Are Your Photos Perfect ?

The Old Ruminator

Well-known member
Saw some interesting comments on Flickr.


Perfection Is No Longer the Point​


Technical perfection used to be the bar because it was difficult. Nailing exposure on slide film mattered. Getting focus right at wide apertures required discipline. Clean files were earned through experience, not sliders.


Today, perfection is abundant. That doesn’t make it meaningless, but it does mean it’s no longer rare. When everything looks perfect, perfection stops being memorable.


What is rare now is presence.

A photograph that reflects being there. A moment noticed rather than constructed. A frame made by a human who reacted instead of generated.


Ironically, the flaws many photographers are trained to eliminate, such as motion blur, imperfect framing, and uneven light, are often the exact cues that signal authenticity. They tell the viewer that this image came from a real moment, not a prompt.

Self-Doubt Is the Real Filter​


Before algorithms, before AI, before saturation, the biggest obstacle to sharing meaningful work was self-doubt.


This isn’t good enough.This has been done before.This won’t get engagement.This doesn’t look like what successful photographers post.


That internal voice hasn’t gone away; it’s just found new language. Now it compares your images not only to other photographers but to software that can invent perfection on demand.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth! If you wait until your work is flawless, you’ll never show the work that actually matters.


The photographs that resonate most are rarely the sharpest or cleanest. They’re the ones that feel honest. The ones that show effort, proximity, risk, or vulnerability.

Why Imperfection Pushes Back Against AI​


Generative AI thrives on averages. It recombines what already exists into something polished and predictable. Even when the results are impressive, they tend to converge toward a visual sameness.


Human photography does the opposite when it’s allowed to be imperfect.


A tilted horizon suggests urgency (it’s still my pet peeve though!). Missed focus suggests movement. Harsh light suggests time and place. Mundane subject matter suggests lived experience.


These are things AI struggles to fake convincingly because they come from decision-making, not optimization.


When photographers obsess over removing every imperfection, they unintentionally move closer to the very aesthetic AI already dominates.


The more human your work looks, the harder it is to replace.

Posting Is Part of the Process​


Another trap photographers fall into is treating posting as a reward instead of a practice.


Sharing images isn’t just about validation; it’s about momentum. It keeps you engaged. It creates a record of how you see. It helps you notice patterns in your own work.


Not every image needs to be a portfolio piece. Some images are stepping stones. Some are visual notes. Some are simply proof that you were paying attention that day.


The photographers whose work endures are rarely the ones who only showed their highlights. They’re the ones who kept showing up with a camera in hand, doubts included.

This isn’t an argument against craft. Knowing how to control light, composition, and exposure still matters. But craft should support expression, not suppress it.


If the choice is between a technically perfect image that says nothing and an imperfect image that carries a moment, the second one will always last longer.


Especially now.


In an era where machines can generate flawless images instantly, the most radical thing a photographer can do is show something real, even if it’s messy, quiet, or incomplete.


So, photograph the ordinary. Post the image you’re unsure about. Let your work look like it was made by a human being who was there.


That’s not lowering the bar.


That’s raising it.
 
It's an interesting one. Not sure about the text above as it seems a bit "social media" in tone although using an AI tool to detect AI (quillbot) it seemed very confident it was human generated.

<PretentiousLoadOfBS>
"History doesn't repeats itself, but it often rhymes" (maybe: Mark Twain)

The invention of the camera was a blessing to painters as it freed them up to be expressive and look at the inner landscape, not have to be a "photographic" record - even for portraits. Didn't mean painters no longer needed technical excellence in painting though.

Maybe there's something a little similar here. Photographers soon won't have to worry so much about demonstrating technical mastery they can look more at trying to capture authenticity and flavour. Doesn't mean they no longer need technical excellence in photography though.
</PretentiousLoadOfBS>

Happy to put my BS here in semi anonymity but not sure if I dare say the twaddle above to any professional photographers I know. I do know a master of technical excellence and I might ask his opinion (if enough beers are consumed) when I see him at Easter. If he gives any insights I might post here, or more likely he just slaps me down for talking nonsense 🤣
 
Photography has many uses although broadly divided into record keeping and as art form. Now, if I photograph a cave passage with unsightly tapes all over it whilst it sends a message about conservation it also affects the aesthetics of the image. I can now remove, seamlessly, tapes from my old cave photos. It could be argued that they are more 'real' in that they show the cave as it was before being protected by the tapes. So which photograph is more 'genuine'? I keep the originals by the way as the improvement in picture enhacement progresses as I have discovered. And the OR will freely admit he manipulates his own images and would have others if he hadn't chucked them out as they had tramlines on them (talking about scanned negs and slides).
 
Real and genuine are a slippery terms. For followers of Gonzo, it could mean trying to show the experience (and participation) of the subject including the photographer. So editing out tape would be not be genuine taken from that viewpoint.
 
Real and genuine are a slippery terms. For followers of Gonzo, it could mean trying to show the experience (and participation) of the subject including the photographer. So editing out tape would be not be genuine taken from that viewpoint.
Thats a difficult one. Show the cave as it originally was ? Not really as it has been well trodden by then. I do get it from an aesthetic point of view though as some of the tapes look horrible. Move the tape ? Not really if you can clone it out. I guess from a photographers point of view tapes are a pest. A hard one to define.
 
Photography has many uses although broadly divided into record keeping and as art form. Now, if I photograph a cave passage with unsightly tapes all over it whilst it sends a message about conservation it also affects the aesthetics of the image. I can now remove, seamlessly, tapes from my old cave photos. It could be argued that they are more 'real' in that they show the cave as it was before being protected by the tapes. So which photograph is more 'genuine'? I keep the originals by the way as the improvement in picture enhacement progresses as I have discovered. And the OR will freely admit he manipulates his own images and would have others if he hadn't chucked them out as they had tramlines on them (talking about scanned negs and slides).
I'd add communication to that - this is where I've been, this is the amount of rubbish that needs removing, this is what the water levels are like today. This is not the same as record keeping - photos for records are kept for a long time, photos for communication are deleted (or left to fester on icloud or a memory stick) once the intended target as seen them. Communication is the dominant purpose of most photos taken for social media, and therefore probably the dominant purpose for photos overall, if not for cave photos.
 
Back
Top