>>3015226>the only thing that matters is whether or not the viewer gives a shit about what they are seeing>every historical picture you see is flawed>it doesn't matter becauseAlright, a couple things.
First I agree that it's important for the viewer to care, although it can hurt your personal photography if all you do is shoot for others. Note I said personal, not paid work for clients.
Second, not *all* historical photos are flawed, and those that are often have at least technical competence. Pic related is one of the best journalistic photographs I've seen, and it nails focus as well as having pretty good light and processing. Most people who get into photojourn or documentary will set out to capture stunning work, and even if every image doesn't come out perfect in spite of this, they always try their damned hardest to make them as good as they can.
Third...if you're shooting something like landscapes, studio or portraiture or architecture, then I'm sorry but there's no good excuse for not nailing focus and exposure. Fleeting moments are one thing, and great moments with a mistake or two can be forgiven. But people who take photography "seriously" usually want to do good work, they have standards for themselves and they don't want to have to excuse a bunch of shots that could've been better, but weren't due to laziness or lack of skill.
