How important is image quality?

dee said:
In respect of this thread , I am interested in the prospective market for small sensor interchangeable lens cameras .

Obviously , those compact users looking for greater flexibility , without the need for bigger lenses as evinced by the current mirrorless 4/3rds / apsc offerings which are effectively downsized DSLRs , rather than an enhanced compact .

However , I wonder if picture quality is sufficient for some pro users for , say newspaper etc , where a compact with quality lens - echoes of Leica II in the 30s , would be of more use than a bulky multi-pixel DSLR ?
Click to expand...

Because newsprint reproduction is probably the lowest fidelity printing method known, I'm sure small sensor IQ is sufficient. Many news organizations only rely on amateur photos these days anyway.
 
I've had several Leica kits over the years, but at the Last Great Purge, about four years ago, I decided to choose based on the company with the best long-term vision, and chose Nikon. I looked at the price of Leica gear, and realized I could buy ten good old Nikon lenses for the cost of one new Leica one, and that was the end of Leica for me. I have better things to do with my money. Every brand has good stuff these days, so image quality wasn't even a consideration, as much as history and future.

It SHOULD be all about the picture, right? Unless camera-fondling is your main thing.
 
Better gear and image quality actually revived my 25 year old interest in photography. When scanning film negatives from older trips, I was often disappointed about that particular girl not being in focus, or the blur in another shot. My first digital camera was an Olympus point and shoot with a shutter lag of at least a second, and I never got the picture I intended and framed, like kids playing and dancing. Most travel shots had to be converted to black and white to be even acceptable to present to anyone with all the chromatic noice in them when shot indoors somewhere. I just never cared for dslr's, and it's only been since compact high IQ cameras became available (Leica X1) that I became truly interested again in shooting every day and everywhere. Subjects that I wanted to be sharp, were sharp now. Better IQ, as said, can be stimulating and now with my M8 with its immediate response I can't wait to make another trip or take it into the streets. IQ in itself doesn't matter without narrative or without the poetry of photography's grammar, but it certainly does help to make what's good a little better.
 
For me, the image content is the key element and I will, to some extent, compromise on sharpness and contrast so long as the image is reoresentative of what I am trying to convey.

Then there's the control freak perfectionist streak in me that says "I've bought a really expensive camera and stunning lens and I expect it to perform." Why should I settle for anything less than technical perfection?

If I'm shooting landscapes and using a tripod, I expect the technical quality to rise in proportion to the amount of time spent setting up and taking the shot. If I'm shooting an RF on the street, I'll live with a bit of blur as lok=ng as I don't miss the shot I want.

Life's full of compromises....
 
Image "quality" i.e. sharpness, resolution etc is the musplaced concern of those who havent yet mastered the medium as a means of communicating a disrinct vision.

Go look at Atget, Robert Capa, Kertez, HCB, Robert Frank,Winogrand, Davidson, Arbus, etc. They couldnt care less about "Image Quality."
 
Teuthida said:
Please explain
Click to expand...

Well, each one of the photographers mentioned have photos that could be used as an example of great IQ. Sure, perhaps they were not fixated on this element, but we do not know that for sure. In the book Diane Arbus: A Chronology, she most definitely talks of cameras and what it'll mean to the quality of her images (specifically moving from a Rolleiflex to a Pentax 6x7 just prior to her death). Each one of these photographers chose to use high quality equipment of the time. They could have chosen to use a cheaper consumer camera, but they did not. To me that is indicative of caring about IQ.

I concede that each one of them have used blurry or unsharp photos, but most photographers have as well. If the feeling is there, why not?

Don't forget that HCB and Robert Capa (and many others) were bottlenecked by film speeds of the time (early on). This lead to some "poorer" image quality (but not worse photos) due to handholding at longer shutter speeds. More of a product of the time in the infancy of high quality handheld cameras. I would argue that most photographers care about sharpness to a degree and there is nothing wrong with that. It's just not healthy to obsess over.
 
jsrockit said:
Well, each one of the photographers mentioned have photos that could be used as an example of great IQ. Sure, perhaps they were not fixated on this element, but we do not know that for sure. In the book Diane Arbus: A Chronology, she most definitely talks of cameras and what it'll mean to the quality of her images (specifically moving from a Rolleiflex to a Pentax 6x7 just prior to her death). Each one of these photographers chose to use high quality equipment of the time. They could have chosen to use a cheaper consumer camera, but they did not. To me that is indicative of caring about IQ.

I concede that each one of them have used blurry or unsharp photos, but most photographers have as well. If the feeling is there, why not?

Don't forget that HCB and Robert Capa (and many others) were bottlenecked by film speeds of the time (early on). This lead to some "poorer" image quality (but not worse photos) due to handholding at longer shutter speeds. More of a product of the time in the infancy of high quality handheld cameras. I would argue that most photographers care about sharpness to a degree and there is nothing wrong with that. It's just not healthy to obsess over.
Click to expand...


I certainly agree with you to the extent that all photographers would 'prefer' good image quality over poor image quality. My point is that it really wasnt an issue for them the way it seems to be a fetish in the digital age now that we have the means for such precise rendering. In the film age, and certainly for those documentarians who shot B&W 35mm or even 120, it simply wasnt a concern. the image was, and much of the iconic photography of the 20th century would fail the pixel peeping standards of most digital fanatics today.

Maybe Ansel Adams and his ilk wouldn't, but they are uninteresting in the larger history of the medium, as they really didnt have much to say except to showcase their tevhnical virtousity, which now can me matched by anyone with a d700 and some rudimentary photoshopping skills.
 
Teuthida said:
I certainly agree with you to the extent that all photographers would 'prefer' good image quality over poor image quality. My point is that it really wasnt an issue for them the way it seems to be a fetish in the digital age now that we have the means for such precise rendering.
Click to expand...

I think we may be saying the same thing from two perspectives. I agree that pixel peeping is ridiculous and that poor IQ can still result in a great photo. I guess I just took offense to the thinking that none of the photographers cared about image quality. Perhaps it would be better stated as they didn't believe in grain (pixel) peeping and technical crap just for the sake of technical crap?

Also, a good point to think about is that print sizes then and now are different. People print huge nowadays and that could be why more people are concerned with IQ and pixel peeping.
 
jsrockit said:
Also, a good point to think about is that print sizes then and now are different. People print huge nowadays and that could be why more people are concerned with IQ and pixel peeping.
Click to expand...


Yes. I think you are correct. Its rare that I see vintage film prints exhibited larger than 11x14. In my experience, most arent exhibited even that large.

When I taught photographic aesthetics I about 10 years ago I made it a point of taking students to as many museums and exhibits as I coulod. Great training for the eye.

The general consensus about was they saw was this: If you cant make an interesting photograph, make it REALLY BIG. If that doesnt work, make ir BIG and COLORFUL.

The most arresting images I've ever seen rarely if ever have anything to do with size or image quality. I recently saw a Walker Evans exhibit at the Getty which showed his Cuba pictures from the 30s. a 5x7 contact print of a havana stevedore was more visually striking that all of the large prints from contemporary photographers.
 
jsrockit said:
Haha, true... I've seen this many times. I too enjoy the smaller prints. It allows me to get close and really look at them... and love walker evans.
Click to expand...

Evans is amazing. No artifice. Just beautiful objectivity. Or at least thats what it appears. Read Errol Morris's recent book for an alternative opinion.
 
Print sizes and image quality, past and present:

I had seen Ansel Adams photos reproduced in magazines and books for several years before I had the chance to attend an exhibit of his work. The photos were printed big and they looked great from across the gallery. But, when viewed up close (like the viewer often must be when in a crowded gallery), they were soft and the grain was like chunky oatmeal. Led me to the conclusion that Ansel should have printed smaller. I was much more impressed with the jewel-like 8x10 inch contacts prints of Edward Weston or the tiny 2x3 inch contacts of Man Ray.

Today, quantity impresses more than quality so photos get printed too damn big.

I've read Walker Evans would scold his darkroom assistants when they used too many sheets of paper to print his work. He was said to feel it unnecessary to pursue perfection in printing. He would crop his pictures by trimming down the negatives to the composition he preferred. Didn't seem to harm the final results. His work remains awesome, in my opinion.
 
Dogman said:
I had seen Ansel Adams photos reproduced in magazines and books for several years before I had the chance to attend an exhibit of his work. The photos were printed big and they looked great from across the gallery. But, when viewed up close (like the viewer often must be when in a crowded gallery), they were soft and the grain was like chunky oatmeal. Led me to the conclusion that Ansel should have printed smaller.
Click to expand...

Really? I could have sworn the ones I've seen look great up close. Not reqally a fan, but I can understand why people are.
 
I attended an exhibition of Ansel Adams' own prints in Oxford (UK) a couple of years back. The grain, what there was of it, was virtually unnoticeable.

In reality, from a purely technical perspective, we are all copnstrained by the limitations of contemporary equipment. Those who have the ability to produce great photographs despite those limitations tend to be the truly great photographers.

The discussion about image quality earlier is a great example. Take, for instance, Robert Capa. His photos of the D-Day landings are hardly text-book when it comes to the technical interpretation of how to take and process photos but they have a power beyond any technical reference in the subject matter alone. Conversely, I own a 5x4 field camera and I suspect that, even if I live to be 100, I will never come close to pushing it beyond 10% of its capabilities.
 
Optically, this image has no quality whatsoever:



How could it be otherwise? There was a nasty, dirty, scratched-up train window in the optical path (a reflection in the window of a train). No matter the qualities of the camera and lens I was using.

You may not like it, but I think it has something. "Image Quality" however defined isn't part of that "something". But is it a bad photo?

...Mike
 
I think it is true that Ansel Adams prints are not as sharp as you imagine they should be. I have seen plenty that are 'mellow' in terms of outright sharpness.

But that doesn't matter, anybody who has used a large format camera outdoors knows that stuff happens beyond your control that can just take the edge off an image. Maybe it is only something somebody that has used a field camera can see. But it doesn't make the photograph any less good if it was good in the first place, like the Bresson example posted earlier. In fact with that we are so used to seeing it blurry it wouldn't look right if/when Adobe come up with their software to make it sharp.

The tricky thing nowadays is that people default to pixel peeping. If Bresson posted 'the leaping man' on most photo forums today he would be told he should go and buy a Canon with faster AF, and he should have used a higher ISO, and a longer and faster lens, all of which could have saved an otherwise interesting image. Unfortunately for many people it is only history that makes it a great image, made in the context of its day with slow film and slow lenses. It really is becoming a dire state of affairs when the only people who have the collective guts to rebel against the 'sharp' and 'large' mantra's are Lomographers, and they often have no choice anyway due to their crappy, but expressive, choice of camera.

Steve
 
Surely the only real answer is "it depends"? Some of us want grainless large prints, some of us don't. Personally, I love that I can blow up my MF shots as big as I like, but also I've got some nice 35mm prints at 8x10 which I'm happy with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom