About image quality...

About image quality...

  • I think gear is really secondary... Best possible IQ is almost irrelevant if an image is great...

    Votes: 168 95.5%

  • I don't think an image is great unless it's great and also made with the best gear possible...

    Votes: 8 4.5%
  • Total voters
    176
tstermitz said:
Here's a thought:

How easy would it be to create a superior photo while intentionally using poor quality (however you want to define that)? Could you execute that Frank photo on purpose?
Click to expand...

Presuming I could even see the opportunity, I suppose I could use my father-in-laws Leica III with its horribly scratched lens, and Adox film pushed and printed on, say, old Brovira.

Is that what you mean?
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Eventually, if you spend years really working at photography, and with the image quality of even consumer digital slrs these days, for example, technical quality simply becomes a given. After 50 years doing this every day, most of us who've been in the game that long (and are still alive) can produce technically good photos at the drop of a hat. But, that's about being a good technician. And I believe it should be the baseline every photographer aspires to. The next step, creativity, is the difficult part.

The simple answer is, I think technical quality is important. And should be a given. But without creativity, it's kind of sterile.
Click to expand...

Pickett hits it on the head. Technical perfection does not in itself make a great image. However, it could just as easily be said that technical imperfection does not in itself make a great image either.

If what you're saying is that many sacrifice creativity for technical excellence then I would agree.
 
Last edited:
Intentionally flawed technique.

Intentionally flawed technique.

Pico said:
Presuming I could even see the opportunity, I suppose I could use my father-in-laws Leica III with its horribly scratched lens, and Adox film pushed and printed on, say, old Brovira.

Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

No, I'm serious. Not bad technique for its own sake, rather make a truly glorious picture with intentional technical flaws.

It is fairly common to see flawed technique used for artistic purposes. in Hollywood movies you sometimes see sunspots intentionally used. Or, street photographers intentionally distort perspective to create clashing angles.
 
the problem is a no-issue for me. I only use gear I like the IQ out of. I also have to like the handling. Therefore assuming the technical side is good and well, the image will be what I want.
The negatives don't have to be the largest, but they have to have the IQ to be good enough for ME and if it's not it goes.
 
It's an interesting debate. But I do find that the huge gray area makes it tough to answer.
We can talk about wonderful photos made by fantastic photographers using low-quality equipment. But I would venture a guess that most of them would have chosen better equipment if they had the option.

But there's really not much point in bringing Pulitzer-prize winning photos into any of these debates over quality of photography and equipment.
A Pulitzer isn't awarded to the best photo. It's awarded to the best photo of a news event - and that takes into account the difficulties encountered while creating that image along with the newsworthiness of the image. Technical considerations are secondary.
 
tbarker13 said:
It's an interesting debate. But I do find that the huge gray area makes it tough to answer.
We can talk about wonderful photos made by fantastic photographers using low-quality equipment. But I would venture a guess that most of them would have chosen better equipment if they had the option.

But there's really not much point in bringing Pulitzer-prize winning photos into any of these debates over quality of photography and equipment.
A Pulitzer isn't awarded to the best photo. It's awarded to the best photo of a news event - and that takes into account the difficulties encountered while creating that image along with the newsworthiness of the image. Technical considerations are secondary.
Click to expand...

Hi Tim,

One thing is the quality a "best brand" can give if we look at tests, or "theoretical and lab's perfect conditions" tripod shots... Another thing is the results any "best" brand, and a close second great brand, or a third brand, give us in real life and handheld shooting: exactly the same and way below their possibilities... And even if lenses have a different signature, that's TOTALLY irrelevant in front of what an image is able to communicate. There's no huge gray area in the poll but in your mind: and you have the right to your mind... (And not to vote, of course...) The fact is, even with the best equipment, some of our photographs (most of them?) don't reach all our gear's potential "class"... We're never there... And then, what matters a lot more than gear, 99.99% of the time, is the content of the image, and the gear and brand doesn't matter at all, because we're getting the same IQ of a cheaper brand... To continue with Frank: he used Leicas, but most of his shots (all of them?) are below the possible IQ of Zeiss and CV and SLRs and even good compacts... This says two things: the brand didn't help his shots, and the low IQ he got many times with his Leica, didn't kill his shots either...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan,

In forty three years making my living as a commercial photographer I've never gained or lost a job on the basis of what brand of gear I use. Work is assigned on the style of my work and the quality. Only in the past couple of years had price been a factor other than the low budget clients I didn't care about anyway. Even now with the economy the way it is it's rarely about the price, never about the brand of equipemnt and always about style and quality.

