Does technical image quality matter? (Chase Jarvis)

antiquark

antiquark

Derek Ross
Local time
2:55 PM
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,493
Hello all,

Photographer Chase Jarvis just released a book called "The Best Camera (is the one that's with you)."

http://www.thebestcamera.com/

His basic idea is that you don't need great technical quality for good photography. In fact, an iPhone is good enough.

That's a common sentiment I've heard many times before, that the camera doesn't matter, it the photographer that makes good pics.

Do you all agree with this? Personally, I strive for technical image quality. My thinking is, if I really like a picture and want to hang it on my wall some day, the quality has to be good in the first place.

Also high IQ will give some insurance against over/under exposure, and a higher pixel count lets you crop away the edges and still have a reasonable resolution.

Are my thoughts valid, or am I just a clueless victim in the megapixel war? :)
 
I'm not a fan of fuzzy photos. There is a minimum level of quality I consider important. But the differene in image quality between a Pentax K1000 with a Pentax lens and a Leica M7 with a Leica lens, I don't consider important to the photo. Either can make great photos.
 
What do you mean by "technical qualty"? Is sharpness a requirement? Grain might be bad in a product photo of a bottle of perfume but a grainy photo of a girl running through the rain might be great in a magazine ad for the perfume.

I guess it all depends on what YOUR expectations are. If you're shooting for a client then you have to factor in their expectations.
 
antiquark said:
Are my thoughts valid, or am I just a clueless victim in the megapixel war? :)
Click to expand...

It's the latter, although to be fair to you, you aren't the only victim in this particular war. It seems to me you are using the phrase 'technical image quality' in a sense that is both extremely narrow and virtually meaningless, but which resonates with photographers who are interested in equipment rather than images. For me, the quality of a photographic image is in its nature as an image which can mean a whole jumble of different things, but sharpness, fuzziness, the number of pixels and so on are usually completely irrelevant. A very strong image can be fuzzy, over- or underexposed and consist of a tiny number of pixels, grains or whatever, but I've seen plenty of utter dross that is perfectly exposed, focused and consisting of many millions of tedious and worthless pixels.
 
If the image is compelling enough (for various reasons) then this can over-ride the need for technical quality. I'm thinking of Cappa's D day landing photos.
Fuzzy photos can also evoke the feelings of nostalgia and dreaming, which can be used to advantage for some images.
 
It's going to depend on what you are after in images. I like making 16x20" final prints of my negatives, prints that allow the viewer to see lots of detail- which I find makes the images more interesting. Shooting with anything but the best lenses makes this goal harder to reach, and even using the best lenses I still pass on plenty of negatives for these prints that don't cut it, due to not enough DOF for legible detail at the level I want, or too slow a shutter speed for clear detail. I'll print these less than perfect negatives smaller, and include them in the edit for the book I'm doing, but for a final edition print only the best technical negatives work.

Does this mean the less than perfect negatives are poor images? Not necessarily. Some images with great design work perfectly well on 8x10 or 11x14 paper. But I have a particular look as a goal.

Then again, poor technical quality can indeed ruin an image. This image recently posted cannot work for me because the image quality is too much in the way.
 
Last edited:
It depends.
On one extreme you have Giacomelli, on the other Ansel Adams. I prefer Giacomelli personally, but at times I judge his images to be on the borderline of photography - they look like charcoal drawings.
Certainly I would prefer to take strong images with a Holga, than shoot brick walls with a Betterlight scanning back.
 
I think we are seeing IQ being less and less important. Let's see, nowadays any guy buy a big, heavy DSLR, put an L lens on it and shoot auto...what do you get??? Perfect IQ most of the time. What is the point of talking about IQ anymore...it's more about the photographer IMHO.

Beside, I prefer Julia Magaret Cameron than many great IQ photos I found on this forum ;)
 
mfogiel said:
It depends.
On one extreme you have Giacomelli, on the other Ansel Adams. I prefer Giacomelli personally, but at times I judge his images to be on the borderline of photography - they look like charcoal drawings.
Certainly I would prefer to take strong images with a Holga, than shoot brick walls with a Betterlight scanning back.
Click to expand...

Good answer!

Yes, I like sharp images. I also like fuzzy images. It really depends on what kind of image it is.

Like exposure, focal length, and composition, lens characteristics are an attribute of the photograph that can be controlled for creative purposes if the photographer wishes to exert that level of control.

What's more important to me than sharpness or fuzziness is the intent of the photographer or the impact of the resulting photograph as an image.
 
I suppose the issue might be resolved into a technical vs aesthetic choice much as MP3 files deliver fine music at low resolution.

I'm told my images would improve if I used a tripod. So, for some, sharpness is critical.

Now, where is the Gitzo?

yours
FPJ
 
It's easy to make a technically lousy photo with a perfect camera.

It's impossible to make a technically perfect photo with a lousy camera.
 
ferider said:
It's easy to make a technically lousy photo with a perfect camera.

It's impossible to make a technically perfect photo with a lousy camera.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It may take a little more effort but I can take photos of much the same quality with my Leica MP, Nikon F5, Leica IIIc etc etc etc. It doesn't mean that any of them are good photos, though.
 
If photography is a form of expression then as others have said above it is valid to have sharp, fuzzy, grain or not or any other technical consideration be a creative component of the image. But ultimately it's the image content that makes a picture speak to others.
 
Then what was "Wrong" about post 13 ?

Why do you use an MP instead of an M6 at more than twice the cost ?
 
Here's a question to "focus" the issue:

How many people here would give up the camera they're currently using, and switch to an iPhone for all their photography?

(I wouldn't.)
 
ferider said:
Then what was "Wrong" about post 13 ?
Click to expand...

It was wrong because it is perfectly possible to take properly exposed, properly focused, photographs with 'lousy' cameras.

How do you define a 'lousy' camera? My Leica IIIc has no light meter and usually mounts a 1940s Summitar which is pretty poor in comparison to more recent types of 50mm lens. Nevertheless, with a little care I can take photographs which are indistinguishable from those taken with my Nikon F5 which enjoys the benefits of both an extremely able light meter and modern computer-aided lens design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom