Article about Miami and noise in images

[erictoddjohnson]

Quite simple, they didn't pixel peep obsessively.
If you were to post work from those days online, they would be sneered at by many for their poor quality. A better qaulity image, does not necessarily make for a better photograph. Many times it's better to have a grainey not perfectly sharp image than no image. Look at iconic images from the last century and many are not sharp, grainy, blurry or all 3 in the case of some war photographs.

I think jjj makes an excellent point.  I visited the (US) National Gallery of Art this weekend to see the show on Robert Frank's The Americans, and was struck by the fact that while many of the images were what we would consider technically flawed (imperfect focus, grainy, signs of motion blur), that did not detract from their emotional content, and in some cases even enhanced it.   While I love being able to get (technically) better images with my DSLR than I could get with medium format 20 years ago, a sharp image of a fuzzy idea (to quote a famous photog) is still a mediocre shot.  

[Just my two cents - NOT trying to steer the thread toward "Your camera does/does not matter! "  ]

[jjj]

There's a movement by the monks of a nearby temple to save the tiger from extinction. The first stage is to raise money from tourists by allowing them to mingle with tame tigers, closely supervised of course.

I wonder what William Blake would have thought!  

TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

Are you modeling yourself on a Blake painting, by any chance?  

[Ray]

Dear me! What have the Buddhist monks done to these tigers? Are they drugged? It was a hot day and I can understand they are a bit sleepy, but you would think my roar would have produced a response   .

[attachment=13217:overwhel...ers_srgb.jpg]

[jjj]

Dear me! What have the Buddhist monks done to these tigers? Are they drugged? It was a hot day and I can understand they are a bit sleepy, but you would think my roar would have produced a response   .

Looks like they are having a post coital snooze and are busy ignoring the world!

[Rob C]

Looks like they are having a post coital snooze and are busy ignoring the world!

Nah - there´d be a cigarette end or two somewhere around the place...

Rob C

[Ray]

Looks like they are having a post coital snooze and are busy ignoring the world!

Copulating in front of the visitiors would definitely be discouraged. I imagine if any tigers were to try it, a peace-loving monk would quickly appear and give the tigers a big whack with a big stick.

However, I was surprised the monks have not succeeded in toilet training these cats. Everyone who's owned a cat knows that you can't allow it to poo whenever and wherever it likes. It's simply not hygienic.

[attachment=13525:Doing_poo.jpg]

I suspect the real reason for the apparent lethargy is that they are bored witless having to lie in the hot sun most of the day whilst a constant stream of nervous tourists prod and tickle them. They are just waiting for their turn to have a bit of fun, like these tigers are having in the background.

[attachment=13526:In_pool_0249.jpg]  [attachment=13527:Playing_1446.jpg]  [attachment=13528:Playing_1452.jpg]

[Rob C]

Looks like they are having a post coital snooze and are busy ignoring the world!

I forgot to ask: how could you tell they were both female?

Rob C

[Chris_T]

I think jjj makes an excellent point.  I visited the (US) National Gallery of Art this weekend to see the show on Robert Frank's The Americans, and was struck by the fact that while many of the images were what we would consider technically flawed (imperfect focus, grainy, signs of motion blur), that did not detract from their emotional content, and in some cases even enhanced it.   While I love being able to get (technically) better images with my DSLR than I could get with medium format 20 years ago, a sharp image of a fuzzy idea (to quote a famous photog) is still a mediocre shot.  

[Just my two cents - NOT trying to steer the thread toward "Your camera does/does not matter! "  ]

Well put. Some of HCB's work are also "technically flawed." Emotion evoking shots with blemishes trump technically superb eye candy shots, everyday. It takes understanding and feelings for the subjects, guts, patience, quick reaction and serendipity to capture such images.

And don't get me started again on whether street photography is easy...

[Rob C]

Well put. Some of HCB's work are also "technically flawed." Emotion evoking shots with blemishes trump technically superb eye candy shots, everyday. It takes understanding and feelings for the subjects, guts, patience, quick reaction and serendipity to capture such images.

And don't get me started again on whether street photography is easy...

Yes, there are situations where art is all, but also others where technical quality is even more important. In the end, it´s all horses for courses and that´s about all one can ever say about the matter, and, to claim that one will always trump the other is neither accurate nor true any more than the implication that superb eye-candy has to be devoid of emotional content.

It isn´t even a divide between pro and am anymore, both can get things sharp or even over-sharp just as both can induce blur.

Rob C