So, after contemplating around this subject and the content in this discussion, my conclusion so far is that the use of technical processes to make photographs less "perfect", is indeed a part of the composition, an additional dimension is probably what I would call it, based on a reaction towards perfection or not.
A reference was mentioned in this thread to Robert Capa and his "Beaches of Normandy" photographs. In his case I think we all can agree that he's happy he got home in one piece, and that the shots he had with him most probably was worth everything for him, no matter that they were blurry and grainy, a special situation so to speak.
Though maybe, amongst things, these pictures has helped opening up that additional dimension in documentary photography, so the shots has in some way become a reference to something that after that point is okay to do? As more or less all of the other work I've seen from Capa, apart from his very early stuff, is razor sharp, or at least very sharp, and "perfect" by all means, so the Normandy photographs seems to be an exception to his normal "standards" if we look at the rest of his work.
And here we go again, the exception to the norm, to the standard, and this is then potentially found to be appealing, and as it's done once by one of the "big names" (there's probably more examples with other photographers etc.), it's allowed, and with that, possibly considered to be useful for adding something to the story as well...
Last edited by Felinik; 02-18-2013 at 08:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.