How important is image quality?

[Roger Hicks]

I do however agree with you Roger, which is why I have never ever bought a Leica! my old Konica IIIa does the job good enough whenever I want to shoot 35 mm rangefinder, it's sharp small quiet and I like to use it, all of which add up to results that I'm happy with. too many people believe sharpness etc is quality, quality is what the viewer see's when they look at a picture, not the lens that got the picture to their eyes.

Dear Doug,

Precisely. It's a lovely little camera, and a joy to use. The only thing I have against it is the focal length: I like 35mm. But referring to your other post I don't think you have to (or can) quantify image quality, nor do I think it has an great relevance to which camera we choose. Being happy with the camera (an equally indefinable collection of attributes) is central to my thesis.

@ Juan, "As years pass by, what I consider technique (and the most important part of it) has to do with two fields: one is knowing about light... It is not only the amount (the metered one to us) but the quality and direction or directions... And the other one -the one I think is over the rest- is the way we handle situations: behavior while street shooting, interacting with models / family / children... That's what we learn after the rest, and I believe that's what in a much higher degree helps for better photographs."

I couldn't agree more.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lilserenity]

I'm suffering from a raging cold this week and so excuse my spelling, my eyes aren't too good either, but I just have to do something such as reply to this, I'm going out of my mind with boredom and I'm most certainly not letting myself stoop to the horror that is daytime telly.... If you couldn't tell, I hate being ill...

But yes I'm with the original statement, good enough is good enough for me.

I have come to the opinion that if the picture isn't good then it's not the camera or lenses fault, or indeed the choice of film, that I fluffed it myself (mis-focus, shaky hands, wasted opportunity -- e.g. rushing or failing to capitalise on something that could have been great if I got closer etc.) I also no longer blame it on my choice of film, I have worked with pretty much everything that is on the market from the cheap stuff (Kodak ColorPlus 200 at £1 a roll) to the more pricy stuff (Provia 400X and Portra 800) so I know now what suits me on that part, and when each works best, what to expose them at etc.

I'm sure the pictures could always be that little bit closer to perfect, e.g. a slightly more straight horizon on the frame itself, or a slightly wider or closer perspective (step back or forward), or the grain could be a little bit smaller (e.g slower film or digital photo -- if I had a digital camera) but actually it's the overall thing and generally speaking if I have done my job my pictures are always to my eye good enough.

Mind you I have never been one to say "Oh well it looks out of focus because the lens is a bad copy" or something like that, I'm quite hard on myself truth be told but I have to be, I want to be good at this thing.

Finally in putting together this book of mine (see signature) I have been arranging a few hundred pictures and whilst I am sure I could pick out something in each and every photo that I would have slightly tweaked, overall it works out really well (even if I do say so myself) because it appears that I can be sometimes a little myopic (i.e. fixated on one picture at a time) but when you put it all together and see the bigger picture (groan) those little imperfections somehow get lost, and actually even though there are now pictures in there which are a bit grainy, or the eyes are ever so slightly not as in focus as they could be, it all doesn't matter any more, as the whole thing is good enough.

Good enough may have connotations with compromise or perhaps being slapdash, but not in my book. I'm just convinced that camera equipment has on the whole been a lot better than my abilities for a lot longer than I've been around so if the picture's not good enough, that's my fault not the camera+lens+film.

Vicky

 

[pgk]

Perhaps this thread should be retitled along the lines of 'when are photographs fit for purpose?'. An image that serves its intended purpose effectively is to me one which is of sufficient 'image quality' and even better, this way of looking at an image requires no definition of 'image quality'. Of course there can be discussions about whether an image is actually fit for purpose, but at least the purpose can be defined to a certain extent.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Perhaps this thread should be retitled along the lines of 'when are photographs fit for purpose?'. An image that serves its intended purpose effectively is to me one which is of sufficient 'image quality' and even better, this way of looking at an image requires not definition of 'image quality'. Of course there can be discussions about whether an image is actually fit for purpose, but at least the purpose can be defined to a certain extent.

Possibly, but I'm not sure it adds anything, as "fit for purpose" is even more subjective and multi-dimensional than 'image quality'. Besides, this thread isn't really about this. It's about why we choose one camera or lens over another, when either camera or lens is technically capable of producing an image that is "fit for purpose."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

One of my scientists developed matched pairs of lenses with the metal of the mount formulated to maintain focus over temperature range by fixing the coefficient of expansion of the metal to match the optics.

He used it to perform mathematical computations using LASERS.

But for Photography, he liked my Canon 50/0.95.

 

[thegman]

For me, it's kind of important, as I like to have at least the option to print big, even though I've only ever gone over 10x8 a couple of times.

For lots of photos, it's not that important, and for lots it is, for me anyway.

I've got shots taken on a cheap compact at high ISO which make me smile, and as many shots which I'm glad I used my Hasselblad, as a smaller format, in my eyes would have diminished them.

 

[Sparrow]

Possibly, but I'm not sure it adds anything, as "fit for purpose" is even more subjective and multi-dimensional than 'image quality'. Besides, this thread isn't really about this. It's about why we choose one camera or lens over another, when either camera or lens is technically capable of producing an image that is "fit for purpose."

Cheers,

R.

I actually think "fit for purpose" is probably a more useful concept, fit to publish here, fit to print, fit to exhibit, et al ... at least it implies a context to measure 'image quality' by

 

[rxmd]

I actually think "fit for purpose" is probably a more useful concept, fit to publish here, fit to print, fit to exhibit, et al ... at least it implies a context to measure 'image quality' by

that, and I think a lot of the discussions about image quality comes from people taking snapshots without a context who then have nothing to measure them by - hence discussions of corner sharpness in pictures of people's cats and living rooms

 

[Roger Hicks]

that, and I think a lot of the discussions about image quality comes from people taking snapshots without a context who then have nothing to measure them by - hence discussions of corner sharpness in pictures of people's cats and living rooms

Fair point: you and Sparrow and pgk have pretty much convinced me, though I'd add that all cats are sharp in the corners unless they have been de-clawed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gid]

There is no (and never will be) universal definition of image quality. One could create a definition of sharpress, flatness of field, resolution etc as an abstract absolute, but it still would not define image quality. Image quality really depends on perspective - that of the photographer and that of the viewer. It is unlikely that they will be the same, but may be close enough for both to concede that image quality is good enough or excellent or bad. The photographer or viewer may define image quality as content only or how sharp an image is or tonal separation or some emotional reaction or a combination of all of these or none or many other factors. The key is that the image meets or exceeds the expectations of the photographer and/or viewer.

 

[Steve M.]

This is one I go back and forth on, but after lugging big, heavy and awkward cameras around because they have great IQ, I decided that small is better. The Kodak Retinas give me IQ that is close enough to a Leica (if you get one w/ the right lens), and they're tiny and light. It isn't just the size and weight either. It's the money. If a $50 camera can give me 90% of the IQ of an $800 one, and be smaller and lighter, I'm going for it. Some of these inexpensive cameras like the Baldas and Retinas take wonderful photos.

Getting my cameras down to a bare minimum is a priority too. If I'm constantly buying more cameras and lenses, I have to test them. The shots have to be compared to others, and I find myself shooting subjects just because they might illustrate how the lens images, rather than shooting subjects because they'd make a good photo. In the end, subject matter trumps IQ every time.

 

[semordnilap]

I like this whole discussion on image quality, technique, and what is "really important."

Obviously it depends so much on what you are trying to do with a given photograph, and being able to accomplish that in the moment. We should use the cameras that give us the most satisfaction, both in the taking and in the final product, be it digital file, print, or whatever. That is why I use the cameras I do... to get what I'm looking for and enjoy the process.

I'm not trying to say anything that hasn't already been said in this thread, just agreeing in general, and in specifics with Juan when he speaks about quality of light and handling of situations. Well said.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I like this whole discussion on image quality, technique, and what is "really important."

Obviously it depends so much on what you are trying to do with a given photograph, and being able to accomplish that in the moment. We should use the cameras that give us the most satisfaction, both in the taking and in the final product, be it digital file, print, or whatever. That is why I use the cameras I do... to get what I'm looking for and enjoy the process.

I'm not trying to say anything that hasn't already been said in this thread, just agreeing in general, and in specifics with Juan when he speaks about quality of light and handling of situations. Well said.

Nicely phrased. It isn't just the end result: it's the process as well.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

I especially liked 'inoffensive bokeh'. I don't believe there is any such thing as 'good bokeh' but I do believe that there is such a thing as 'bad bokeh'. As soon as you notice the bokeh, it's bad. Which is, of course, why there are so many awful 'good bokeh' shots on the web.

Cheers,

R.

Well said. It's a lens, not a kaleidascope.

 

[NLewis]

I do find it funny that so many people talk about the minute differences between very good lenses, like a Summicron 50/2 and a Zeiss 50/2, or Voigtlander 50/2.5, and yet they are shooting on Tri-X which is a low-res film, even by ISO400 standards. The difference between going from Tri-X to even Tmax400, much less TMax 100 or PanF 50, or Velvia 100, is a much larger increase in "sharpness" and overall image look than you'll find between any lenses made in the last fifty years. Even then, most of the differences are at f/2 and disappear by f/5.6. The increased resolution offered by an M8 or M9 does make lens differences more significant however.

Anyone who is serious about differences between very good lenses should really just step up to a larger format, or, at the very least, use an ISO100 or less film!

The attraction of a Leica for me (M2 and DR Summicron) is the compact package and tactile joy of use, which has to do with the lovely machined brass parts, large viewfinder and so forth. Yes, it's a nice lens but I can't tell much difference in image quality between the Summicron 50 and the $120 Nikon 50/1.8 AF-D. If I want "ultimate quality" it's time to get out the 6x9.

 

[dave lackey]

Roger,
I have tried to read through this thread more than once and I am still frustrated with trying to understand it. So many people have so many different ideas about IQ that none of the discussions makes sense.

Getting back to the tools used, I agree 100%, that there are many aspects as to why one's choice of camera, lens, etc. contribute immeasurably to whether one likes the photographs produced or not.

Small example: I have used five rolls of film, both black and white and color, in the Olympus XA2 and still cannot get one photograph that I think is worthwhile. Sure, I am being subjective about it. The fact is I am not happy at all with the results of a perfectly good XA2. It is 100% guaranteed that I will never make a good photograph with it in the future, because I simply refuse to use it anymore.

I am very happy with my Leica cameras but I finally became irritated with my Nikon DSLRs after years of use and sold them all. So, I will not be using them anymore either. Just not what I am looking for these days and I don't need a big old heavy DSLR with 2-foot long lenses. The Leica gear and my old Nikon AF with a prime and a 28-105 mm lens are doing just fine, so, yes, the gear really does matter IMO.:angel:

 

[Peter Klein]

Klein's second law of photography: Sufficiently enlarged, all images suck.

Seriously, pixel-peeping has really brought home to me that there is no such thing as perfection. There is a point of sufficient quality for the medium and size at which you intend to display your image. There is also a point a bit beyond that where further IQ includes details you can't see, but adds to the general impression of sharpness, contrast, quality, etc. That extra bit may be worth it to you, or it may not be.

I shoot Leica because back in 1970, I discovered that I could focus a rangefinder much better and more securely than I could an SLR. I also came to love the lenses, and the fact that I could shoot wide-open with better image quality than with anything else I tried. Better, not best. If I was only interested in "best" I would be shooting larger format on a tripod.

I also shoot Micro 4/3. Because the camera you carry with you will take better pictures than the camera you leave at home. And because despite Internet nattering, the pictures I get are usually good enough. And lately, I've been getting the itch to shoot some Tri-X again, because I miss the beauty of the film's tonality and the aesthetic qualitites of the grain. Even though the digital pictures I get are measurably better.

Some people make a fetish of image quality. That might be justified for large-print landscapes. But for a lot of the documentary and available light photography that I admire, absolute image quality is not the main thing. It's about getting an evocative image of life on the fly. Blur, grain and optical flaws can be a part of your pallette. I sometimes deliberately shoot with old lenses for that reason.

