How important is image quality?

I'm a musician and I can't tell you how many times I've heard this argument as it relates to music. In one camp you have those who favor technique and the attempted mastering of the instrument in order to get there music across (thats me). Those in the other camp claim that the technicians music and playing lack "feel", "passion", and sounds "sterile". Now we as technically minded musicians claim that the other camp use the words "feel" as an excuse to not have to learn play well, or more technical. In the end the fact is that if it's good...then it's good. That applies to music, photography and just about anything else in life.

Thanks
Joe
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Anyway I doubt you know in an auditive way what that means...
Click to expand...

When I was a child my mother paid our household's rent largely by teaching classical piano, and the French baroque style harpsichord that my father designed and built from scratch – not from a kit – is still used in the practice rooms and occasionally in performance at Stanford University.

harpsichord-M.jpg


So, you know, at least try to avoid making stupid assumptions, Juan.

By the way, my dad took the picture with an M3 and a DR-Summicron 50. And yes, that was probably overkill for a snapshot of the harpsichord.
 
Last edited:
Joe AC said:
I'm a musician and I can't tell you how many times I've heard this argument as it relates to music. In one camp you have those who favor technique and the attempted mastering of the instrument in order to get there music across (thats me). Those in the other camp claim that the technicians music and playing lack "feel", "passion", and sounds "sterile". Now we as technically minded musicians claim that the other camp use the words "feel" as an excuse to not have to learn play well, or more technical. In the end the fact is that if it's good...then it's good. That applies to music, photography and just about anything else in life.
Click to expand...

Well said. In music as in photography, it depends on what you're trying to convey. Some messages can be conveyed in a (relatively) artless way. Many, many others demand technique. If someone wants to be the John Lydon of street photography, who am I to stop him?
 
Last edited:
Obviously there's no other way to play an instrument than learning its technique... Same with photography... But if you hear Kempff and Menuhin playing a Beethoven sonata, they sound better than other players could while playing with better -technically speaking- instruments: you could even give Wilhelm and Yehudi cheap instruments and bad mics and yet they'd be the best ones... Even in baroque interpretation, if you hear Bylsma playing a Bach solo partita for cello, his romantic playing could be defined as lack of square baroque technique, but he doesn't care at all... What he listens to, isn't precisely words ... As you say, results shine... I never meant no technique is better, or makes us better... Only said real technique in a photographer is -for results- a lot better than technical qualities on lenses or images... HCB would make the same ouvre with any camera or lens, even with a $10 disposable one, and some of those images could be sharper than others he made with his Summicron...

Cheers,

Juan
 
semilog said:
When I was a child my mother paid our household's rent largely by teaching classical piano, and the French baroque style harpsichord that my father designed and built from scratch – not from a kit – is still used in the practice rooms and occasionally in performance at Stanford University.

harpsichord-M.jpg


So, you know, at least try to avoid making stupid assumptions, Juan.

By the way, my dad took the picture with an M3 and a DR-Summicron 50. And yes, that was probably overkill for a snapshot of the harpsichord.
Click to expand...

My first career was music, and I know lots of musicians from all over the world who cared about technique a lot, and had the same technique Bach had, and became nothing... You may have had music around your home and your parents, but yet I consider correct what I said, because Michelangelo and Bach and Hendrix were not special because of their technique... Indeed they became special to their worlds because they went against what was considered traditional technique in their days, in one way or another... They were creators, even of their own languages... I did no stupid assumptions: you're clearly giving technique more relevance than I consider appropriate... That has no relation with your father building an instrument, or your mother giving classes... Or maybe it has... I'm glad I hear Hendrix instead of 10,000 guitar players with more technique than Jimi... Technique is not a media to get anywhere interesting. Great gear either. It's heart and concept what matters.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
HCB would make the same ouvre with any camera or lens, even with a $10 disposable one, and some of those images could be sharper than others he made with his Summicron...
Click to expand...

Yet HC-B didn't use another lens or camera. He used Leicas. Why? Because he wanted to give himself every possible advantage, every chance to come home with the best possible image. The technical aspects of the camera – the fast lens, the accurate rangefinder, the quiet shutter, and the optical excellence of the system that allowed him to use a tiny 35mm negative and get acceptable quality – made his work possible in the first place.
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
I'd like it if we did agree. I don't think that we do. I don't think we agree about Salgado, and I don't think we agree about Bach, who was perhaps the greatest technical genius in all of musical history.

It seems as though you think "technique" means "orthodoxy." Strange interpretation, that.
Click to expand...

No he wasn't: it was Mozart. Since he was a child and until he died.

And yet you haven't defined what you mean with technique in photography... Contrary to what you insist on saying, I guess if you do, you'll see how much we agree...

Cheers,

Juan
 
semilog said:
Yet HC-B didn't use another lens or camera. He used Leicas. Why? Because he wanted to give himself every possible advantage, every chance to come home with the best possible image. The technical aspects of the camera – the fast lens, the accurate rangefinder, the quiet shutter, and the optical excellence of the system that allowed him to use a tiny 35mm negative and get acceptable quality – made his work possible in the first place.
Click to expand...

Wrong. HCB used cameras that were no Leicas too...

Cheers,

Juan
 
semilog said:
Yet HC-B didn't use another lens or camera. He used Leicas. Why? Because he wanted to give himself every possible advantage, every chance to come home with the best possible image. The technical aspects of the camera – the fast lens, the accurate rangefinder, the quiet shutter, and the optical excellence of the system that allowed him to use a tiny 35mm negative and get acceptable quality – made his work possible in the first place.
Click to expand...

My guess is that he used Leicas because because everybody among his photojournalist friends used them, being one of the better compact cameras of the day, and because he could afford them.

It's normal for you to assign great importance to the technical aspects, given that you are a technically-minded person working in a technical profession, but we shouldn't project that onto HCB.
 
rxmd said:
My guess is that he used Leicas because because everybody among his photojournalist friends used them, being one of the better compact cameras of the day, and because he could afford them.

It's normal for you to assign great importance to the technical aspects, given that you are a technically-minded person working in a technical profession, but we shouldn't project that onto HCB.
Click to expand...


That's not quite what I'm saying.

I don't think it matters particularly that it was a (brand-name) Leica, but I DO think it matters that HC-B used a camera with specific technical characteristics that were well suited to what he was trying to accomplish in an expressive sense. Yes, there were a few other comparable cameras that he could have used in the same way.

The point is that he was not using a Holga or a Speed Graphic. As I wrote above:
Technique is useful only as a means to an artistic or narrative end. But to deprecate the importance of technique is to deprecate the tremendous skill – the virtuosity – of the very best artists – musicians, composers, writers, sculptors, and, yes, photographers – who have ever lived.

Cartier-Bresson is actually a poster child for this. He placed less emphasis on sharpness, but spent thousands upon thousands of hours improving his ability to know what the camera would see and to control the camera – to tame the mechanical beast – to capture the exact instant and framing that he wanted. That is a consummate technique game. Make no mistake, HC-B wanted the most technically proficient image he could get under the conditions he was shooting in!

Indeed, one might reasonably say that HC-B's extraordinarily honed fast-twitch hand-eye skill set was closer to the skill set of a really accomplished video game player than to that of the average studio photographer – but in reality it reflects merely a different technical emphasis – not a lack of technique.
Click to expand...

That is of course not all that HC-B was doing, but it was a prerequisite for what he was doing. He could not have implemented the (unique, unprecedented) vision that led to his life's work without the right gear and an unsurpassed ability, acquired through years of training, to use it instinctively.
 
Last edited:
back alley said:
could all members who don't like each other please avoid each...please.

this constant bickering back and forth is annoying and soon all of you will be given a temporary ban...if this continues.
Click to expand...

Hi Joe,

I remember some of semilog's posts as some of the ones I've liked a lot, the most, here on RFF, and I respect him deeply, and his passion, and both of us know we like to discuss in a good sense of that word... We're just discussing: I don't even care he said stupid: he might have felt I offended him, but I guess later he understood that wasn't my intention... I guess it's people without interest on the subject who don't have to read, or read posts by those hated by them... But banning?

