tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post5294249513891617565..comments2024-03-27T00:32:29.877-07:00Comments on Photos and Stuff: "Technical Flaws"amolitorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-85670465216144172062016-01-26T07:27:23.062-08:002016-01-26T07:27:23.062-08:00Since I write VSL I don't need to stop there f...Since I write VSL I don't need to stop there first, I just come here to see what you've cooked up to inflame the community. Loved reading this. A further distillation might be the different way men and women respond to "technical flaws..."Kirk, Photographer/Writerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10817860941525302936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-84760824131614186602016-01-21T08:57:20.132-08:002016-01-21T08:57:20.132-08:00The curious thing, given how much scope for variat...The curious thing, given how much scope for variation there is even in straight photography, is how narrow the conventionally accepted parameters of "technical correctness" are. But I think we're all guilty of rejecting good images because they are marred in our own eyes by a "fault" we cannot bear to show in public, though... In my case, blown highlights! Nooo...<br /><br />MikeMike C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11279776665185060446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-79467879874568286362016-01-21T08:05:07.781-08:002016-01-21T08:05:07.781-08:00Yeah, a technical difference will, or at any rate ...Yeah, a technical difference will, or at any rate might, make a naive viewer take the picture differently. Phrasing it as 'will be distracted' is both inaccurate and does the important job of casting the so-called flaw as an unalloyed negative.<br /><br />'Missed focus' or whatever still changes the picture. Just not always for the bad, and not always in overly noticeable ways.amolitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743439184763617516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-41852533809397928512016-01-21T07:03:30.381-08:002016-01-21T07:03:30.381-08:00Two things I like about your blog, that keep me co...Two things I like about your blog, that keep me coming back:<br />1. You question everything<br />2. You don't pretty up your language and mince words<br /><br />(To prove that I have no real life, I start each day with: a-the weather; b-TOP; c-VSL; d-your blog.) MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15230112561510206950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-654754338632526091.post-79017172260659501552016-01-21T03:29:06.368-08:002016-01-21T03:29:06.368-08:00Part of the problem seems to be that we like to ex...Part of the problem seems to be that we like to explain why certain pictures work and others don't, and then transform these explanations into "rules". By "work", we generally mean "have an effect on the naive viewer". I, for example, am a naive viewer of cinema, but my daughter (a student of film) isn't. I don't actually notice a "long take" until she points it out to me, despite finding it pleasing to go smoothly from an aerial view of London, through an apartment window, to a close-up of a newspaper headline. But I expect that headline to be totally relevant to the film's plot, however, and not just some technical triumph, indulged in for its own sake, or because there's a cinematic "rule" that says "a long shot creates reaction X in the naive viewer".<br /><br />It was interesting to read in one of the Glenn Frey obits a comparison of the two Jackson Browne songs on the first Eagles album, "Take It Easy" and "Nightingale" (yes, that's how old I am). Both very similar, with all the same inputs using the same "rules", but one flies, the other doesn't.<br /><br />MikeMike C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11279776665185060446noreply@blogger.com