(embiggenable) • iPhone
PERFECTION. IN SOME WAYS I JUST DO NOT "GET IT". That written, I especially do not "get it" when it comes to picture making. Or, at least when comes to the idea of a "perfect" picture / print...
...I have always been both befuddled by and distainful of those picture makers who look for technical "perfection" when viewing a picture. Or, for that matter, the idea of even considering, at all, any "technical" aspects of a picture.
Consider this loopy comment left on a discussion about the use of film:
... the results are so inferior to modern digital images that God forbid if I got an image I loved and wanted to do anything with it. Even the better images from a technical point of view would have been considered complete failures if taken with even an average digital camera. Film is simply an overwhelmingly inferior technology.
Apparently, according this line of thought, all of the pictures made during the film era should be considered, from a technical point of view, to be "complete failures". How terrible it must be to bring this attitude to the viewing of all of the great pictures made during that era. And when I write "great pictures", I mean from both an aesthetic and a technical viewing perspective.
The question which comes to my mind for this idiotic commenter to answer is, "Have you never viewed a print made from large format-that is medium format and up-color or bw negatives?" ASIDE which is not to imply that carefully made 35mm format negatives, using some specific film stocks, can not produce beautiful prints. END OF ASIDE
My conclusion about moronic pronouncements like the comment from the aforementioned commenter is that, inasmuch as the medium of photography and its apparatus is linked to the use of mechanical devices-of one kind or another-used in the making of pictures, photographic picture making will always attract those who want to exercise and display their mastery over the machine...
...always seeking-one might write "fetishizing"-maximized resolution / sharpness, extended dynamic / tonal range, the "purest" and most extended color values and, of course, the possession of "over-the-top" / hyper-expensive picture making gear.
At this point in this entry, it is very tempting to cast aspersions upon the aesthetics of the pictures made by the masters-of-the-machine crowd. However, suffice it to write that, iMo and to my eye and sensibilities (and I am by no means alone), the making of a "perfect" picture has little-in some cases, nothing at all-to do with technical "perfection".