So, yes, image quality is important, but how much of it you need depends on what you're trying to do. While I like the fact that I can pixel-peep a Leica M8 image and find less wrong with its pixel-level quality than I might with Brand X, that isn't really what it's about. It's about communicating the emotion I felt when photographing the scene. Image quality is only one element in that process, and not necessarily the most important one. (Unless of course, the viewers have been brainwashed by camera marketing and Internet photo forums.)

To the latter point:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

--Peter

 

[Roger Hicks]

Klein's second law of photography: Sufficiently enlarged, all images suck.

Seriously, pixel-peeping has really brought home to me that there is no such thing as perfection. There is a point of sufficient quality for the medium and size at which you intend to display your image. There is also a point a bit beyond that where further IQ includes details you can't see, but adds to the general impression of sharpness, contrast, quality, etc. That extra bit may be worth it to you, or it may not be.

I shoot Leica because back in 1970, I discovered that I could focus a rangefinder much better and more securely than I could an SLR. I also came to love the lenses, and the fact that I could shoot wide-open with better image quality than with anything else I tried. Better, not best. If I was only interested in "best" I would be shooting larger format on a tripod.

I also shoot Micro 4/3. Because the camera you carry with you will take better pictures than the camera you leave at home. And because despite Internet nattering, the pictures I get are usually good enough. And lately, I've been getting the itch to shoot some Tri-X again, because I miss the beauty of the film's tonality and the aesthetic qualitites of the grain. Even though the digital pictures I get are measurably better.

Some people make a fetish of image quality. That might be justified for large-print landscapes. But for a lot of the documentary and available light photography that I admire, absolute image quality is not the main thing. It's about getting an evocative image of life on the fly. Blur, grain and optical flaws can be a part of your pallette. I sometimes deliberately shoot with old lenses for that reason.

So, yes, image quality is important, but how much of it you need depends on what you're trying to do. While I like the fact that I can pixel-peep a Leica M8 image and find less wrong with its pixel-level quality than I might with Brand X, that isn't really what it's about. It's about communicating the emotion I felt when photographing the scene. Image quality is only one element in that process, and not necessarily the most important one. (Unless of course, the viewers have been brainwashed by camera marketing and Internet photo forums.)

To the latter point:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

--Peter

Dear Peter,

Highlight 1 -- almost all.

Highlights 2 and 3 -- not an instant's disagreement.

Cheers,

R.

 

[d_ross]

"But referring to your other post I don't think you have to (or can) quantify image quality, nor do I think it has an great relevance to which camera we choose. Being happy with the camera (an equally indefinable collection of attributes) is central to my thesis"

I agree, I find the happier I am just holding a camera the better I use! as for quality, well that is indeed in the eye of the beholder-viewer, when I view my own work, and only then, does what I think matter beyond personal satisfaction with my work. when it is accepted and or appreciated by a wider audience, and only then, do I consider I have made a quality image.

 

[Nick De Marco]

I agree with Roger.

Although I am certainly in love with my M9, and some of the Leica lenses I have with it - it's probably the best 'all round' camera I have, the difference in quality between using it with an expensive modern Leica aspherical lens and an old Russian or modern voigtlander lens is usually of little significance (exceptional circumstances excepted) - and as for your 75mm lens, Roger, having seen one I wouldn't trade it (other than to re-sell it) for my Voigtlander 75/1.8.

The same applies to using film cameras and the Fuji X100, which for most occasions, can give a photo which is perfectly acceptable. Indeed, on a recent trip to Italy with the M9 and M3, various lenses, and the X100, I found I took some of my favourite photos on the low resolution iPhone with Hipstamatic application - which can make perfectly good small prints. Of course the M9 is better, and far more capable, but it's the photograph and the composition which really counts and that can often be achieved on the most basic of cameras.

I remain, however, totally and irrationally obsessed with equipment and collecting it - not so much as a search for the best image quality - but for no doubt the darker psychological reasons that are at he root of all obsessions and urges to collect stuff, and which disproportionately appear to blight the male part of the species (along with many far worse vices).