How important is image quality?

Roger Hicks said:
A lot of the time, I suggest, the answer is "Not very". Only very, very rarely do I need the kind of quality I can get from (say) my 75 Summicron on my M9.

To me, it's a lot more important that my Leicas are (relatively) small and light and (for me) extremely easy and pleasant to use. Conversely, I get no pleasure at all from trying to use a camera the size of a cigarette packet with a screen on the back.

It comes back yet again to the 'quality threshold'. Once a camera delivers results that are 'good enough', then they're, well, good enough. My old Pentax SV with its 50/1.4 is 'good enough'. After that, for me, it's usually down to how happy I am using the camera: to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.

Who else feels the same way?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that except for adding a bit.

One's end product may or may not need high resolution, if that is what is meant by image quality in this thread. Indeed, IQ is thrown about by most without actually defining it. I see a lot of great soft photography and to me, that is quality...not high resolution. If the picture is good enough, that to me is quality.

Conversely, if one is after super high resolution, then, I suppose picking up a pimple on someone's arse at 300 yards would be IQ.:p But, then, I don't know of a person within my life that wants all of their blemishes to be shown on a portrait.:)

For me, it is necessary to strike a fine balance between the photographer, the equipment and the final image. If, I, the photographer does not enjoy the equipment, then, I am not going to enjoy working hard to produce the final image. So, is an M3 good enough? Yes. Was any one of my Nikon DSLR's gooe enough? Yes and no. Yes, they could produce the sports images but at the end of a game/match, I couldn't wait to put that bloody thing back in the bag, go home and have a drink with some ibuprofen for my sore arms and hands.

In my possession now, since having sold all of my digital gear and studio gear, are a Leica M3/Leica R4/Nikkormat Ftn/Olympus XA2 and a Nikon 4004s. All film cameras of course. The M3 and R4 do all the work. The 4004s does all of the slides. The Ftn and XA2 are being retired as the image quality of both is not up to par so I am not going to waste any more time or energy with those.:angel:

Would I like to have an M9? Sure! Even an M8. But my equipment is good enough. So is my life, and I am not complaining.:p
 
For my own photographs I agree with you completely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompletelyRoger. Rarely has image quality been a limiting factor for me. I have equally (un)satisfying photographs taken with a cosina 50mm, olympus zoom, various canon fd lenses, and my current lenses (sonnar ZM and 35mm biogon c). Using "objective" criteria, the image quality maybe vastly different, but I couldn't care less. I really enjoy using my current camera and lenses, and this really my photographs. This is something I believe no quality enhancement could achieve.

As for photographs taken by others, image quality is a non-issue for me. Either I am drawn to the photograph or I am indifferent.
 
Getting back to defining IQ...where the hell did that come in, with the advent of digital or before? I don't know. But it does seem that image quality is defined differently now with the common usage of digital cameras than it has ever been defined.

With millions of fine photographs in the past, including many Pulitzer prize winners, it is incomprehensible that only sharpness, contrast, etc. define the quality of an image, IMO.

Thought-provoking threads are good to keep us thinking but our thinking needs to be not completely free-thinking. It should have parameters defining what we are discussing and so far, I don't think the IQ definition has been agreed upon or, if it has, then I missed it.:) And then, there are the subjective opinions as to IQ...I may like (and I do) macro images with 2mm DOF and other may not... I happen to like impressionistic images.

http://billynewmanphotography.com/
 
dave lackey said:
With millions of fine photographs in the past, including many Pulitzer prize winners, it is incomprehensible that only sharpness, contrast, etc. define the quality of an image, IMO.
Click to expand...

Does that even make sense? You're the first to suggest, even in the negative, that only these might be defining qualities. This thread seems not to be about whether they're the only defining qualities, rather about how important they are at all. You're making up a straw man.
 
hunghang said:
Define "image quality" first, then the answer will follow.
Click to expand...

Image quality is impossible to define in an all-encompassing way. It's too subjective for that.

If we absolutely can't discuss a subjective thing without having an objective definition of it, then it means we can't apparently have a discussion. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must pass over in silence.
 
Back in the old days, I lived in a very rural area of Canada. People would shoot the occasional moose for dinner.

Some hunters would preface every hunt by rhapsodizing over the accuracy and efficiency of their guns and ammunition then spend days sighting the things in. Occasionally they would get a moose.

Some hunters would simply take a gun, go to where they knew they would find a moose and shoot it.
 
rxmd said:
Does that even make sense? You're the first to suggest, even in the negative, that only these might be defining qualities. This thread seems not to be about whether they're the only defining qualities, rather about how important they are at all. You're making up a straw man.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are saying about a straw man. My statement is perfectly reasonable in that IQ as defined in a previous post would exclude millions of photographs prior to the current definition.:angel:
 
Roger Hicks said:
It comes back yet again to the 'quality threshold'. Once a camera delivers results that are 'good enough', then they're, well, good enough. My old Pentax SV with its 50/1.4 is 'good enough'. After that, for me, it's usually down to how happy I am using the camera: to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I agree within a format to an extent. It's true that if I took a generic image from my ZM Ikon and Nikon F100 and put them (negative/scan/print) side-by-side, I wouldn't be able to point to a superiority between one or the other. Or, for that matter, my $20 Yashica GSN.

But the exception is in the details. I can absolutely tell the difference between images from my Nikon 35mm f/2 and my Zeiss 35mm f/2. For the kind of photos that I like to take, one has characteristics that make it essentially unusable, while the other is near-permanently attached to its camera. For another focal length, my Nikon/Ikon preference is reversed. I'm not concerned with LP/mm, but there is absolutely a quality difference that guides my equipment choices over and above how much I like using each individual machine.

But yes, if image quality really matters, then I'll use my Fujifilm GX680III. There are very few IQ problems that ten pounds of SLR can't solve. :D
 
dave lackey said:
I have no idea what you are saying about a straw man. My statement is perfectly reasonable in that IQ as defined in a previous post would exclude millions of photographs prior to the current definition.:angel:
Click to expand...

It's a straw man because the only one in this thread who proposed that IQ defined this way might be used to exclude these pictures in the first place. You are saying that something should be incomprehensible where you yourself are the person who brought it up. Hence the straw man.
 
literiter said:
Back in the old days, I lived in a very rural area of Canada. People would shoot the occasional moose for dinner.

Some hunters would preface every hunt by rhapsodizing over the accuracy and efficiency of their guns and ammunition then spend days sighting the things in. Occasionally they would get a moose.

Some hunters would simply take a gun, go to where they knew they would find a moose and shoot it.
Click to expand...

I love this! That is an outstanding analogy.

It implies that some people stress over capabilities in their equipment that they will probably never need. Also the other group just makes things work within the limitations of what they have.
 
In discussions such as this you can only make generalisations, by my saying IQ was important I was not saying that photographs had to be sharp and detailed to be good, there are a great many photographs I love that are neither sharp or detailed, but if IQ wasn't important to you why would you by an expensive camera, what makes you buy a Leica rather than a Holga. It's one of those subjects that allows serious photographers to run to the high ground with the frankly patronising assertion it's all about the photographer not the gear, you don't say, you mean I can't buy talent! Who'd a thunk it.
With one or two exceptions, one being one of the current Magnum guys that uses P&S, who of the greats past and present have not used the best equipment available to them in their format of choice.
 
When talking about the technical IQ a lens is capable of in a lab bench test then most are good enough in everyday handheld use. In everyday use I see little difference between my Nikon and Leica glass. At lest not enough for me to get excited about but ymmv. If you are talking about the IQ of the final image then there are far more things to consider and explains why I can produce equally crappy images with expensive or cheap glass. The two should not be confused.

Bob
 
Tools that make it easy to record high-quality photographs offer the photographer a tremendous advantage because they increase the likelihood of recording a technically competent image. But making excellent photographs that say nothing to one's intended audience is as pointless as making photographs that can't impact the audience at all due to profound technical flaws.

People who view/enjoy your photographs don't care about IQ. They care about content. If the IQ does not interfere with what the photograph communicates to the viewer, the IQ is satisfactory. In other words, there is a minimum technical threshold required for a given photograph and once that threshold is exceeded, the technical aspects of photography can be ignored. Great light is much more important than resolution. A photograph's emotional impact is the only thing that trumps great light.

Think of a person who's word made a profound impact on your life. If you heard those words from a decent 1960's tape recorder, would their impact be diminished compared to a state-of-the art audio system?

Photographers who make photographers solely for themselves are different. Some would spend $10,000 on travel to make photographs with a $500 kit. Others prefer to spend $10,000 on equipment and never travel. Either way, they are responsible only to themselves because how their work impacts other is of no importance whatsoever.
 
I would say that the term 'image quality' is oft used and rarely understood. Of course an image has to be fit for purpose, and a camera/lens system has to be usable, but for me one of the attractions of the Leica dRF is its reliability in terms of the predictability of the images produced. I use just a few lenses, some of which are fairly old, and to me the predictability of knowing what the image is going to look like from a particular lens is something which I really appreciate. Whether you can describe this in 'image quality' terms I don't know, but when I shoot on my M8 with my 1964 21mm f/3.4 S/A for B&W, I can usually foretell to a great extent, just how the image will appear (certainly not like an image from a modern 28mm).
 
Last edited:
I like to use whatever I am using "proficiently", whether it's a cell phone or 8x10. The end results can be equally valuable to me, but when it's a choice between equally interesting pictures I'll side with craftsmanship over auto-sloth.
 
I agree.

The better a photographer the less technical quality matters unless working in a field where technical quality is an absolute requirement (in the minority).

Some people use technical quality as a crutch for poor images... seeking a technical 'wow' of 'look how much detail there is in this huge image.' Its so much more easily achieved than good vision or concept. You can buy it.

A lot of my strongest images lack the best technical quality and the reason is that they were shot under very challenging circumstances, hence their interest in the first place!

With a lot of images that I love, technical quality does not matter too much, especially if one is happy with smaller images. I guess the other aspects to quality matter a lot more, like tonality, print quality and balance etc. Those I consider orgnanic to the image shown, perhaps more so that absolute resolution which might only impact display size.
 
Last edited:
bobbyrab said:
In discussions such as this you can only make generalisations, by my saying IQ was important I was not saying that photographs had to be sharp and detailed to be good, there are a great many photographs I love that are neither sharp or detailed, but if IQ wasn't important to you why would you by an expensive camera, what makes you buy a Leica rather than a Holga. It's one of those subjects that allows serious photographers to run to the high ground with the frankly patronising assertion it's all about the photographer not the gear, you don't say, you mean I can't buy talent! Who'd a thunk it.
With one or two exceptions, one being one of the current Magnum guys that uses P&S, who of the greats past and present have not used the best equipment available to them in their format of choice.
Click to expand...

That's my point, really. Once you're above your personal interpretation of a quality threshold (and a Holga is way below it for the sort of pictures I want to take), you don't base your choice on image quality: you base it on how much you like using the camera.

The main reasons my Leica MP may give me 'better' pictures than my Pentax SV (free), both with 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.5 lenses, are that I'm happier using the Leica because it's smaller, lighter and easier to focus, and I've had more practice.

Yes, I really like the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar but I seriously doubt that many people would see much of a difference between that and the Super-Takumar: certainly, less difference than composition and tonality would make, and they're independent of the lens.

When it comes to 35/1.4 lenses, the Leica choices are so much smaller than any lens for a reflex, even though the 35/1.4 I had (on loan) for Contax reflexes may in some ways have been a 'better' lens than my pre-aspheric Summilux. And I prefer the Summilux to the 35/1.7 Ultron because it has a focusing tab instead of a focusing collar, though the extra half stop is nice too.

In other words, once IQ is adequate (and 'adequacy' is a personal judgement), an awful lot of other factors come into play. Factors, I suggest, that are seldom acknowledged.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
For street photography, image quality is at the bottom of the list.

For product photography, 35mm Leica lenses give less image quality than I have on my LF product slides. I mean, it's not possible to say such brand has great IQ, but we can say such brand has great IQ for this kind of photography compared to that brand... The truth is, when you shoot handheld, most lenses from most brands won't stop your marvelous photograph from being marvelous, and your marvelous gear won't help you a bit in that...

So, image quality is a too ethereal concept... I've seen great images -for fashion- done without tripod on a 35mm camera, being preferred as final pick to other MF & tripod shots just because the photograph on 35mm was better, even though it was not only less sharp, but even a bit blurry... People don't say "hey, what a sharp image", but "beautiful photograph"...

The answer IMO is image quality doesn't matter 99% of the times. In the other 1% is Ansel Adams and other people who prefer to make technical aspects of photography and even printing the vital part of their photography. And even of the word photography!

Cheers,

Juan
 
I love pulling up images in lightroom from my M8 on a fairly large monitor and going "wow"

I think that feeling is worth the time/money invested in investigating cameras and lenses.

As you state, there are dozens of other cameras that can produce images that would wow me IQwise. I don't think any of those could beg to be used as much as the M8 does, though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom