How important is image quality?

Juan Valdenebro said:
shadowfox said:
Image quality matters when it adds to the photograph.
It is not worth discussing otherwise.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, Will, but what would a bit more sharpness add to a great Frank or Atget photograph? Or to any image by Newton or HCB or Winogrand?

To me it wouldn't add anything...

I have the feeling "IQ" is just two things: kind of a consolation when an image is not good, or, a sales interest related to low culture public...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

You and I are in agreement, Juan.

It's pointless to talk about sharpness when the dominating quality of the photograph is really something else. For example in a lot of famous photos by Dorothy Lange, Ruth Gruber, Eugene Smith, the dominating quality of the photographs are mood and expression.

Another example, as you said, on a lot of Winograd or HCB's photos, nitpicking about focus point is kinda pointless.

But when you talking about still-life/wildlife/bird/macro/sport action/commercial photography, sharpness, resolution and focus are mightily important.

Why? because they "add" to the impact of the photographs.
 
Glamour of the Gods

Glamour of the Gods

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...

Have you seen the Kobal collection at the National Portrait Gallery.
I was impressed. As regards to quality the early stuff is far from sharp, Lillian Gish and Clara Bow look decidedly out of focus and or not sharp. It mattered not one jot to me, great pictures sharp or soft.
What I did not like was the big enlargements claiming they were new silver bromide prints from the original negatives. I think they looked like copies, Johnny Weissmuller looked like a inkjet, it had fine banding over the entire image and looked flat. Charlie Chaplin was very contrasty and shadow on the stipple paper at the top gave the game away.
So quality does matter for some things.
 
In my experience there are three types of people with cameras. Gearheads, photographers and holiday/family snappers. As with most things there is always the middle gray area as well. All the really creative people I have meet, the ones that produce outstanding images that have impact and feeling, are not that interested in "gear". The main thing they want from their equipment is that it doesn't crap out under whatever conditions they are working in.

Image quality (or lack thereof) only comes up when it is an integral part of the creative process for that project.

So in answer to the OP I would say in my opinion "good enough" pretty much covers it for me.
 
JohnTF said:
If the only thing you have to speak about when looking at an image is the technical quality, either it is really terrible, or there is not much else to talk about?

Regards, John
Click to expand...

Very well said!

That's why even if fields like fashion (say a meters big advertisement by Chanel) are supposed -as other commercial photography- to show high sharpness, sometimes we see in top brands campaigns 35mm shots, and even now and then some of those are a bit blurry or could have been focused with more precision...

The reason is, those picked photographs have higher IQ than others that came out sharper. Sharpness has no relation with IQ, and obviously doesn't help for sales...

Unless you're hoping your photographs will improve with a current line Leica lens.

Cheers,

Juan
 
noeyedear said:
Have you seen the Kobal collection at the National Portrait Gallery.
I was impressed. As regards to quality the early stuff is far from sharp, Lillian Gish and Clara Bow look decidedly out of focus and or not sharp. It mattered not one jot to me, great pictures sharp or soft.
What I did not like was the big enlargements claiming they were new silver bromide prints from the original negatives. I think they looked like copies, Johnny Weissmuller looked like a inkjet, it had fine banding over the entire image and looked flat. Charlie Chaplin was very contrasty and shadow on the stipple paper at the top gave the game away.
So quality does matter for some things.
Click to expand...

No, I went one better. I had access to the whole Kobal collection for the book I did with Chris Nisperos on Hollywood portraiture -- and yes, I know that technical quality was, one might say, variable, and that often, they didn't throw out their 'seconds'. I mean, a series of Jean Harlow with a 'lazy' eye giving her a wall-eyed effect? I also saw a hell of a lot of retouching.

Those pictures were however normally contact printed, and sloppy printing is really a separate question. We're back to the 'quality threshold', below which quality is not acceptable.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
No, I went one better. I had access to the whole Kobal collection for the book I did with Chris Nisperos on Hollywood portraiture -- and yes, I know that technical quality was, one might say, variable, and that often, they didn't throw out their 'seconds'. I mean, a series of Jean Harlow with a 'lazy' eye giving her a wall-eyed effect? I also saw a hell of a lot of retouching.