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Joe,

I remember some of semilog's posts as some of the ones I've liked a lot, the most, here on RFF, and I respect him deeply, and his passion, and both of us know we like to discuss in a good sense of that word... We're just discussing: I don't even care he said stupid: he might have felt I offended him, but I guess later he understood that wasn't my intention... I guess it's people without interest on the subject who don't have to read, or read posts by those hated by them... But banning?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words, Juan. I get a lot from many of your posts as well, and I think we agree here more than we disagree. But on the points where we disagree, we really disagree! 😀
 
semilog said:
An absolutely reasonable opinion. But one that raises a question at the core of this conversation: could Mozart have been Mozart, if he had been less technically adept?
Click to expand...

🙂

The same: it depends on what you mean with "technically". Bach was better at conducting voices (counterpoint) both with groups or solo instruments in arpeggios, and Mozart better from his ear and for melody and harmony IMO... As I told you before, they had their technique, but for some of their surrounding musical world, their technique should have been improved with the practice of more scales, cleaner counterpoint rules (like Buxtehude) or any other raw technical exercise, which in their case was not necessary, obviously... In the same way a photographer doesn't need a sharper lens. Any lens does it... So, what are you referring to when you say -in photography- technique?

Cheers,

Juan
 
semilog said:
That's not quite what I'm saying.

I don't think it matters particularly that it was a (brand-name) Leica, but I DO think it matters that HC-B used a camera with specific technical characteristics that were well suited to what he was trying to accomplish in an expressive sense. Yes, there were a few other comparable cameras that he could have used in the same way.
Click to expand...

I agree that he probably had good reasons for making his gear choices. It probably was about the camera being compact and well-suited to immersive photography (which made it popular with photojournalists in general).

But this is, after all, a thread about image quality, not about camera properties. I don't think it makes much sense to discuss HCB's photography in terms of image quality (at least if we discuss image quality in terms of technical parameters like light falloff, spherical aberrations or curvature of field, which was, I think, the kind of discussion Roger had in mind when he started the thread).
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
So, what are you referring to when you say -in photography- technique?
Click to expand...

Technique is any body of knowledge that can be applied in a systematic and reproducible way to alter the outcome of a process.

Technique includes sharpness or tonal range or MTF. It includes understanding lens distortion and classical perspective. It includes understanding diffraction, and how to obtain or suppress shadow detail, and having at least a good intuitive idea of your film's or sensor's dynamic range.

Technique also encompasses knowing how to hand-hold the camera steadily at slow shutter speeds, knowing in advance how much flare your lens is going to give you when you point it into the sun, and knowing without thinking how to meter for that situation. Technique includes being able to estimate distances by eye, setting focus by touch, and knowing what a 65° field of view encompasses without looking through the finder.

Technique includes training your finger to compensate for shutter lag, if your camera has a long lag. Technique includes knowing what your own finger's lag time is, and being able to compensate. Technique includes knowing when a yellow filter would be useful. Technique includes being able to follow-focus on a moving person on the street, using an SLR or a rangefinder or a mirrorless camera. Technique includes knowing when your meter is lying to you, and it includes looking for lint in your camera's film gate.

Technique includes understanding the relationship between exposure and development, and (if you shoot color) a tremendous amount about film and sensor responses, white balance, and color spaces. Technique is using motion blur. Technique is learning to walk through the street and point the camera straight into someone's face without him even noticing or reacting.

Again: Technique is any body of knowledge that can be applied in a systematic and reproducible way to alter the outcome of a process. Technique is not orthodoxy. Rather, it's any reliable and re-usable information about process that can help you get where you're trying to go.

Generally, what technique cannot do is tell you where you're trying to go.

Any given photographer need not know all aspects of photographic technique. But (almost) every really good photographer relies on a tremendous amount of practical knowledge (technique) to get from what they see in the world to what's on display.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom