flip
良かったね！
One can always post-process to degrade quality.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
You and I are in agreement, Juan.
It's pointless to talk about sharpness when the dominating quality of the photograph is really something else. For example in a lot of famous photos by Dorothy Lange, Ruth Gruber, Eugene Smith, the dominating quality of the photographs are mood and expression.
Another example, as you said, on a lot of Winograd or HCB's photos, nitpicking about focus point is kinda pointless.
But when you talking about still-life/wildlife/bird/macro/sport action/commercial photography, sharpness, resolution and focus are mightily important.
Why? because they "add" to the impact of the photographs.
JohnTF
Veteran
If the only thing you have to speak about when looking at an image is the technical quality, either it is really terrible, or there is not much else to talk about?
Regards, John
Regards, John
noeyedear
Established
Glamour of the Gods
Glamour of the Gods
Have you seen the Kobal collection at the National Portrait Gallery.
I was impressed. As regards to quality the early stuff is far from sharp, Lillian Gish and Clara Bow look decidedly out of focus and or not sharp. It mattered not one jot to me, great pictures sharp or soft.
What I did not like was the big enlargements claiming they were new silver bromide prints from the original negatives. I think they looked like copies, Johnny Weissmuller looked like a inkjet, it had fine banding over the entire image and looked flat. Charlie Chaplin was very contrasty and shadow on the stipple paper at the top gave the game away.
So quality does matter for some things.
Glamour of the Gods
Have you seen the Kobal collection at the National Portrait Gallery.
I was impressed. As regards to quality the early stuff is far from sharp, Lillian Gish and Clara Bow look decidedly out of focus and or not sharp. It mattered not one jot to me, great pictures sharp or soft.
What I did not like was the big enlargements claiming they were new silver bromide prints from the original negatives. I think they looked like copies, Johnny Weissmuller looked like a inkjet, it had fine banding over the entire image and looked flat. Charlie Chaplin was very contrasty and shadow on the stipple paper at the top gave the game away.
So quality does matter for some things.
eric rose
ummmmm, filmmmm
In my experience there are three types of people with cameras. Gearheads, photographers and holiday/family snappers. As with most things there is always the middle gray area as well. All the really creative people I have meet, the ones that produce outstanding images that have impact and feeling, are not that interested in "gear". The main thing they want from their equipment is that it doesn't crap out under whatever conditions they are working in.
Image quality (or lack thereof) only comes up when it is an integral part of the creative process for that project.
So in answer to the OP I would say in my opinion "good enough" pretty much covers it for me.
Image quality (or lack thereof) only comes up when it is an integral part of the creative process for that project.
So in answer to the OP I would say in my opinion "good enough" pretty much covers it for me.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Very well said!
That's why even if fields like fashion (say a meters big advertisement by Chanel) are supposed -as other commercial photography- to show high sharpness, sometimes we see in top brands campaigns 35mm shots, and even now and then some of those are a bit blurry or could have been focused with more precision...
The reason is, those picked photographs have higher IQ than others that came out sharper. Sharpness has no relation with IQ, and obviously doesn't help for sales...
Unless you're hoping your photographs will improve with a current line Leica lens.
Cheers,
Juan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, I went one better. I had access to the whole Kobal collection for the book I did with Chris Nisperos on Hollywood portraiture -- and yes, I know that technical quality was, one might say, variable, and that often, they didn't throw out their 'seconds'. I mean, a series of Jean Harlow with a 'lazy' eye giving her a wall-eyed effect? I also saw a hell of a lot of retouching.
Those pictures were however normally contact printed, and sloppy printing is really a separate question. We're back to the 'quality threshold', below which quality is not acceptable.
Cheers,
R.
noeyedear
Established
I have the book, it's well thumbed.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I think Image Quality is one of those things that leads people on a wild goose chase (figuratively speaking of course).
Excepting things like microphotography, and other technical work - in the end all that matters is whether or not the image is interesting.
It's better then to think in terms of qualities rather than "quality".
Many perfectly sharp images are also perfectly boring. On the other hand there are also lots of grainy, blurry, whatever else could be "wrong" with it photos out there that are incredibly interesting.
Sometimes the presence of certain qualities makes up for the lack of others.
Excepting things like microphotography, and other technical work - in the end all that matters is whether or not the image is interesting.
It's better then to think in terms of qualities rather than "quality".
Many perfectly sharp images are also perfectly boring. On the other hand there are also lots of grainy, blurry, whatever else could be "wrong" with it photos out there that are incredibly interesting.
Sometimes the presence of certain qualities makes up for the lack of others.
Stuart John
Well-known
Sharpness is just one quality to jude an image by. There are many other qualities that also come into play.
First the image has to be interesting. A perfectly sharp well exposed image of a boring brick wall is not that interesting for most people, well maybe for some people as a test image it may have some interest.
A dreadfully out of focus image of an interesting compelling subject may not by much use either, neither would a sharp but severely overexposed image of an interesting subject be of much use.
There usually has to be a good balance of qualities for an image to be of much use.
The sharpness has to be good enough, the exposure has to be good enough, the contrast has to be good enough and so does the color balance for a color image. The image also needs to be interesting enough that someone may actually want to look at it.
First the image has to be interesting. A perfectly sharp well exposed image of a boring brick wall is not that interesting for most people, well maybe for some people as a test image it may have some interest.
A dreadfully out of focus image of an interesting compelling subject may not by much use either, neither would a sharp but severely overexposed image of an interesting subject be of much use.
There usually has to be a good balance of qualities for an image to be of much use.
The sharpness has to be good enough, the exposure has to be good enough, the contrast has to be good enough and so does the color balance for a color image. The image also needs to be interesting enough that someone may actually want to look at it.
it'sawhat?
Established
Rodger I tend to agree with you but I have a question. If the "enjoyment" factor of the sv and the M with the 75 were reversed for you, which would you be more likely to pick up?
Turtle
Veteran
Proof that one can love collecting equipment and eloquently admit to it without confusing it with a photographic pursuit and needing to justify it in those terms. They are independent and can be enjoyed on their own terms. And as for that darker side, now you are talking my language...
Pablito
coco frío
Couldn't agree more.
As an analogy, Jackson Pollock used cheap Latex house paint.
I think it was oil based house paint which makes conservation even tougher. But he used it not because it was "good enough" but because it did what he needed it to do. You can't get artists' oils or acrylics to pour like that. Of course it helped that it was cheap.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Probably the SV, except for the fact that now, for colour, I use mostly digital. Alas there is no digital equivalent to the SV.
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Veteran
At the moment, I've taken a liking to printing quite big, about 50cm x 50cm from my Hasselblad. I don't feel that 35mm would quite provide the quality I'm after for prints that big and bigger. In that regard, I do value image quality, the point that I've given a little though to only shooting medium format, and not bothering with 35mm so much.
Turtle
Veteran
But once again, it depends on the look you are after. If you want visible, sharp grain with a gritty feel to the image, you'd be better off cropping to a square 35mm for a 50x50cm print because you will likely have too little grain with MF. I have a number of images that would lose 'quality' if they had finer grain/better resolution/a more 'real' look.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
How important is ink permanence to writing? How important is paper quality to a cold sufferer?
How important is anything to anyone depends on their parameters. Invisible ink is great for amateur spies, aloe vera paper tissue is not a concern to garage mechanics...rarity is extremely important to collectors...reliability is relevant to commercial photographers.
Quality benefits those who seek it, and those who understand what they're seeking.
How important is anything to anyone depends on their parameters. Invisible ink is great for amateur spies, aloe vera paper tissue is not a concern to garage mechanics...rarity is extremely important to collectors...reliability is relevant to commercial photographers.
Quality benefits those who seek it, and those who understand what they're seeking.
AgentX
Well-known
Phaedrus's head is exploding.
(Actually, Robert Pirsig's positing of Quality as some sort of Platonic abstraction has always bothered me tremendously, especially when paired with Buddhism.)
(Actually, Robert Pirsig's positing of Quality as some sort of Platonic abstraction has always bothered me tremendously, especially when paired with Buddhism.)
dee
Well-known
Nikon 1 small sensor - and pro users ?
Nikon 1 small sensor - and pro users ?
In respect of this thread , I am interested in the prospective market for small sensor interchangeable lens cameras .
Obviously , those compact users looking for greater flexibility , without the need for bigger lenses as evinced by the current mirrorless 4/3rds / apsc offerings which are effectively downsized DSLRs , rather than an enhanced compact .
However , I wonder if picture quality is sufficient for some pro users for , say newspaper etc , where a compact with quality lens - echoes of Leica II in the 30s , would be of more use than a bulky multi-pixel DSLR ?
Nikon 1 small sensor - and pro users ?
In respect of this thread , I am interested in the prospective market for small sensor interchangeable lens cameras .
Obviously , those compact users looking for greater flexibility , without the need for bigger lenses as evinced by the current mirrorless 4/3rds / apsc offerings which are effectively downsized DSLRs , rather than an enhanced compact .
However , I wonder if picture quality is sufficient for some pro users for , say newspaper etc , where a compact with quality lens - echoes of Leica II in the 30s , would be of more use than a bulky multi-pixel DSLR ?
theno23
Established
I think the Pentax Q pretty muc answers that. Despite some OK reviews it doesn't seem to be selling that well in Europe. I've not tried one myself, though I have tried a Nikon 1, which is only just bigger than a compact sensor, and the image quality from that was OK.
- Steve
- Steve