh-1

[RBSinTo]

Taken about five years ago at a local street festival here in downtown Toronto.
I spotted a couple sitting, relaxed and just enjoying the day and each other's company.
As I watched through the camera, he reacted with great laughter to something she said, and I grabbed this shot.
Converted to black and white in Photoshop.
motorized Nikon F with meterless, eyelevel prism
Nikkor 180 2.8 ED AIS manual focus
Fuji 100 ISO colour slide
5.6 @ 1/125th

[DanK]

A great capture. However, comparing the man's face to the corner of the handrail on the right, it looks like you missed focus by about half a meter.

[rachel]

Yes, but for me, photography is about moments, like this one, not just technique. It's impossible not to smile at this

[Donald]

I would agree, Rachel. But as a photography forum I don't think it is acceptable that a less that technical perfect image is seen as good enough. Of course the content is all, but that is after the technical aspects of the image are taken care of, not as seen as a substitute for technical excellence.

[DanK]

Yes, but for me, photography is about moments, like this one, not just technique. It's impossible not to smile at this

I agree that it gets a smile. That's why I said that it's a great capture. IMHO, it's not a great photograph.

There are lots of photo sites where people don't worry about the technical quality of the work. This isn't one of them. The reason I post some photos here is that I will usually get good critiques. I don't always agree with them, of course, but often I do, or I agree with the problem they pointed out but find a different solution. Folks here will even tell you how to make changes you don't know how to do, and they will trade edits so that you can see what they are suggesting. They will often use discussions of a photo to start a discussion of things like compositional principles or editing possibilities, and sometimes they will even post step-by-step editing processes, even attaching screen shots. None of the other sites I have used are so helpful in this respect.

The bottom line is that for many people who use this site, capturing an interesting scene--like this one--is only part of the process. We are trying to help each other do better at turning the interesting scene into a powerful photograph. Sometimes, that entails suggestions for editing. Sometimes it means trying a different way of making the capture the next time.

[Manfred M]

It takes three properties to make an outstanding image:

1. Technical quality - things like sharpness, exposure and photographic technique;

2. Organization - the composition, use of space and minimizing distractions; and

3. Emotional impact - things like mood and impact.

The last point is the most important one and even if points 1 or 2 are not particularly strong, we will still like the image. That is what has happened here. We can partially overlook the technical and organizational issues with the image because the emotional impact on the viewer is so strong.

[Donald]

Manfred - I agree with you regarding the three properties it takes to make an outstanding image, however, I don't agree that we can overlook the technical because the emotional impact is so strong. The emotional can be dominating because the technical is is already taken care of. If the technical is not taken care of, then the emotional impact is rendered immaterial.

[DanK]

well, for me it is a continuum. The smaller the technical problems, the more the impact can get through. I see the technical as a lens that can partially or even entirely obscure the impact or enhance it. In this case, the impact comes from the faces, and they aren’t clear.

‘nuff said on my part. I'll step away.

[Manfred M]

Manfred -0 I agree with you regarding the three properties it takes to make an outstanding image, however, I don't agree that we can overlook the technical because the emotional impact is so strong. The emotional can be dominating because the technical is is already taken care of. If the technical is not taken care of, then the emotional impact is rendered immaterial.

Donald - I totally agree, the technical and organization components must still be "good enough" (whatever that means). If one looks at some of the published work of Henri Cartier-Bresson or Robert Capa, some of their images failed on those aspects as well, but the emotional impact was high enough for them to be published. Had the image come from lesser lights, I'm sure the shots would never have come out.

Is this a good image? NO. But it does get our attention.

Should it be posted on the forum? Robert seems to think so. I suspect that a lot of members would not have posted an image like this.

[RBSinTo]

Time for me to jump in.
Thanks all for the constructive criticisms and comments.
Despite that I like the emotions being displayed, this shot bothers me because the subjects aren't extremely sharp.
So the slide remained un-scanned since it was taken in 2012.
Recently during a session with a Mentor teaching me some Lightroom skills, we discussed whether this shot could somehow be saved, and among the various suggestions that I tried was converting it to black and white and adding some grain, which because of my indoor use of high-speed and push-processed slide film stocks I always liked.
This was the result, and I posted it without divulging the problems to see the reaction. Obviously most seem to agree that the technical fault outweighs the emotional story, and I appreciate their candor and the intelligent discussion.
I asked, and now I know.
Robert

[Stagecoach]

Disregarding whether it is a good or not so good image, if mine I would do further work to try and save/improve it.

a) Slightly blur that right handrail and rucksack so that it does not draw the eye to the fact that the focus plane is not the best.

b) Slightly selectively increase sharpness to the two faces.

[mugge]

I care little for the technical aspects in this photo. It is so right. Are we to disregard great images merely because they do not conform? Give me silly, stupid, dumb, innane photos if they move me before technically superior images that send me to sleep.

I have seen images from friends and families that are absolutely delightful if technically inept. If they were mine I would gladly display them on a world wide web as examples of fun.

To paraphrase Manfred: (the image) "it does get our attention."

I think this photo is just great for what it is.
Cheers Ole

[xpatUSA]

At first viewing, the captured joie de vivre outweighed the technicalities 10:1.

The shot was, after all, much better than this one (the content on the plate, that is):



http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/firstphotograph/

As to whoever shot the plate itself . . . 'Em Texans cain't hardly take good pitchers . .

[zen]

It takes three properties to make an outstanding image:

1. Technical quality - things like sharpness, exposure and photographic technique;

2. Organization - the composition, use of space and minimizing distractions; and

3. Emotional impact - things like mood and impact.

The last point is the most important one and even if points 1 or 2 are not particularly strong, we will still like the image. That is what has happened here. We can partially overlook the technical and organizational issues with the image because the emotional impact on the viewer is so strong.

We, that is the members of THIS forum, see photos decidedly differently than the man on the street - because we are photographers! But I'd wager that less than a fifth of the general population would see the technical imperfections of this image. They would see, instead, a couple enjoying life and laughter. As for me, I see the softness, yes, but I also see a great story. For me, the point of attention is more the satisfied gentle smile of the woman. She seems to be quietly enjoying the great joy of her companion. I'm certainly enjoying the image, even though I recognize the technical imperfections.

Zen

[Manfred M]

We, that is the members of THIS forum, see photos decidedly differently than the man on the street - because we are photographers! But I'd wager that less than a fifth of the general population would see the technical imperfections of this image. They would see, instead, a couple enjoying life and laughter. As for me, I see the softness, yes, but I also see a great story. For me, the point of attention is more the satisfied gentle smile of the woman. She seems to be quietly enjoying the great joy of her companion. I'm certainly enjoying the image, even though I recognize the technical imperfections.

Zen

As Donald pointed out in #4, this is a photographic forum, so it is expected that we look at things differently than the "man on the street". In my experience, the man on the street can often recognize the same issues with image we do, but won't necessarily know "what is wrong" with a particular shot.

When it comes to viewing images, we are dealing with the physiology of the human visual system. Photographers have learned how it works and can identify these types of issues; the "man on the street" will likely be at a disadvantage .

[DanK]

It's clearly true that we see things differently--I often have to point out to non-photographers the problems in my photos--but I think there is something else more important at issue here. Many of us post here precisely because we are trying to do better at the photographic craft, and on this forum, we trade ideas and techniques that help us do that. There are countless forums where that isn't true. For example, a club I belong to used Flickr for its own postings, and the comments from non-members were generally of no help at all--just things like "great image!" I don't bother posting to sites like that anymore. Here, if I post a weak photo of an interesting scene, people will make suggestions about how make the photo--not the scene--better.

In this case, the contrast between the two is particularly great because the scene captured is so wonderful. That doesn't alter the fact that the image as a photograph is harmed by the substantial focusing error. I pointed that out, but it was superfluous: not surprisingly, Robert had been working on exactly that problem.

I belong to a photo club that has started a live version of what this forum is at its best. People submit images and then come to a meeting at which a volunteer has the submitted images on laptop connected to a projector. We then to through the images one by one, and if people in the group have suggestions that we can (approximately) try, we do it in real time, so we can then discuss the effects. It's a lot of fun, and I found it instructive.

[rpcrowe]

I am wondering, just wondering that is; if you processed the image in an overboard fashion, whether it might be more acceptable to the general run of photographers. Something along the line of this...



Maybe not exactly this but, I am thinking of an analogy: sort of like the difference between a slightly tilted image which is unacceptable to most photographers and an exaggerated Dutch tilt which many photographers will accept.

IMO, this type of rendition puts more emphasis on the facial expressions of the two subjects and their interaction without thoughts of focus or camera shake error.