Quality can take on different faces. If the client wants grain, contrast and scratches then you have to be good enough to deliver what they want. If they want technical perfection matching their layout then that's what you most deliver. As soon as you forget that then you can say good by to your client.

Documentary and journalism are less about quality in some cases. Quality is essential but if the moment presents itself for that once in a lifetime shot and the technical quality isn't quite what you would like then the content has to take precident over technical issues. I also do documentary work and have missed shots that will never happen again because I knew it wouldn't come up to my standards but over time I've learned to shoot and then edit later. Better to get a shot no matter the quality than miss it all together and then be sorry.

Some jobs require different equipment like some require 35mm and others 8x10. Brand just isn't that important as longas you and the equipment deliver.
 
No vote from me.

Professionally, I do mostly scientific and technical photography in support of my work. A Nikon D1x with a a Micro-Nikkor gets used for most of it.

Photography is a hobby, which I take seriously. I like using gear that delivers images that I like. Most often I do not use the most expensive gear that I own, nor do I use the "technically best" gear that I have. A 1956 KMZ J-3 on the M8 gets a lot of use, and the pre-war Sonnar on the M8 or Canon P. The new "acquisition", an Olympus EP2's, gets a Nikkor 5cm F1.4 on it most of the time.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
No vote from me.

Professionally, I do mostly scientific and technical photography in support of my work. A Nikon D1x with a a Micro-Nikkor gets used for most of it.

Photography is a hobby, which I take seriously. I like using gear that delivers images that I like. Most often I do not use the most expensive gear that I own, nor do I use the "technically best" gear that I have. A 1956 KMZ J-3 on the M8 gets a lot of use, and the pre-war Sonnar on the M8 or Canon P. The new "acquisition", an Olympus EP2's, gets a Nikkor 5cm F1.4 on it most of the time.
Click to expand...

Great!

Cheers,

Juan
 
I've taken decent photos with low end cameras/lens and terrible photos with high end cameras/lens so it's not the gear that counts..
 
colyn said:
I've taken decent photos with low end cameras/lens and terrible photos with high end cameras/lens so it's not the gear that counts..
Click to expand...

That's right... Cool you use an M2 and an FE without any worry...

And the voting on this poll reflects it...

What this poll's voting doesn't reflect is the near 700,000 views at the "Let's see your Leica M" thread... 😛

Just kidding!

Cheers,

Juan
 
Hi,
No vote from me. I don't think an image is great unless it great and it is absolutely irrelevant how expensive gear was used to make that image. That is I think there is only very weak relation between the price of gear or brand name and the image quality that photographer can get using that gear. However there is a very strong relation between the image quality (grain, tonality, perspective, geometry, i.e. all technical aspects) and photographer's skills.
Cheers,
Ed
 
Huge thread of yours! Leicas are good looking... But I use 1/2000 a lot under the sun, and prefer back door loading and less weight... Maybe one day I get a Leica, just to compare, but I know Leicas don't attract me as much as Bessas or Nikons... Maybe it's because I know I can produce higher quality images with my Hasselblad, and similar quality ones with my 35mm cameras... The only Leica lens I own, I got it because of its beautiful portrait rendering and bokeh, and just because CV has no 90 f/2...

Cheers,

Juan
 
dmr said:
I'm very convinced of the concept of "Quality Threshold", where at a certain level of quality of the gear, any increase will have negligible effect on the visible quality of the image.
Click to expand...

That makes sense! If there were a third option of "The equipment and image quality doesn't have to be great, as long as it's good enough to convey the subject at hand," then I would vote for that.

I didn't vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom