Ade-oh
Well-known
Actually, I use both.
Does technical image quality matter? (Chase Jarvis)
- Thread starter antiquark
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 66
- Views 7K
Actually, I use both.
Pablito
coco frío
I think everyone should strive to purchase a Leica M9 or Nikon F6 so they can put a Diana or Holga lens on it. Then they will have no choice but to take "artistic" photographs.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
How many people here understand the concepts behind the swings, tilts, etc. of a commercial view camera? How many have ever used one?
K
Kin Lau
Guest
That's approx 30 seconds into his video intro.
That's just before the 1st quote.
Given a choice btwn _no_ image and an iPhone image, I would agree.
Keep in mind that Chase still shoots with Nikon D3's and D3X's, and Hassy digitals for his work, but as long as you keep the context in mind, his statements are valid.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I just came down off of a 3 or 4 year period of shooting just about everything with a 15mm Heliar, and most of those shots were handheld with the camera turned around, pointing at me, and including myself in the picture. It was a challenge and it was fun! Lately I've been shooting mostly with a TLR, and most of those are guess focus composed in the open sportsfinder. It's a challenge and fun!
For "superb technical quality" I've been going back through my old contact sheets, both 120 and 35mm, and scanning images off of them, complete with dust spots, poor contrast, a scratch or two, and posting them on my blog. Some include the sprocket holes, or consist of a block of 4 frames. That's fun too. I was thinking that for my next gallery show I'll make some gelatin silver 16x20 or 20x24 prints like that. That would be fun.
For "superb technical quality" I've been going back through my old contact sheets, both 120 and 35mm, and scanning images off of them, complete with dust spots, poor contrast, a scratch or two, and posting them on my blog. Some include the sprocket holes, or consist of a block of 4 frames. That's fun too. I was thinking that for my next gallery show I'll make some gelatin silver 16x20 or 20x24 prints like that. That would be fun.
charjohncarter
Veteran
This is what is nice about photography: no right, no wrong. And too many variables to ever be able to come to any consensus.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Wait, I've done that, not a holga lens but a flipped Brownie Hawkeye Flash lens and on a Pentax SLR. I'm still trying to get an artistic image, here is one with the cobbled lens:
kossi008
Photon Counter
I have a very simple answer to this:
Yes, technical quality does matter. But it's over-rated.
Yes, technical quality does matter. But it's over-rated.
gb hill
Veteran
The camera has little to do with tech quality except setting ISO, & shutter speed. The type of lens one chooses makes all the difference in the world. Is bokeh a characteristic of technical quality? What about film choice if using film? If printing, what about your choice in paper? There are too many factors involved & I feel there is no general answer that can be giving. I agree with the authors statement as much as whatever combination a kit you are using, learn it's capabilities & use it to make images you enjoy.
Last edited:
Nescio
Well-known
Most arguments on high vs low tech have already been mentioned here, but in my humble opinion all are missing Jarvis' point. I just took a quick look at his website where his video intro states his interest in web 2.0 social networks with all their low resolution pics AND his belief that they're here to stay but will be evolving towards something we don't know yet.
My impression is that he took his chances on
1: doing some personal experimentation (making up to 1000 shots a day, as he says)
2: being the first to publish a - printed - iphone shot art book
3: jumping on a train he cannot afford losing.
4: fill in yours
My impression is that he took his chances on
1: doing some personal experimentation (making up to 1000 shots a day, as he says)
2: being the first to publish a - printed - iphone shot art book
3: jumping on a train he cannot afford losing.
4: fill in yours
Roger Hicks
Veteran
(1) Yes, the picture that is taken with the camera you have with you is (usually, but not always) better than not taking a picture.
(2) So why not try to carry a good camera to take pictures?
(3) The 'quality plateau' above which the photographer's talent matters more than the camera quality is extremely low: any good camera made in the last 50+ years is good enough.
(4) There are plenty of photographers who are so bloody awful, or so bloody good, that it doesn't really matter what camera they use.
(5) There are are surprisingly many photographs where a better camera would make no difference whatsoever, but
(6) There are also surprisingly many that would be improved if the photographer had the faintest idea what he/she was trying to achieve, technically or aesthetically.
Cheers,
R.
(2) So why not try to carry a good camera to take pictures?
(3) The 'quality plateau' above which the photographer's talent matters more than the camera quality is extremely low: any good camera made in the last 50+ years is good enough.
(4) There are plenty of photographers who are so bloody awful, or so bloody good, that it doesn't really matter what camera they use.
(5) There are are surprisingly many photographs where a better camera would make no difference whatsoever, but
(6) There are also surprisingly many that would be improved if the photographer had the faintest idea what he/she was trying to achieve, technically or aesthetically.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Nothing beats the technical quality of a contact print from an 8x10 negative, and some of the uncoated optics from the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century rendered tones in a charming way. I shot about 100 sheets with a friend's 8x10 and a Turner-Reich Triple Convertible back in the early seventies. Back then you could still run across used large wood view cameras and film holders. As a hobby though, the price of film will kill you!
I've made Diana style lenses for M8 photographers. They liked them. I was very proud to make them properly RF couple with the camera.
I prefer using uncoated Sonnars on my Leica and Canons.
Last edited:
ray*j*gun
Veteran
Being a gear junkie, I can attest that great gear can only take you so far. I have never suffered from an excess of talent but I try to do the best job I can and sometimes that means looking for a vintage image rather than a snappy police photo. Unfortunately sometimes I get the results backwards.....😛
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Neither a Holga's nor a Leica's ability to convey technically horrendous or technically perfect image quality matters in the least bit to the aesthetics of photography.
This is like arguing about camel hair vs red sable brushes with acrylic or oil paints, and obsessing over which combination makes for a technically superior painting. Neither.
The artist applies the skills of a craftsman to whatever materials are available to achieve some aesthetic end. In some photographic applications the optical fidelity of the image, as it maps against objective reality, is of extreme importance. In other types of photography it matters little or nothing at all. It all depends on the aesthetic ends being pursued by the artist.
The mistake many make with photography is its ability, with apparent ease, to create images that map with a high degree of coherence to objective reality, when in fact photography has always been an abstraction, removed at least one degree from objective reality for at least one reason, that being the recording of an optical field that is only a representation of some objective reality. This has been explored thoroughly by many critics and art historians. Many make the mistake of assuming that the only type of photography that exists, or is relevant, is one that represents a high degree of fidelity to the source subject. Again, mere presumption. A sheet of photo paper in a box camera with a pinhole or crude diffractive lens can produce imagery that succeeds on the subjective level to a much higher degree than high fidelity imagery. The inverse is also true, such that the decider is not some technical standard, but the viewer's response to the artist's intent. That is all that matters, ultimately.
~Joe
This is like arguing about camel hair vs red sable brushes with acrylic or oil paints, and obsessing over which combination makes for a technically superior painting. Neither.
The artist applies the skills of a craftsman to whatever materials are available to achieve some aesthetic end. In some photographic applications the optical fidelity of the image, as it maps against objective reality, is of extreme importance. In other types of photography it matters little or nothing at all. It all depends on the aesthetic ends being pursued by the artist.
The mistake many make with photography is its ability, with apparent ease, to create images that map with a high degree of coherence to objective reality, when in fact photography has always been an abstraction, removed at least one degree from objective reality for at least one reason, that being the recording of an optical field that is only a representation of some objective reality. This has been explored thoroughly by many critics and art historians. Many make the mistake of assuming that the only type of photography that exists, or is relevant, is one that represents a high degree of fidelity to the source subject. Again, mere presumption. A sheet of photo paper in a box camera with a pinhole or crude diffractive lens can produce imagery that succeeds on the subjective level to a much higher degree than high fidelity imagery. The inverse is also true, such that the decider is not some technical standard, but the viewer's response to the artist's intent. That is all that matters, ultimately.
~Joe
wgerrard
Veteran
I dunno. Do we go to museums and assess the technical quality of the artists who sework hangs on the walls? How's the Mona Lisa for technical quality? Or, all those Picassos?
Wouldn't we be better off focusing on technical capability, which is, ahem, a twofold path. The hardware -- camera, lens, film or sensor, etc. -- can't deliver more than it is capable of delivering. Meanwhile, the photographer needs the technical capability to exploit the hardware's capabilities.
Whether it works or not is always in the eye of the beholder, and we all behold in our own unique fashion.
Give a top-of-the-line DSLR to a six year old and you're probably looking for trouble. Give the same kid a disposable camera from the drugstore and you just might get some interesting pictures.
Wouldn't we be better off focusing on technical capability, which is, ahem, a twofold path. The hardware -- camera, lens, film or sensor, etc. -- can't deliver more than it is capable of delivering. Meanwhile, the photographer needs the technical capability to exploit the hardware's capabilities.
Whether it works or not is always in the eye of the beholder, and we all behold in our own unique fashion.
Give a top-of-the-line DSLR to a six year old and you're probably looking for trouble. Give the same kid a disposable camera from the drugstore and you just might get some interesting pictures.
Ade-oh
Well-known
Funnily enough, Leonardo da Vinci's painting 'The Battle of Anghiari' fell apart a few years after he painted it because, IIRC, he used an experimental fresco technique which didn't work out. The image was, by many accounts, his great masterpiece but I guess it would get the RFF thumbs down for poor technical quality.
jfretless
Established
The current obsession with image quality may be one group's attempt to turn photography from a artistic form to a technical one. Think about it... A great majority of the people who frequent camera forums on the internet are of a engineering/technical background, not a artistic one. With art, there is no right or wrong.. You either like it or not. This is not easily accepted by one who comes with a engineering/technical background.... 2+2 must equal 4, there has to be a answer to everything and any question can be answered with a systematic approach. So, when it comes to which picture of a cat, resolution chart, is better, they turn image quality. Sharpness, absence of noise, shadow detail, lens performance, etc are used instead of subject, composition, lighting, etc.
Today's dslr photography is too clinical and I don't see it going on forever. It's only the current fad. Views change. Just imagine all those images that were deleted because they were not technically perfect. I happen to keep all my images, every one of them, good, bad, ugly, even mistakes. ...maybe I could delete a few, but storage is cheap and I know what I thought was a decent photo ten years ago, is different today.
John
Today's dslr photography is too clinical and I don't see it going on forever. It's only the current fad. Views change. Just imagine all those images that were deleted because they were not technically perfect. I happen to keep all my images, every one of them, good, bad, ugly, even mistakes. ...maybe I could delete a few, but storage is cheap and I know what I thought was a decent photo ten years ago, is different today.
John
Ade-oh
Well-known
Too deep for me... but if you haven't got a camera then it isn't a question of 'should I or should I not take this picture?', the picture doesn't even have potential existence because you have deprived yourself of the means by which to make it.
Roger Hicks said:
A 'good camera' being? My definition would be that a good camera is one with which the photographer can adjust things like focus and exposure, others would disagree. The problem with this kind of statement is that eventually you end up saying things like 'If only Cartier-Bresson had had a D3, then he'd have taken some really good shots'.
Roger Hicks said:
See my response to 2 above.
Roger Hicks said:
I would say it doesn't really matter what camera anyone uses, provided it can capture the image they want to capture with it.
Roger Hicks said:
Well yes, but these are really two unrelated matters. It's also worth asking how many people take up photography with aesthetic intentions at all. Most, I suspect, simply take photographs to document their lives and those of their family and friends; some take pictures to explore the 'technical image quality' of their equipment; others use cameras to project their sexual self... I could go on and on.
My view is: a camera which can take the picture you want it to take is probably good enough.
Turtle
Veteran
depends on the goal and what you like. Some types of image cannot work unless well exposed and executed in terms of detail etc. It can often be a sliding scale of content/image and technical quality but with ends that stop short of 100% of either being enough.
All of the images posted on that link in the OP (at least on the front page it takes us to) I found completely uninspiring, so a pretty good argument for a better camera AND photographer 😀
All of the images posted on that link in the OP (at least on the front page it takes us to) I found completely uninspiring, so a pretty good argument for a better camera AND photographer 😀