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
Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

Truth is beauty
Local time
10:57 PM
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
4,352
Location
Barcelona and Colombia
View My Gallery
After many years as a photographer, first being an amateur when I was a teenager, and then more seriously, and then after a six-year career on photography, and having worked on it for a few years with other photographers and by myself, I find myself worrying less and less about the “highest image quality”... This seems interesting to me, especially after having been seriously worried about IQ for many years, and after buying great gear for 20 years, and after doing all my efforts to get the best possible IQ both for personal and commercial work...


Lately I consider “the highest sharpness” and all the rest of “charts” small differences completely irrelevant... Away from commercial work, I mean... Not just the absurd brands thing in 35mm, but way beyond this: If I get a good image with my XA, I wouldn't prefer it with a bit better IQ if I could get it with my Hasselblad... The image would say just the same! I find any good camera is MORE THAN ENOUGH to get an image that's wonderful to express itself if it really has something to say... And any of my images wouldn't be even a 1% better if done with better gear...


Let's vote and share our opinions on this subject...


Cheers,


Juan
 
At least one pulitzer was won with a brownie, cannot remember who it was but if i recall correctly the image was not very sharp and very grainy.[ It is the one of a truck hanging over a bridge] I remind myself of this image everytime i think i need better `stuff', in doing so i realise it is the operator that has a problem.
regards
CW
 
There's lots of grey area in between your 2 questions, so I won't vote.

Firstly, it depends on what you shoot. For instance, you might consider a landscape boring, but I don't, and technical quality very much matters from process beginning to end with a good landscape. Tripods were invented for a purpose.

Second, when you bracket, shoot multiple trials, etc., doesn't the technical quality play a role (exposure, focus, etc.), when you edit your negatives ?

Third, I'm kind of tired of the gear vs. photo threads, always implying that if you are unable to win a Pulitzer Prize with a one-way camera, you are a bad photographer. RFF is perceived as very very gear centric from the outside, even though we have great photographers on the forum and photos in the gallery. By continuously emphasizing the gear vs. photo theme, we are not doing ourselves a favor.

My 2 cents,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
1.There's lots of grey area in between your 2 questions, so I won't vote.

2.Firstly, it depends on what you shoot. For instance, you might consider a landscape boring, but I don't, and technical quality very much matters from process beginning to end with a good landscape. Tripods were invented for a purpose.

3.Second, when you bracket, shoot multiple trials, etc., doesn't the technical quality play a role (exposure, focus, etc.), when you edit your negatives ?

4.Third, I'm kind of tired of the gear vs. photo threads, always implying that if you are unable to win a Pulitzer Prize with a one-way camera, you are a bad photographer. RFF is perceived as very very gear centric from the outside, even though we have great photographers on the forum and photos in the gallery. By continuously emphasizing the gear vs. photo theme, we are not doing ourselves a favor.

My 2 cents,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Hi Roland, thanks for your answer...

1. I think all of us can vote... We all like gear: it's not about that... It's about: are my photographs better with the finest or most expensive gear? We can say if we feel gear is clearly reflected in the value of an image, or not. I think there's no gray area in the middle... We like great gear, but we think it's very important for creating images, or secondary...

2. I've done landscapes for many years with LF, MF, 35mm and digital, with and without tripod. I don't consider landscapes boring: after many years of doing them I just prefer the human life present in my images these days... In your example, my question isn't if we should or shouldn't use a tripod, but if we should only use the best tripod brand or model so our landscapes become great...

3. The technical skills (the photographer) of course are very important to photographs... That's precisely why this poll is about gear, not about skills...

4. I think it's interesting -from us forum members- to see and share our opinions... We all have the right to vote in total freedom and have -then- a nice global view on how we all around here perceive photography, and what can be more or less relevant to us in the very personal and intimate process of creating a compelling image... I see this as an open talk, and comments are also well received...

Cheers,

Juan
 
It depends on so many things but option two is ridiculous. I think you made a mistake with the wording on that one.

If your aim is what is termed as a fine print, then high quality lens may be important but not always. The camera body is just a light tight box. Well it was until digital came along. So the sensor may be important for a fine print or may not.
But there are so many great images which are not in perfect focus or are hand held that you really can't say quality equipment is critical to anything. But then L'artigue's racing car wouldn't have worked with a vertical travel shutter so what is more important is having the right tool for the job rather than the best perceived quality of equipment.
 
tlitody said:
If your aim is what is termed as a fine print, then high quality lens may be important but not always.
Click to expand...

I like your comment and deeply agree... A fine print by a good printer can show a beautiful tonal range and exquisite contrast even if the negative is less than perfect, both because of the gear or because of the photographer...

Cheers,

Juan
 
More than 4 Mio posts, JSU, impressive ! 🙂

Too easy to just give the free speech argument, Juan. Just the fact that we keep discussing gear vs photos so much, shows how much we care for gear. We need deflections. Like a few nice photos, maybe of girls kissing at the beach .... an angry Eastern European yelling at the photographer, etc. 😀
 
JSU said:
These are inflationary times, these sentiments are worth at least a dime.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about money at all... But about personal fears...

When I bought my Hasselblad camera and lenses in the 90's, it was the most expensive gear... I bought it because then I used to think owning that gear was going to be really important to my photography...

Cheers,

Juan
 
ferider said:
More than 4 Mio posts, JSU, impressive ! 🙂

Too easy to just give the free speech argument, Juan. Just the fact that we keep discussing gear vs photos so much, shows how much we care for gear. We need deflections. Like a few nice photos, maybe of girls kissing at the beach .... an angry Eastern European yelling at the photographer, etc. 😀
Click to expand...

That's easy: I was there and got the instant... All I have to do is end that sunny roll and develop it... Well, easier than that, is voting...🙂

Cheers,

Juan
 
Dear Juan,

On the one hand, I really don't think that equipment/technical quality matter very much. Either a picture works, or it doesn't.

On the other hand, I think that it is very important indeed to use the equipment with which you are happiest, and which will therefore give you the best pictures you can get. Not necessarily technically, but emotionally or spiritually or aesthetically or any combination thereof.

I also believe that there is no reason to aim for anything less than the best technical quality you can achieve, unless (of course) technical 'shortcomings' are an essential part of the picture (camera shake, subject movement, soft focus...)

Another article of faith is that technical quality matters a lot less once you know how to achieve it. Someone who is too lazy/stupid/arrogant ever to learn how to achieve technical quality will usually produce far worse pictures than someone who has the choice (technically good or bad) and then realizes that it rarely matters all that much whether they're camera-club perfect or not.

Then again, both technical and aesthetic excellence require a lot of work. Those who cannot be bothered with the technical side are generally too lazy, stupid, arrogant or incompetent to bother with the aesthetic side either. Not always, but often.

Thanks for a question that has helped me clarify my thoughts on the subject, but you'll see why I didn't vote...

Are you going to be at Arles next year?

Cheers,

R.
 
JSU said:
It's not an issue of the finest gear, for me it is the appropriate gear. At times a Zeiss ZM 50 Planar stopped to F-5.6 is necessary to capture fine texture while other situations call for a Canon LTM 50/1.2 used wide open to avoid fine texture, same true for deciding between my 90 Tele-Elmarit at f-4.0 and my 90/4 Elmar wide open.
Click to expand...

If you feel you can't get equally great results (more detailed, more veiled) with other brand's similar gear, you have a clue to your option...

But if you prefer not to vote, it's OK... Thanks for your words!

Cheers,

Juan
 
JSU said:
I've had clients who insisted I use a Hasselblad for their shoot, which I would even though I knew I could make the same image for their needs with a Nikon or Leica. On those occasions the camera didn't so much make the image as it made getting the assignment. I have had some clients tell me they couldn't see 35mm contacts as well as 120 contacts which was why they insisted on the use of a Hasselblad. Sometimes all you can do is laugh....
Click to expand...

Same with 4x5...

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Juan,

On the one hand, I really don't think that equipment/technical quality matter very much. Either a picture works, or it doesn't.

On the other hand, I think that it is very important indeed to use the equipment with which you are happiest, and which will therefore give you the best pictures you can get. Not necessarily technically, but emotionally or spiritually or aesthetically or any combination thereof.

I also believe that there is no reason to aim for anything less than the best technical quality you can achieve, unless (of course) technical 'shortcomings' are an essential part of the picture (camera shake, subject movement, soft focus...)

Another article of faith is that technical quality matters a lot less once you know how to achieve it. Someone who is too lazy/stupid/arrogant ever to learn how to achieve technical quality will usually produce far worse pictures than someone who has the choice (technically good or bad) and then realizes that it rarely matters all that much whether they're camera-club perfect or not.

Then again, both technical and aesthetic excellence require a lot of work. Those who cannot be bothered with the technical side are generally too lazy, stupid, arrogant or incompetent to bother with the aesthetic side either. Not always, but often.

Thanks for a question that has helped me clarify my thoughts on the subject, but you'll see why I didn't vote...

Are you going to be at Arles next year?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger, what a wonderful post...

From spirit and confidence, to gear possibilities and skills, you've said everything so well!

About Arles, it's incredible but being this close I have never gone! While being a student, some of those years with my classmates we made plans, maybe twice, but finally we went other places... For sure I'd like a lot to go... And considering I can leave Europe in one or two years, I think I must go the next time... It would be great to be in contact with you and maybe meet there...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
JSU said:
I've had clients who insisted I use a Hasselblad for their shoot, which I would even though I knew I could make the same image for their needs with a Nikon or Leica. On those occasions the camera didn't so much make the image as it made getting the assignment. I have had some clients tell me they couldn't see 35mm contacts as well as 120 contacts which was why they insisted on the use of a Hasselblad. Sometimes all you can do is laugh....
Click to expand...

Yes, that happens...

The only time I have charged 2000 euros for a quick and easy session was for a group of food images... I had told the restaurant owner a price for several dishes on 4x5... I had to bring my lights there to shoot carefully and slowly as every dish was just prepared by the cook... I had sent the owner a hi res scan of a velvia 35mm image because the owner couldn't believe a "common roll" could be very sharp... Just before I came out from home with the lights he called me and told me: "I'll trust you... I saw that image on my screen and it's very detailed... Let's do it in 35mm (!) because if you give me the original slides I can project them too when I travel for business..." I said OK, went there, used the same lighting for the near 25 shots, it all took one hour, and used a single Velvia50 roll... He was amazed... After paying me on the next week the 2000 we had talked about, he told me he needed some shots of the special glasses he used and a few details inside his restaurant, and I offered him to do it without charging more for that... He was a very kind man and insisted and paid me 1000 more the next week after the new shots... In the end he told me the previous photographer was a bad guy, who always refused to give him any original (not even digital) and who always was in charge of the printing process too, so the owner was his slave in a way, and now the owner was feeling free at last...

Unfortunately, I haven't been that lucky since... 🙁

Cheers,

Juan
 
Morca007 said:
Unless the sharpness/resolution/whatever is an essential aspect of the work, it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I think... And that's why I wrote "away from commercial work" from the beginning... In that field, the images themselves (final output or display) or the customers' opinions and preferences can totally influence the format decision...

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Pana Leica 12mm f1.4 vs Pana 24mm f1.8, thinking
Replies
3
Views
224
Archiver
A
B
17"x22" Ink Jet Prints vs. Original Max Resolution Digital Files
Replies
6
Views
415
boojum
boojum
ped
Batch scanner in 2025 - PrimeFilm 3600pro
2
Replies
20
Views
548
Godfrey
Godfrey
T
Image brightness comparison
Replies
0
Views
338
Texsport
T
K
Fujica GEr aperture problem
Replies
1
Views
180
BernardL
B
Back
Top Bottom