The Comment I hear Most When Photographers Describe Their Photographs Or Others’ Photographs

I hope the first thing you say is not, "Look how sharp that heron is!  You nailed focus right on that
heron's eye!" (click to enlarge)

It is my sense that if you watch a lot of photography related videos and listen carefully to what photographers say ‘first’ about their own images as well as what they most often say ‘first’ about other photographers’ images, you might be surprised.  When I say ‘my sense,’ I mean I have no empirical data but I speak from my subjective observations.  Let me explain.

When a non-photographer or casual snapshooter sees a photo he or she likes, most often I hear them exclaim how much they like it.  When asked about why they like the image, they will ‘first’ describe the content of the image and why the scene or what it is about the image that appeals to them.  For example, the scene may be a beautiful landscape with a lake in the foreground, mountains in the background with the sun just setting over the mountains, all in deep rich yellows, oranges and reds.  They will usually say something about how beautiful the sunset is, how much they like the lake and mountains, how wonderful the light and shadows may be, the wonderful colors and sometimes about the saturation of the colors—in other words, the content of the image.  They look at the image as a whole and, from a layman’s point of view, describe what about the image catches their eye and how much they like it.  Normally, it is what the scene itself depicts.

Another example may be an image or portrait of a person.  The non-photographer may ‘first’ exclaim how wonderful the expression is on the subject’s face or say something such as, “You really captured his (or her) personality in that photograph.”

Too often when I hear a photographer describe one of his or her own images or an image from another photographer, it seems I rarely hear them ‘first’ say anything about the content or what the scene depicts.  Almost invariably the first thing I hear them say is how sharp the image is or how sharp the main subject in the image is.  They will examine the image up very closely and in much detail, looking at the image sharpness and other technical aspects of it before saying anything about the content of the image.  To me, that is kind of sad.  This doesn’t happen all the time or with every photographer but it happens a lot—too much.

Think about it.  If you make a photograph of which you are really proud, something special, something unique, is what you want to hear as the first thing said by another photographer, “Wow! That is sharp!”  I don’t think so.

People who are not photographers admire photographs for what they are as a whole, what they portray and if the images pleases them visually or strikes an emotive chord.  They don’t care if you used the sharpest lens or if your camera as 6mp or 60mp.  They don’t care if the image is sharp corner to corner, has a bit of vignetting or whether or not there is a bit of digital noise.  They like the photograph simply for what it is.  It causes an emotion to be felt.

Most photographers I’ve studied historically would use a phrase like, “Content is king.”  It is what is in the photograph not the technical qualities of the photograph that matter most.  After all, that is why the photograph was made.  Over the last 50+ years I’ve visited scores of museum exhibits looking at the work of master photographers from the last century as well as this century.  If you haven’t studied their work you would be surprised at how many of the greatest images ever made are technically deficient by today’s standards.  But it doesn’t matter because it is about what is in the image not the technical aspects of the image that is most important.

I guess our obsession with sharpness can explain why there are so many lens reviews and comments about lens sharpness in photographic discussions.  It’s almost a national pastime these days.  (I’m sure the lens manufacturers love this!)  Our obsession can also explain why so many photographers chase after only lenses with the ultimate sharpness.  It seems to be a never ending quest.  A photographer will use very sharp lenses which are excellent in all respects of which they have had no complaints and served them flawlessly—until a new lens is introduced.  Out comes the credit card to buy that new lens that may have just a tad better theoretical MTF graph characteristics or because some influencer reviewed the lens and says it’s the sharpest lens they’ve ever used.  In actuality, the differences are so negligible that only they—through extreme examination—will see any differences in their future images.  I suspect that some photographers secretly think that no lens will ever be sharp enough!  It’s like Indiana Jones looking for The Holy Grail.

Like I said, I think it is sad.  Frankly, I think we are way past the point of sufficiency when it comes to sharpness, lack of distortion, excessive vignetting and optical aberrations.  Personally, although I appreciate a sharp lens, most all lenses on the market today are sharp enough for my liking and there aren’t many photographers who can tell the difference between a print made with a $3000 lens or a $500 lens.

What I would ‘first’ like to hear when someone looks at one of my ‘best’ images  is, “What beautiful light,” or “What a perfect expression you captured on his/her face,” or “This photograph touches me deeply,” or “The beauty of nature was captured perfectly” or “I love the way you portrayed that old barn.”  Things like that.  If one of my photographs is not as sharp as someone else’s, so be it.  After all, “content is king” not the technical aspects of my images.

Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!  

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2024 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.