>>2656808>If the small technical aspects of a photo really "kill it" for you, then you didn't think it was a good photo to begin with.Incorrect.
In the instance of more candid scenes, like sports, events, weddings, documentation or street, where things are happening quicker and your aim is to get the shot or capture the moment, you can let go of technical perfection for the sake of "getting the shot".
However if you're out capturing landscapes, architecture, portraiture, or any sort of fairly static scene where you have all the time, planning and tools at your disposal to get it as technically perfect as possible, there's no excuse not to do so.
>>2656794That's not what I said at all. I said that rigidly avoiding any sort of discussion of settings or anything technical is silly.
>>2656795>Chasing technical perfection does nothing to improve what actually matters in a photo. Chasing "great subjects" at the expense of all other principles, such as knowing how to focus, expose, and compose a scene properly, hurts photography more than it helps it. Improve your technique alongside the ability to tell a story or create a mood, that's what makes sense.
>Light is more important than sharpnessIf your image is blurry because of bad technique, it's on your head.
>Story is more important than aperture selectionNot if you chose an aperture that brings much or too little in focus, which distracts from the story being told.
>Emotion is more important than sensor sizeI don't care if you shoot an Nikon D3000 or a top of the line Phase One, I'm not talking about arguing which camera is better.
An out of focus or blurry shot is not publishable, it's unprintable. A shot with bad exposure needs to be retaken, a shot with bad color balance needs to be corrected. Face it: you can't ignore sloppy technique, because the only way to be a good photographer is to practice technique so you can produce strong images with consistency, rather than just accidents.
