What's more important: Aesthetics vs. Technique

[Skoropada]

Sometimes, when looking at some pictures, I believe that the shot is really good. That's mainly because of the impact and general impression of the picture.

But also, many of these times, the pictures would have some technical issues (like blown skies, sharpness, etc.).

I agree that a "perfect" picture should have a sound technical quality and an catching aesthetic look but my feeling is that the general aesthetics of a picture should be more important than some technical details (specially on pictures shared online).

But that's just me, a really novice photographer-to-be.

I'd like to have your comments on this issue.

[Sime™]

Each to their own... Sure, if you're shooting something for a specific purpose, that photo may have to fit within technical boundaries, but, if you're shooting for yourself - "does it really matter" would be my question to you. What makes YOU smile about a photo is what is important...

Sure, learning to get all the technical aspects of a photo correct can be just as important, you can then take better photos that either fit, or don't fit in the "technical correctness" category..

But, to me, what a photo says to me / how it makes me feel is more important than if the subject is sitting right in a third line etc...

Sime

[kencaleno]

Impact is all that really matters-If an image makes you want to look at it again, and again,for what ever reason, then it has IMPACT! But that is for art images-If you are working for stock photography, then the rules of composition,lighting,perfect exposure,etc,are set-in-concrete-rules,where the so called "rules" in art photography are compromises. Regards, Ken

[wulf]

The two go hand in hand. If you have a strong sense of aesthetics, then you will have a strong motivation to build the skills required to capture the images you are after. If all you are bothered about is being able to point at the picture and identify people, places and things, then limited technical skills will be enough to capture that but most of us are aiming at least a little higher.

Wulf

[HockeyFan]

The two go hand in hand, but I'll say that the end result has to be aestethically pleasing or technique doesn't matter. Likewise, you can hardly have a good photo if the techniques are poor. I would weigh it more on "does the shot look good".
Another way to compare it is when you're listening to music. I've had people through the years brag on their stereo systems when they barely had any real taste in music at all. they were more interested in getting recordings that were digitally recorded, rather than getting music that was written and performed by talented people. So they tended to favor technology, whereas I valued the music itself. In photography, I tend to value the shot more and the technique secondarily.
To me, the technique allows me to improve the shot, but if the shot sucks to begin with, then the technique really doesn't matter.

PS. You can cover a turd with gold, but it's still a turd. So start with something good and the technique will follow.

[jdepould]

What's more important to you? Air or water?

[imagesbyjk]

If I had to pick one I'd say aesthetics. Anyone can learn the technical stuff. But not everyone has the eye. There are a lot of technicians out there drawn to the techy side of photography who create paint by the numbers work. It all looks pretty much the same. But you see someone come along who has no training and they'll shoot an image that just has that certain something - a spark. Once those people learn the technical side they do amazing work.

[Nathan deGargoyle]

For God's sake! It's a picture!

What's important is what it looks like. The only people (out of the 6bn on earth) who look at a picture and think " slightly out of focus and it's a shame the sun wasn't on the other side of the shot" are the two or three hundred of us who post her.

[rediguana]

I think you need both and they are just as important as each other. You need to understand how to use the tool (technique), and you need a creative eye (aesthetics). Like anything, they can both be learned, and they can be learned different ways. Technique can be rote learned vs thinking and understanding, e.g. to control DoF, you just need to remember that you adjust the aperture, rather than needing to understand why the aperture affects the DoF. Some people naturally have a creative eye, others need to learn it.

[headcrowny]

If you view your photography as art (as I do) then technique is simply the way that you get your vision across. An artist has to master his or her tools. After that, you use it to "get the image". I like to assume that what's in the image is what the artist wanted and simply judge the overall composition/content with that in mind.
Crow

http://www.nicky510.com