Those pictures were however normally contact printed, and sloppy printing is really a separate question. We're back to the 'quality threshold', below which quality is not acceptable.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I have the book, it's well thumbed.
 
I think Image Quality is one of those things that leads people on a wild goose chase (figuratively speaking of course).

Excepting things like microphotography, and other technical work - in the end all that matters is whether or not the image is interesting.

It's better then to think in terms of qualities rather than "quality".
Many perfectly sharp images are also perfectly boring. On the other hand there are also lots of grainy, blurry, whatever else could be "wrong" with it photos out there that are incredibly interesting.

Sometimes the presence of certain qualities makes up for the lack of others.
 
Sharpness is just one quality to jude an image by. There are many other qualities that also come into play.
First the image has to be interesting. A perfectly sharp well exposed image of a boring brick wall is not that interesting for most people, well maybe for some people as a test image it may have some interest.
A dreadfully out of focus image of an interesting compelling subject may not by much use either, neither would a sharp but severely overexposed image of an interesting subject be of much use.

There usually has to be a good balance of qualities for an image to be of much use.
The sharpness has to be good enough, the exposure has to be good enough, the contrast has to be good enough and so does the color balance for a color image. The image also needs to be interesting enough that someone may actually want to look at it.
 
Rodger I tend to agree with you but I have a question. If the "enjoyment" factor of the sv and the M with the 75 were reversed for you, which would you be more likely to pick up?
 
Proof that one can love collecting equipment and eloquently admit to it without confusing it with a photographic pursuit and needing to justify it in those terms. They are independent and can be enjoyed on their own terms. And as for that darker side, now you are talking my language...

Nick De Marco said:
...
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).
Click to expand...
 
Teuthida said:
Couldn't agree more.

As an analogy, Jackson Pollock used cheap Latex house paint. 🙂
Click to expand...

I think it was oil based house paint which makes conservation even tougher. But he used it not because it was "good enough" but because it did what he needed it to do. You can't get artists' oils or acrylics to pour like that. Of course it helped that it was cheap.
 
it'sawhat? said:
Rodger I tend to agree with you but I have a question. If the "enjoyment" factor of the sv and the M with the 75 were reversed for you, which would you be more likely to pick up?
Click to expand...

Probably the SV, except for the fact that now, for colour, I use mostly digital. Alas there is no digital equivalent to the SV.

Cheers,

R.
 
At the moment, I've taken a liking to printing quite big, about 50cm x 50cm from my Hasselblad. I don't feel that 35mm would quite provide the quality I'm after for prints that big and bigger. In that regard, I do value image quality, the point that I've given a little though to only shooting medium format, and not bothering with 35mm so much.
 
But once again, it depends on the look you are after. If you want visible, sharp grain with a gritty feel to the image, you'd be better off cropping to a square 35mm for a 50x50cm print because you will likely have too little grain with MF. I have a number of images that would lose 'quality' if they had finer grain/better resolution/a more 'real' look.


thegman said:
At the moment, I've taken a liking to printing quite big, about 50cm x 50cm from my Hasselblad. I don't feel that 35mm would quite provide the quality I'm after for prints that big and bigger. In that regard, I do value image quality, the point that I've given a little though to only shooting medium format, and not bothering with 35mm so much.
Click to expand...
 
How important is ink permanence to writing? How important is paper quality to a cold sufferer?

How important is anything to anyone depends on their parameters. Invisible ink is great for amateur spies, aloe vera paper tissue is not a concern to garage mechanics...rarity is extremely important to collectors...reliability is relevant to commercial photographers.

Quality benefits those who seek it, and those who understand what they're seeking.
 
Phaedrus's head is exploding.

(Actually, Robert Pirsig's positing of Quality as some sort of Platonic abstraction has always bothered me tremendously, especially when paired with Buddhism.)
 
Nikon 1 small sensor - and pro users ?

Nikon 1 small sensor - and pro users ?

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 ?
 
I think the Pentax Q pretty muc answers that. Despite some OK reviews it doesn't seem to be selling that well in Europe. I've not tried one myself, though I have tried a Nikon 1, which is only just bigger than a compact sensor, and the image quality from that was OK.

- Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom