Composition or Technical Quality?

Composition or Technical Quality?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Newman

New Member
Mar 2, 2003
943
0
0
TBC
#1
Don't know if anyone has done this poll before but when u take a photo, which would be your primary concern? I know both are important but you will only be able to control both well through lots of experience.
As for myself, i always try to compose and then check that the settings are right before I hit the button. But sometimes this means I can lose the shot in the blink of an eye. *sigh* still an amateur.

I would like to add that this applies in the context of what you would consider a good shot.
 

chaotic

New Member
Feb 14, 2002
697
0
0
39
#2
of course it's compostion, haven't you seen enough pics of rulers, walls and what not of people trying to "test" their camera?
 

Newman

New Member
Mar 2, 2003
943
0
0
TBC
#3
Originally posted by chaotic
of course it's compostion, haven't you seen enough pics of rulers, walls and what not of people trying to "test" their camera?
Wah lao, who always test their cams like that unless you do reviews?!!! What I meant was the normal photos you take lah. Anyway, real life environments more challenging than some setup for testing.
 

Newman

New Member
Mar 2, 2003
943
0
0
TBC
#4
So far, I see more people select composition.
Does it mean that most of us take out of focus, underexpose, overexpose, shaky, etc shots?
Or everyone trying to be artistic somehow?:D
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#6
For events and people, it's definitely composition. Miss the moment, no shot.

For slower work, i think i pay a little more attention to technical details. For tripod work, much heavier attention to technical. Not much sense lugging a tripod around to do sloppy work.
 

jOhO

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2003
6,485
0
0
41
Singapore
www.expressivelyjoho.com
#8
i'm quite a newbie too.. so wat do u mean by technical quality?

using the correct exposure? no camera shake? stuff like that?

i'm thinking this technical part can be trained such that it becomes second nature, firstly becos of experience, eg, u shoot water heaps of time and know that it throws ur meter off, so u will compensate automatically, and secondly since u know ur camera so well, u can use the controls fast while keeping an eye on ur subject.

so after a (long?) while, no need to worry about technical (as it's second nature) and just worree about ur composition?
 

mpenza

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
12,938
0
0
Singapore
www.instagram.com
#9
For technical quality, you could depend on the camera to make the right judgement. However, you can't for composition.
 

Astin

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2002
4,736
0
36
Astin Studio
astin.clubsnap.org
#10
Actually looking at the way technology comes nowadays, it is only a matter of time that some camera manufacturers will come out a camera that can do "auto-composition', alongside with auto-exposure, auto-focus, IS/VR, etc. :D
 

Jul 21, 2003
92
0
0
41
Sydney
Visit site
#11
Generally speaking, a good photo is well composed and technically well exposed.

However, there are also many instances when imperfections in either these two (or both together) are actively embraced. The best example I can think of right now is lomography.

It's interesting though, I can think of at least a dozen photos which, if they were taken "perfectly" in this context, they would not have had the same amount of impact.
 

Newman

New Member
Mar 2, 2003
943
0
0
TBC
#12
Maybe a a good photo that is well composed with good technically characteristics is pleasing to most eyes. But it may not appeal to those who are looking for something else such as in lomography.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.