at what point does “image quality” become inconsequential?

[charjohncarter]

Someone asked me which Digital to get. I said, the one you like, they are all the same.

 

[emraphoto]

Uh, 110 cameras suck? 110 film is dificult to find? 110 cameras are difficult to find?

See the "form and function" as hinted at by Roger?

Don't know what else to ad here.

 

[Paul T.]

I agree with the premise that the quality threshold is far lower than we here generally suggest. There is a huge amount of banging on about bokeh and resolution which is alien to me - that's as someone who's spent a decent chunk of my life commissioning.

But the other part of the quality threshold is usability. Which, with many current cameras, is pretty lousy. I've seen great photos come out of the G9, but compare it to, say, the old Olympus Stylis/Mju and it's a crappy camera: slow focus, barrel distortion, and poor dynamic range. And the Mju cost a fraction of the price

I've bought a GF1 today, having tried out my neighbour's, and I'm pretty confident the photos will pass my quality threshold. IE, they'll be good enough. But in terms of usability, ergonomics, it still lags behind the Mju. Which is not good enough.

 

[aizan]

when it becomes too expensive?

but, you know, you can always rent a p65+ back.

 

[not_in_good_order]

The internet provides an outlet for people who obsess over minor, inconsequential things. Though they seem to be very numerous based on what you see on, say, dpreview.com message boards, I'd speculate they represent a pretty small percentage of photographers. Most people I know who are into photography don't care much about the latest gear and just take pictures for fun and try to get creative with what they have.

 

[ruben]

for the record Ruben i have never had an image turned down due to image quality inferiority. pocket sized point and shoots included.

I was specifically thinking about you when I phrased myself, as to make clear that there are different parties at town running simultaneosly. I have no doubt that you must answer much higher standards than those I have to answer only to myself.

Furthermore, there are photo artists as well that may consider their demands in quite weird terms too.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Roger Hicks]

for the record Ruben i have never had an image turned down due to image quality inferiority. pocket sized point and shoots included.

Same here, but equally, there's a certain degree of selection involved before you send the picture in. Having judged a few photo contests, I suspect that some people just send in whatever they happen to have lying around, regardless of aesthetic or technical quality and sometimes also regardless of the subject, rules, etc.

As an aside, one of my favourite pictures, ever, was taken with my Leica IIIa and 50/3,5 Elmar. This is reproduced from a Cibachrome because a publisher lost the original transparency.

Cheers,

R.

 

[antiquark]

I'd say the opposite question would be easier to answer: "at what point does poor image quality become consequential, and ruin an otherwise good image?"

I can think if several examples from my digital P&S days, where I thought, "that's a nice picture, too bad about the blown hilights, digital noise, lens flare, etc."

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Image quality stops being important when the photograph is important.

There are beautiful photographs we sometimes see in a luxury clothing store, three meters enlargements for an expensive campaign done by a famous brand, and we know they are out of focus beyond the print size, and we can guess they were shot in 35mm and they were even cropped... But that smile and the shapes of that dress are a lot more important than image quality. Those shots work no matter their image quality, because those shots are important. Would they be better if sharper?

No. They would be sharper.

If someone could go to the past and take and bring us back some snapshots of Jesus with a sword fighting with people selling inside the church, would it matter if the camera was an Oly XA or a Sinar?

Cheers,

Juan

 

[ruben]

Yes Juan, but you know and we all know that their lack of focus is a purposed indulgence, since hadn't they been able to show the ultra sharpness too, they would be automatically out of bussiness, in such a capricious industry as fashion photography, where showing off amouints so much.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Sometimes, and I would say most of the times in those cases, those shots are not done on purpose... And many times they were on focus but a really small part of the frame was used. And yes, those people can make very sharp images too...

But who cares? Who cares about a lens that's sharper than other lens? You and me? We are a minority. People, the public, the mass, the crowd...They matter, and they don't care for image quality. They care for feelings.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[x-ray]

Your images should be compelling regardless of if you shoot with a trillion dollar leica or cup with a hole in it.

Very nicely put.

I speak from my point of view as a documentary photographer. First and most important to me is content and then image quality is second. I would rather get the shot sacrificing some quality as to miss it due to fussing over technical details. This is something that I've had a hard time overcoming but in recent years I've gone back and printed images I didn't feel were technically as good and realized they had much more impact than the ones I had printed that were technically better. It wasn't a matter of the technical aspects making them bette or worse but the content was often stronger on the less technical shots.

 

[emraphoto]

your images speak volumes about the topic x-ray

 

[BillBingham2]

Why not shoot with 110 film instead of 35mm?

No 110 camera had the controls that I liked. Outside of two (Pentax and Minolta I think) there were none with interchangeable lenses. While the lens on the Kodak Pocket 60 rocked and it had a rangefinder it was automatic exposure. While 110 was a dramatic step up in film flatness compared to the 126 it still wasn't as flat as a good 35mm SLR/RF. This is critical as the lenses they are using don't have any give compared to a MF or LF.

Also I do not think anyone other than the manufacturers came out with other lenses, none had aperture control. Good 110 does not exist these days I think. I'm also not sure if anyone is making reels or has a 1 hr machine set to take them any more. I can not remember the name for the style of development where you hold both ends of the film and sea saw it in the developer but it's a real pain in the upper arm.

110 died mostly due to the release of low cost reasonable quality P&S 35mm cameras from all the major manufacturers a few years after it was announced. Better image quality won.

B2 (;->

 

[Roger Hicks]

No 110 camera had the controls that I liked. Outside of two (Pentax and Minolta I think) there were none with interchangeable lenses. While the lens on the Kodak Pocket 60 rocked and it had a rangefinder it was automatic exposure. While 110 was a dramatic step up in film flatness compared to the 126 it still wasn't as flat as a good 35mm SLR/RF. This is critical as the lenses they are using don't have any give compared to a MF or LF.

Also I do not think anyone other than the manufacturers came out with other lenses, none had aperture control. Good 110 does not exist these days I think. I'm also not sure if anyone is making reels or has a 1 hr machine set to take them any more. I can not remember the name for the style of development where you hold both ends of the film and sea saw it in the developer but it's a real pain in the upper arm.

110 died mostly due to the release of low cost reasonable quality P&S 35mm cameras from all the major manufacturers a few years after it was announced. Better image quality won.

B2 (;->

Dear Bill,

Then there was DISC!

(Or was it DISK!)

Cheers,

R.

 

[MatthewThompson]

I suppose image quality is akin to happiness. The root of happiness is being happy with what you have, not what's next. With the amount of GAS around here, happiness seems fleeting.

 

[Mablo]

I'm happy Ruben is back.

 

[jan normandale]

I think Emraphoto's OP was a good one and I liked Roger's initial response. That covers this topic for me!

TTYS, Jan

 

[yanidel]

Until the M9 came out, I felt limited in my creativity with previous digital cameras. I shoot wide open a lot and play with selective focus a lot, DOF was never thin enough for my taste with wide angles. Now the M9 got me reaching my limit in capability as DOF becomes so thin that some shots make me feel almost like gambling.
IQ wise, I think be it the R-D1, M8 or M9, they all have reached a level where IQ will very rarely make a well executed and compelling shot look bad on a A3/4 print. Unluckily, 1:1 pixel peeping on computer screens have a tendency to have us look for faults that are of no importance on a print.
So though technology will keep on going forward, I'll personally improve much more my pictures in the coming years by working on my technique and compositions skills than by acquiring a successor to the M9.

 

[emraphoto]

"Unluckily, 1:1 pixel peepling on computer screens have a tendency to have us look for faults that are of no importance on a print."

another interesting point. more often than not the cameras develop a reputation via criterium that doesn't provide a fair representation of what it they are truly capable of?