How important is image quality?

Resolution isn't just about lenses, sensors and printing. I've been a photographer for 40 years yet nothing ever comes close to what I see with my own eyes.

So why do so many people walk around wearing shades!

Think of those images that you know you could never capture on film/ sensor - even if you had your camera to hand. I consider my self a photographer for seeing them, not necessarily capturing them. After all, I do not set out to capture absolutely every potential photographic image that I see.

I'm not talking about print size, which is both a technical and subjective decision - what the image needs.

I'm kicking a bit of sand. Since the greatest resolution you'll ever get is with your own eyes, I find it funny that so many people stagger about in shades and then worry about the image quality they get from the second- or third-hand recreation of that image.

Back on topic, I think resolution has little to do with a the quality of a photograph. Scale, which resolution allows, is impressive for its own sake.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe, or maybe they wanted gear that would last and not break down in action.

jsrockit said:
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?
Click to expand...

I say thats exactly the point. If the feeling is there, if the pic is just right and comunicate the emotions the photog wants to snow IQ does not matter.
In fact some pics wouldn't work if they were of high technical quality.

jsrockit said:
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...

Ansel Adams images strikes me as high quality even by todays standards and even so I think Kirsten Klein does a better job comunicating the feel and emotions in her subjects though her pics show a lot more grain, unsharpness, lack of tones etc. But she uses those imperfections to bring forth the feeling of rain in your face, the cold or the mist.
Best regards
 
Image quality is the most important thing in photography or any other visual art but image quality does not equal technical quality (e.g. optics). A bad lens and a good photographer can create superb images. A bad photographer with a superb lens will most likely create bad photographs. Atget was mentioned and I have to say the technical aspects were not that important to Atget after all he did use lenses that couldn't cover the Plate format with movements (the famous Atget vignettes) but the image quality is superb.

Dominik
 
Teuthida said:
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.
Click to expand...

You understand nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom