If all your shots are excellent technically, then when that occasional great shot is made, all the better that the technical quality is there too.
Suppose a guy shoots with a toy camera that he doesn’t like very much due to poor ergonomics, etc... But one out of every 100 shots has something compelling about the image, to the point it’s hangable.
Ok, now he switches to a far better rig that he enjoys using, and that regularly produces technically excellent shots. And still, one out of 100 shots has that compelling something that makes it hangable.
I don’t know about others, but I’d rather hang great shots that are technically faultless than great shots that are technically poor. However, I’ll gladly claim great shots any way I can get them.
Suppose a guy shoots with a toy camera that he doesn’t like very much due to poor ergonomics, etc... But one out of every 100 shots has something compelling about the image, to the point it’s hangable.
Ok, now he switches to a far better rig that he enjoys using, and that regularly produces technically excellent shots. And still, one out of 100 shots has that compelling something that makes it hangable.
I don’t know about others, but I’d rather hang great shots that are technically faultless than great shots that are technically poor. However, I’ll gladly claim great shots any way I can get them.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
this constant battle of "science vs art" led me to create a flickr pool "lo-fi and crappy cameras" based on using film for art.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/898914@N23/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/898914@N23/
jan normandale
Film is the other way
this constant battle of "science vs art" led me to create a flickr pool "lo-fi and crappy cameras" based on using film for art.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/898914@N23/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/898914@N23/
jan normandale
Film is the other way
this constant battle of "science vs art" led me to create a flickr pool "lo-fi and crappy cameras" based on using film for art.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/898914@N23/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/898914@N23/
Chris101
summicronia
... I don’t know about others, but I’d rather hang great shots that are technically faultless than great shots that are technically poor. However, I’ll gladly claim great shots any way I can get them.
Yeah, not me Doug. I'd rather see the "mistakes" the process itself makes, which come across as a complete surprise, than a 'cleaned' image made that eliminates all the surprises that some mistakes would have brought.
I figure, what is the value of seeing something photographed if it looks like a flat version of the scene I actually saw? I suppose it would have value if it was something unique and memorable, but otherwise, nah - I'll shoot it in faulty B&W, just so it doesn't look like ... reality.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
If I can get a blurry underexposed shot with the other option being no shot then I'll take the former. If I can get the former but properly focused, exposed and processed then why not? So IQ is inconsequential because I don't have the skills or the equipment? Sounds like sour grapes.
250swb
Well-known
I don’t know about others, but I’d rather hang great shots that are technically faultless than great shots that are technically poor. However, I’ll gladly claim great shots any way I can get them.
A Holga camera delivers high quality technically faultless images if thats the technical quality you want. A Canon 5D MkII delivers technically poor images if you make a dreamy long exposure of a waterfall using an ND filter, because water doesn't look like that in 'real life'......
Either case of course means that its the photographer who has made a choice to both understand what conventional technical quality means, and when to ignore it. But give the same two cameras to somebody born and brought up on a desert island and they have no control over technical quality because they don't know what it means or is. Somewhere in the middle are the people who always strive for technical quality, and presumably never feel they achieve it because they are unable to leave its goal behind.
So given the perception of 'technical quality' can legitimately vary amongst knowledgeable photographers (those who feel free to choose 'sharp' or 'blur' etc as a means of expression) it seems obvious that the ablility to intellectualise his or her work is the key element in true 'image quality'. The jump from 'technical quality' to 'image quality' is important, because its the point where a photographer describes what it is that 'sharp' or 'blur' bring to the table, and if they can't describe it, or perhaps consistently reproduce it, then they are still held hostage to 'technical quality'. If however a body of work can be described or seen as consistent, then this can be talked about as 'image quality', because we are sure the photographer intended it to look like that, and thus is in control of technique.
So in essence its no good making a critique of one single photograph as a means of deciding what either technical quality or image quality is, only a body of work shows if the photographer is in control (visualisation, transfering whats in the head into the print etc), and control is 'quality'
Steve
parsec1
parsec1
Quite right. Particulaly the first paragraph.
emraphoto
Veteran
we have defaulted to extremes here and that wasn't really what I was getting at. think less about poor exposure etc. and more about the minute differences between say an ep1 vs a 5d, in context of course. as mentioned "if absolute sharpness and detail is the end game then of course you make your decision apropriately".
BUT where the concept of sharp begins to be unimportant to me is in the sphere where compacts excell. documentary, street, photojournalism. this becomes even more the case when we consider what comes out of some of these amazing little machines. raw images out of a GF1 are nothing short of amazing.
this leads me back to the point where dlsr's are often used as the comparative benchmark to say a canon G11 or micro 4/3. yes, they are capable of perhaps "sharper" images but how does thIs equate to "better".
"it would have been better if I had a 5d mark whatever"???
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Defaulting to extremes?
On RFF?
Surely not!
Cheers,
R.
On RFF?
Surely not!
Cheers,
R.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I guess whether "image quality" matters depends greatly on which quality and how well that quality works to convey the idea of the photo.
Two photos of mine about boats. Two very different shots and each--I think--serves its own purpose pretty well.
Same camera, same film [might've been on the same roll], different lenses.
Rob
Two photos of mine about boats. Two very different shots and each--I think--serves its own purpose pretty well.
Same camera, same film [might've been on the same roll], different lenses.
Rob
emraphoto
Veteran
that was some pretty cool stuff Jan. i think i will spend some time over there when i get home.
hlockwood
Well-known
OK, I'm going to throw myself on the mercy of the court here. The attached image is flawed technically because I messed up with scale focusing. The foreground is not tack sharp, while I can easily make out the ski trails on Canon Mtn (NH), about 20 miles distant. (And now that I look at it again, I might want to crop some of the foreground grass.)
More disclaimers: I never shoot color and almost never shoot landscapes or nature (animals, bugs, flowers, etc.) But I couldn't pass up this shot of horses on a hilltop.
What grabbed me was the compositional elements, horses against the sky and the mountain range in the distance. There is starkness and a kind of stasis to the image, especially in B&W, that I find somewhat compelling; without it, the image would be uninteresting, IMO.
Does this fit into the discussion? That is, the image quality is less than perfect, but does the composition override that? Or perhaps, worse, you feel that the composition is not that interesting.
Harry
(Shot with M7/50-mm Elmar-M on XP2)
More disclaimers: I never shoot color and almost never shoot landscapes or nature (animals, bugs, flowers, etc.) But I couldn't pass up this shot of horses on a hilltop.
What grabbed me was the compositional elements, horses against the sky and the mountain range in the distance. There is starkness and a kind of stasis to the image, especially in B&W, that I find somewhat compelling; without it, the image would be uninteresting, IMO.
Does this fit into the discussion? That is, the image quality is less than perfect, but does the composition override that? Or perhaps, worse, you feel that the composition is not that interesting.
Harry
(Shot with M7/50-mm Elmar-M on XP2)
jwc57
Well-known
"at what point does “image quality” become inconsequential?"
I'd say, generally around 4Ft from the photo, if it is no larger than a 11x14. I have a 11x14 hanging that I use as an example for the students I mentor. It is horribly pixelated , but no one notices until I tell them to get closer.
I'd say, generally around 4Ft from the photo, if it is no larger than a 11x14. I have a 11x14 hanging that I use as an example for the students I mentor. It is horribly pixelated , but no one notices until I tell them to get closer.