Don writes: > And, to address the first part of your question, which is not the same > as the last about the rule of thirds, I think that technical knowledge > can absolutely impair the production of a good photograph. I can agree that someone who's composing to a check list is certainly going to miss the point, but they clearly don't have the technical knowledge - just a check list. > We have all > seen technically proficient photographers who don't make good photos. yup! And plenty of artsy types who can't either ;) I was horrified to see an award taken out here some years back for a photo which exhibited fogging and also showed the distinct and recognisable purple tinge of a badly washed (if washed at all!) print. The image to my eye wasn't anything special but it was clear than not only did the photographer have no technical knowledge about printing, but that the judges lacked the basic skills of photography too Seeing the works of many technically proficient photographers in tech areas, they are not in the least bit aesthetically appealing, but knowing the criteria by which these images are to be judged is a 'language' often unfamiliar to those outside of the particular field. Ophthalmic photos - who here could judge a good one? Believe me.. it's important. And no less a photographic skill than making a nice landscape stand out. Even the ordinary old X-ray - do it wrong and the specialist is going to fling it to the ground and say 'unusable, do it again' - it might be well exposed, it might show the bones, but it is NOT good enough. The DOF 'rule' of 1/3 in front, 2/3 behind in focussing - we all know that stuff, right? where does that 'rule' change? It does change.. and certain specialists (you know who you are! ;) know that maximizing DOF in critical areas of recording will place bang dead centre as that is where the DOF split occurs under those particular circumstances. > They may think they do, and by their criteria they are, but they are > lacking in any artistic sensitivity or thought. As a matter of fact, we > may all be guilty of that when we shoot something that doesn't really > inspire us or shoot for the sake of shooting. I know that I am guilty > of that sometimes. We fall back on exposure and latitude and > composition etc. without really thinking about content. Again without knowing the language of the area of photography, the artistic sensitivity or thought spoken might be missed. I miss a lot that's spoken by others when they speak a language unfamiliar to me ;) It's kinda funny to see medical photographers going all 'ooh, aaah!' over a surgery shot because they've decided it's a really nice image (eeugh!) Likewise, Geo photographers all pointing to the same rock slice photo which has impressed them more than the other shots in the pile. k
