at what point does “image quality” become inconsequential?
- Thread starter emraphoto
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 73
- Views 5K
yanidel
Well-known
indeed ... 😉
It does not mean that one should not upgrade for pleasure, but I am not sure how a M10 could improve the IQ of my pictures in a detectable way on the print sizes I usually use. Maybe higher ISOs, but apart from that, I think it will be mostly GAS attacks.
40oz
...
^ This.
It's silly to ask "how much do I need," because that depends on so many things, personal standards included. There is *no way* someone else can answer for you as if there is some independent standard.
It's also silly to assert that "good" photographers can make "compelling images" with whatever no matter how crappy. I say it's silly because nobody says "That person is a really good photographer but all their images are boring and really just not compelling or even in focus or so much as developed properly."
Quite obviously, by the time one says "That's a compelling image," one has already gotten past medium and format and technical shortcomings. And it's only in the taking of "good" photos that we define "good" photographers. IOW, they don't get good images because they are a good shooter, we say they are a "good" photog because we like the images. We are free to discount images that are technically shoddy regardless of the content or the skill of the person behind the camera. We don't even acknowledge the skill until we like an image.
One might as well suggest that a print with dust and lint on the negative and stains, fingerprints, and creases on the paper is just as nice as one where the printer took obvious care with the entire process. At which point, why even care about your craft?
On the other hand, I think everyone has taken a shot that would be nice except for how it *actually* showed up on film or in the file.
I contend that one needs to be aware and work within the limits of their medium to achieve quality work. But that doesn't mean a person has to be content with inferior equipment or pretend there are not serious limitations with their chosen format. There is a point for everyone where they decide things are not up to their personal par. You won't take more interesting pictures with more expensive equipment, but you might get technically better images and be able to realize a creative goal that was out of reach using more limited tools.
My comment about 110 film speaks to this directly. If the equipment truly doesn't matter, then why *not* use 110? It appears I'm not alone in preferring a larger format and more control over the image-taking process. One might legitimately argue that "enough is never enough" but reality sets limits we must accept. And we all have our own limits and tastes. So one might chose 35mm, another digital 4/3, or 8x10, or whatever. Everyone makes their own valid choice given what is available to them. IMHO, if you are unhappy with what you are getting, try something else rather than accept it simply because it's good enough for other people.
Last edited:
Neare
Well-known
You can take a photo on a disposable 35mm toy camera and have it award you a national prize for best photography of the year, I watched this happen myself. As long as a photo carries something meaningful in it, quality does not matter. In fact perhaps it is the lack of quality, the imperfections, that add all that extra charm to the photo.
But if you're doing.. portrait work? Then obviously quality kind of does matter.
What type of photos carry a sense of timelessness? I'd say it's those old grainy B&W's with imperfections here and there... these photos are why people go to exhibitions.
But if you're doing.. portrait work? Then obviously quality kind of does matter.
What type of photos carry a sense of timelessness? I'd say it's those old grainy B&W's with imperfections here and there... these photos are why people go to exhibitions.
MaxElmar
Well-known
Still Waiting - but hopefully not for long!
Still Waiting - but hopefully not for long!
"i have heard, on numerous occasions, “we are not there yet” in regards to the micro 4/3’s cameras AND even compacts ala the g10/11."
I'm actually OK with the image quality of these beasts, especially the EP-1/2. And I really want one. Where these cameras fall down is AF performance - which will prevent me from getting the shot at all. I've fought that since 1999 when I got my first digital. My D70 was the first digital camera I could afford that would do the job. I will NOT go back to the "bad old days" of "oh! look at the smile on that one" and the camera will not react quickly enough to capture it. With my RFs I have had enough practice and learned enough tricks (prefocus and hyperfocal) that I can do pretty well even with young kids moving around.
When that m43 comes out that has the focus performance and the pricetag I'm looking for, I will be getting one, for sure. In other words it's not IQ that's holding me back. Another thing that bugs me is that with the zoom lens these cameras are not at all "pocketable" and if I have to hang it around my neck, I feel I might as well have all the advantages of a real system camera - like, but not limited to, Leica, Nikon, Canon.
Still liking my little D3000 (for family) and my D300 (for work). (And my RFs for the old school film look.}
Still Waiting - but hopefully not for long!
"i have heard, on numerous occasions, “we are not there yet” in regards to the micro 4/3’s cameras AND even compacts ala the g10/11."
I'm actually OK with the image quality of these beasts, especially the EP-1/2. And I really want one. Where these cameras fall down is AF performance - which will prevent me from getting the shot at all. I've fought that since 1999 when I got my first digital. My D70 was the first digital camera I could afford that would do the job. I will NOT go back to the "bad old days" of "oh! look at the smile on that one" and the camera will not react quickly enough to capture it. With my RFs I have had enough practice and learned enough tricks (prefocus and hyperfocal) that I can do pretty well even with young kids moving around.
When that m43 comes out that has the focus performance and the pricetag I'm looking for, I will be getting one, for sure. In other words it's not IQ that's holding me back. Another thing that bugs me is that with the zoom lens these cameras are not at all "pocketable" and if I have to hang it around my neck, I feel I might as well have all the advantages of a real system camera - like, but not limited to, Leica, Nikon, Canon.
Still liking my little D3000 (for family) and my D300 (for work). (And my RFs for the old school film look.}
emraphoto
Veteran
i suppose i left loads of grey area open and the last two posts (40oz and Neare) are fair points.
to be more exact i am not talking about taking portraits with one of Tichy's rigs versus a d3x. if SHARP is a requirement then we are all smart enough to make adequate choices.
a brilliant example of what i speak of occurred a year or two via Flickr. someone had posted a HCB photo in an image thread that basically is a critique forum. the caveat being the image gets the boot if it doesn't "measure up". after a week and a plethora of "not sharp" or "not in focus" or "crappy bokeh" comments the image was given the "not good enough" boot to the curb.
to be more exact i am not talking about taking portraits with one of Tichy's rigs versus a d3x. if SHARP is a requirement then we are all smart enough to make adequate choices.
a brilliant example of what i speak of occurred a year or two via Flickr. someone had posted a HCB photo in an image thread that basically is a critique forum. the caveat being the image gets the boot if it doesn't "measure up". after a week and a plethora of "not sharp" or "not in focus" or "crappy bokeh" comments the image was given the "not good enough" boot to the curb.
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
For the record, the Minolta 110 slr had a fixed 25-50 zoom lens. AFIK, only the Pentax 110 slr had interchangeable lenses.
MatthewThompson
Well-known
I'm eternally scarred for reading the comments on that page. Opinions are as varied as people and everyone's entitled to theirs, but Stupid should be am Island nation we could impose sanctions and embargoes on.
Finder
Veteran
And who are the judges... Helmut Gernsheim recounts a story of when he went to the Royal Photographic Society were a member had just told him they were not going o give a new American photographer an exhibition because his prints had a lack of detail. But Edward Weston had better luck at MOMA.
Unfortunately, technical qualities can become the only goal. What is usually produced is an exquisite photograph that oozes detail, but has nothing beyond that. Contents counts. And the narrow technical definitions leave out all the wonderful things that can happen in a photograph.
Oddly enough, Mario's bicycle is one of my favorite Cartier-Bresson images.
peterm1
Veteran
"i see reviews ad nauseum where a miniscule sign in the background of a mundane image of the outside of the local city hall is compared against multiple selections of cameras and i get the impression that the concept and merit of a compact is lost on some folks. combine that with the bewilderingly good images coming out of the gf1 i am toting about these days and i find myself going “huh”?"
You are correct. I am member of a few forums where other members are in the main pixel peepers who constantly take the most horrid photos of the most ugly subjects and compare them for just how sharp they look (or the bokeh or whatever) And it drives me absolutely spare. Particularly when people ooohh and aaaahhh and say how wonderful the images are or how well lens A looks compared to lens B. And what they are viewing is a picture of a garbage bin or similar for crying out loud.
Problem is that the same people keep doing this as if they never actually take out their camera to make a real photo. It demonstrates a kind of inferiority complex that holds them back from making real images - and explains perhaps why they think a new XY lens will make it all good. And of course the manufacturers feed this obsession to sell more.
What matters most in image making is what always mattered....an artistic sensibility, good composition, a modicum of technical skills and sometimes just the pure dumb luck to be there at the right time.
I love the story below about the Henri Cartier Bresson image rejected by a Flickr group as not being up to standard - priceless. Apart from being a Bresson its a fine image in its own right. I presume they did not like it as the cyclist was blurred - which of course was exactly the point.He was supposed to be!
And not to compare myself with HCB or any other of the "greats" for that matter, I often deliberately add blur or texture to photos to reduce sharpness and make them more impressionistic. So do many other photographers. Where does that sit with the image quality is everything brigade? Here's an example of what once was a very sharp high definition image but no more - and I think its better for it after adding diffusion and a texture.
And technically this photo is pretty ordinary....its main subjects are too dark (which is how I like it - I added a little burning to the lower part of the image to accentuate this) but I have probably gotten more positive feedback for this image than many other technically perfect photos I have taken.
In short its not all about technical image quality - its about what you do with your camera.
You are correct. I am member of a few forums where other members are in the main pixel peepers who constantly take the most horrid photos of the most ugly subjects and compare them for just how sharp they look (or the bokeh or whatever) And it drives me absolutely spare. Particularly when people ooohh and aaaahhh and say how wonderful the images are or how well lens A looks compared to lens B. And what they are viewing is a picture of a garbage bin or similar for crying out loud.
Problem is that the same people keep doing this as if they never actually take out their camera to make a real photo. It demonstrates a kind of inferiority complex that holds them back from making real images - and explains perhaps why they think a new XY lens will make it all good. And of course the manufacturers feed this obsession to sell more.
What matters most in image making is what always mattered....an artistic sensibility, good composition, a modicum of technical skills and sometimes just the pure dumb luck to be there at the right time.
I love the story below about the Henri Cartier Bresson image rejected by a Flickr group as not being up to standard - priceless. Apart from being a Bresson its a fine image in its own right. I presume they did not like it as the cyclist was blurred - which of course was exactly the point.He was supposed to be!
And not to compare myself with HCB or any other of the "greats" for that matter, I often deliberately add blur or texture to photos to reduce sharpness and make them more impressionistic. So do many other photographers. Where does that sit with the image quality is everything brigade? Here's an example of what once was a very sharp high definition image but no more - and I think its better for it after adding diffusion and a texture.
And technically this photo is pretty ordinary....its main subjects are too dark (which is how I like it - I added a little burning to the lower part of the image to accentuate this) but I have probably gotten more positive feedback for this image than many other technically perfect photos I have taken.
In short its not all about technical image quality - its about what you do with your camera.
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
Sure, you can do the most idiotic things. So is your advice to take a toy camera if someone wants to take part in an important contest?
MartinP
Veteran
Apart from the question of whether any particular thing is "Important" . . . 😉
Running about taking random pictures of things, then reworking something and submitting it for a contest is very, very different to having an idea which you think through and then choosing a way of realising that idea.
If the best manner you have of producing that special image, which already exists in your mind, happens to be a toy camera or a pinhole camera made from the inside of a toilet-roll then there should be no doubt of the mechanical/electronic device that you choose. That doesn't mean that the pinhole camera would be the ideal option for catalogue photography, or baby portraits, or whatever - but it could be ideal for your visualised picture.
Having a large camera does not mean it will avoid the need for thought and visualisation - except for that automatic party-camera which stands in the middle of the table and makes pictures when the faces are in a pre-programmed suitable arrangement. (It exists, at least inprototype).
[Sorry for the grumpiness in my longest post for ages.]
emraphoto
Veteran
"Having a large camera does not mean it will avoid the need for thought and visualization"
there in lies the rub. with a concerted amount of the above the minute differences between V.1 and V.3 can easily become inconsequential.
there in lies the rub. with a concerted amount of the above the minute differences between V.1 and V.3 can easily become inconsequential.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I thought the term toy camera is not about size but about the quality of the camera itself. Typically I see a Lomo when I think about a toy camera. Plastic body, plastic lens, sometimes faulty behavior, sometimes used with an aged film.
That sounds absurd to me to think about a photo a lot and to plan it thoroughly and then use a camera that delivers a random result.
MaxElmar
Well-known
"That sounds absurd to me to think about a photo a lot and to plan it thoroughly and then use a camera that delivers a random result."
It's not absurd at all if the "random result" was part of your plan. Obviously the result will not be completely random - the image will simply have some seemingly random flaws -- that you planned -- and thus are not really random. Those flaws may have a great aesthetic value -- they my help you communicate something.
It's not absurd at all if the "random result" was part of your plan. Obviously the result will not be completely random - the image will simply have some seemingly random flaws -- that you planned -- and thus are not really random. Those flaws may have a great aesthetic value -- they my help you communicate something.
MatthewThompson
Well-known
Sounds like 20/20 Hindsight to me.
"Great idea, but what about all this ___________?"
"Oh, I meant for that to happen, it's for aesthetic value" read: "It's ART, you're not supposed to get it"
"I see..."
If your mandate is to build in pre-planned-equipment-related-randomness, that's your prerogative. It would have to be part of a pretty solid series or body of work to hold water under the eye of an experienced critic.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Matthew,
Probably not. Go to Arles and you'll see that people do stranger things than that.
I completely agree that I wouldn't do it, but there's them as does this sort of thing.
Cheers,
R.
MatthewThompson
Well-known
Arles is on my bucket list, especially since I could wrap the 24 du Mans into the same fortnight. As far as Lomography and its ilk is concerned, we're of the same mind though I don't mind offering an opinion (even if it's unpopular). I'd never dissuade anyone from following their inner muse.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Well, I disagree -- they would be indeed even better.
They probably are great shots anyway, but still: there is always room for improvement (whether in a technical or an artistical sense). Nothing and nobody is perfect.
emraphoto
Veteran
so are we deciding "sharper" is a direct link to "better"?
what happens when the photographer decides "not sharp" has a place?
what happens when the photographer decides "not sharp" has a place?
Similar threads
