Must a photograph be technically perfect in order to be successful?

Of course we strive to create images that are technically solid. This includes elements like sharp focus, correct exposure, and strong composition. Sloppy errors will ruin a photo that otherwise might have been good.

As for absolute technical precision, though, what's more important: that, or a compelling photograph that connects with the viewer?

This topic popped into my head last week while in Grand Teton National Park photographing wildflowers. The blooms arrived a little early this year; the valley floor was already filled with color as the first flowers of the season, Arrowleaf Balsamroot and lupines, began opening at the tail end of May.

I look forward to the flowers each spring, in spite of the fact that I fully expect these shoots to be a challenge.

Why?

Wind. Like death and taxes, you can count on the wind around here.

Springtime in Western Wyoming and Eastern Idaho is typically the windiest time of the year - which, by the way, is saying something, because it's always windy. On the rare day when it's completely calm, one sits up and takes notice.

Flowers and wind do not play well together.

Some years are worse than others. Last spring the conditions were so poor I concentrated mainly on lupines. Because the local variety (silky lupines) are a little more compact than some of the other flowers, they're less prone to sway with the breezes and are therefore easier to work with.

This season the wind has been more manageable so the taller plants were back in play.

That said, the conditions do determine how I compose my images. For example, I never get out my macro lens to capture wildflowers, and I avoid positioning myself too close to the blooms.

In a perfect world, I'd probably focus stack a lot of my work: this would ensure that everything in the frame is tack sharp, from the foreground all the way to the back, as well as from left to right.

Below is an example of a rare morning when it was mostly calm, which afforded me the opportunity to stack. I set the aperture at f/8 and took a series of 7-8 images.

Calm conditions being the exception, most of the time it's not possible to stack because there's too much movement in the flowers.

This leaves two choices, one of which is to skip making photographs until there is no air movement. Obviously that isn't really an option at all.

The other alternative is to stop way down and manually set focus on the midpoint. This will produce an image that is mostly sharp from front to back. (If you've been shooting for a while, you'll remember that before there was such a thing as focus stacking, this was standard operating procedure.)

Here's an example of that strategy: f/18, ISO 160, 1/100 sec, manual focus.

If you zoom way in on the background, you'll see that it's not completely tack sharp. This photograph is therefore not 100% technically perfect. I knew it wouldn't be when I made it.

Does it matter? To me, no.

This is what springtime looks like in Jackson Hole, which is perfection. It's spectacularly green, flowers are everywhere, and on this morning after it had rained overnight, there was beautiful, lingering fog.

The only way to capture this "decisive moment" (photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson's term) in breezy conditions was to stop down, bump up the ISO a bit, focus on midframe, and use a fast enough shutter to produce as completely sharp of an image as possible.

The strategy of waiting until you can focus stack all of your wildflower images in Grand Teton National Park isn't going to generate a lot of output.

Don't let the pursuit of absolute technical perfection keep you from making good photographs.

There's more than one way to define excellence.

In Local News

Tuesday morning, a 30-year-old man from New Jersey was gored by a bison in the Upper Geyser Basin near Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park. Guess what prompted this behavior by the animal? You already know the answer. The man was with a group of people who ignored park rules and got too close to the bison.