joe | profile | all galleries >> Lens Tests / Galleries >> IQ Irrelevant Photos | tree view | thumbnails | slideshow |
The *vast* majority of my photography depends upon technical perfection. The images in this gallery represent the few images I have taken where technical perfection plays little role in the image -- "meaningful photos". A "meaningful" photo does not merely that it records a meaningful event. Rather, "meaningful" photos are in stark contrast to "eye candy" in that technical perfection plays little to no role in the success of the image. ON the other hand, the success of "eye candy" depends entirely upon the IQ of the image. For "eye candy", lower IQ = less successful. On the other hand, "meaningful" photos are successful regardless of the IQ, good or bad. Of course, if you nail the shot, it's hard to know if it would have been as good had you not nailed the shot. Thus, the images in this gallery represent "failures" that have "succeeded". This is not to say that "eye candy" is bad, and "meaningful" photos are good. Instead, there are simply terms to distinguish two classes of photography. My best images, in fact, are "eye candy". If I had missed the focus, for example, the shot would not have been successful. On the other hand, the images in this gallery all show *exteme* technical flaws, and, I feel, are every bit as successful with the flaws as without. |
Luca Zanoni | 28-Nov-2009 07:32 | |