ebino
Well-known
How important is image quality for you when it comes to street photography? So, please give your reason(s).
We'll confine street photography to the candid photography on the street of people and places etc. Image quality would entail resolution, detail, lack of noise/grain, proper exposure, focus and sharpness. Some of the image quality is dependent on gear and some on the photographer so i combined both for simplicity.
We'll confine street photography to the candid photography on the street of people and places etc. Image quality would entail resolution, detail, lack of noise/grain, proper exposure, focus and sharpness. Some of the image quality is dependent on gear and some on the photographer so i combined both for simplicity.
Last edited:
gshybrid
Well-known
I say important... I want to get the highest quality possible without losing the shot.
It depends on the scene, the weather, the feel I'm going for, etc.
OlliL
Well-known
For me, it is most important to capture a certain scenery, that provides some kind of message.
That's why I voted for "not that important"
That's why I voted for "not that important"
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
A Blurry Something will always be superior to a Sharp Nothing.
ederek
Well-known
Of course, absolutely agree with others that content is King.
But, all things being equal, I want the quality, even with "street".
This provides the option to:
1) Print or Display at a large size with great detail available for the viewer
Here is one I shared in my Rangefinder Experience thread. Printed it onto 17x22 paper, and the extra detail really adds to the image, be it the faces or texture in the ceiling.
Those aren't 1:1 crops, there is even more detail there.
2) Cropping
Here's another I shared. It was shot w/ an M9 w/ a 35mm Biogon out a relatively dirty window of a moving train.
God's Boat
Not best crop, just did in Smugmug, but I still like the result (and hey, the image is still larger than what we share here on the web every day!)
Hmm, the images just show up as links. Is there some forum format that only allows links and not embedded images when including in a Poll Thread?? :bang:
But, all things being equal, I want the quality, even with "street".
This provides the option to:
1) Print or Display at a large size with great detail available for the viewer
Here is one I shared in my Rangefinder Experience thread. Printed it onto 17x22 paper, and the extra detail really adds to the image, be it the faces or texture in the ceiling.
Those aren't 1:1 crops, there is even more detail there.
2) Cropping
Here's another I shared. It was shot w/ an M9 w/ a 35mm Biogon out a relatively dirty window of a moving train.
God's Boat
Not best crop, just did in Smugmug, but I still like the result (and hey, the image is still larger than what we share here on the web every day!)
Hmm, the images just show up as links. Is there some forum format that only allows links and not embedded images when including in a Poll Thread?? :bang:
uhligfd
Well-known
IQ compared to what, may I ask?
Compared to not having a memory of the scene, compared to having a better shot next week, next month, ..., compared to not having tried. Compared to a staged version of the scene?
Compared to your vision, you may have wanted it blurred ... and with low image quality, gritty.
Can street shots be artistic, satisfying, great, fun without looking as good in IQ as when taken from a tripod, using 6 lights, a well chosen backdrop, and as if they were staged?
I wonder what IQ really means to the poster? Is it meant to be absolute or may it be artist dependent?
Compared to not having a memory of the scene, compared to having a better shot next week, next month, ..., compared to not having tried. Compared to a staged version of the scene?
Compared to your vision, you may have wanted it blurred ... and with low image quality, gritty.
Can street shots be artistic, satisfying, great, fun without looking as good in IQ as when taken from a tripod, using 6 lights, a well chosen backdrop, and as if they were staged?
I wonder what IQ really means to the poster? Is it meant to be absolute or may it be artist dependent?
Last edited:
Wcarpenter
Established
The quality of the image is entirely dependent on the content. Ansel Adams has truly breathtaking images from a merely technical standpoint, but the quality pales in comparison to the images of Erwitt, or Lartique or any number of other content focused photographers.
DougFord
on the good foot
agreed.
My knee jerk reaction is to say ‘content is everything’ in a street photograph.
I suppose that this statement could be construed as IQ takes a lesser role in the art of street photography.
However, if I were to take a known street photograph that I enjoy looking at and purposely ‘degraded’ the existing IQ with regards to its sharpness, resolution, contrast etc. my perception of its content is effected. Conversely, if I were to take a known street photograph that had unsharp, low contrast elements and was able to change these image characteristics, my perception of its content would also be effected. Certainly there are fudge-factors or minor changes that will marginally effect IQ without having much effect on the perceived content for me.
So I guess that IQ in regards to street photography, needs to be whatever it actually is, in order for it to work, whatever that maybe.
Deconstruction leads me right back to where I started.
[FONT="]Compared to what? Eddie Harris/Les McCann
http://hypem.com/track/1119583
[/FONT]
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Good enough is good enough.
If you notice the technical quality before anything else, it's not good enough. It may still not be good enough anyway, but technical quality should always be something you notice after content.
Of course that's not just street. The same goes for grab shots of new cameras under glass. The pics are both M9 + 35 Summilux.
Cheers,
R.
If you notice the technical quality before anything else, it's not good enough. It may still not be good enough anyway, but technical quality should always be something you notice after content.
Of course that's not just street. The same goes for grab shots of new cameras under glass. The pics are both M9 + 35 Summilux.
Cheers,
R.
Attachments
DNG
Film Friendly
I try to get good IQ, but, in the end, if I have no time to double check settings, framing etc, I go for the "Get the Capture" first.... method..
I use preset f/stop and Hyper-focus scales with Film,
But with the G1, the DOF scale is non existent and I have to set f/stop at f/11 and ISO 400 and pre-focus on a 9m stop (10 feet) and then put the G1 in manual Focus with the 17mm (2m to INF)..good for hip captures, and up to the eye captures... But, the framing sucks on hip captures so far...and the Shutter speed may be to slow for faster objects like a bike rider.
Example Here Olympus 17mm (hip capture)
With the adapted 28, same procedure, it gives me about 3m to INF. With the 50mm, f/11 and INF.... for about 8m (25')to INF, which is OK for a quick "Up to the eye" shot more than full length. or a small group of standing people.
Example Here Zeiss 50mm lens (Up to the eye capture) (Cropped), (The 28mm is better at f/11 and put the focus ring on the 5m mark -- 2.5'-INF)
So, I voted "not that important".... But still worked on when I have the time of a non fleeting moment.
I use preset f/stop and Hyper-focus scales with Film,
But with the G1, the DOF scale is non existent and I have to set f/stop at f/11 and ISO 400 and pre-focus on a 9m stop (10 feet) and then put the G1 in manual Focus with the 17mm (2m to INF)..good for hip captures, and up to the eye captures... But, the framing sucks on hip captures so far...and the Shutter speed may be to slow for faster objects like a bike rider.
Example Here Olympus 17mm (hip capture)
With the adapted 28, same procedure, it gives me about 3m to INF. With the 50mm, f/11 and INF.... for about 8m (25')to INF, which is OK for a quick "Up to the eye" shot more than full length. or a small group of standing people.
Example Here Zeiss 50mm lens (Up to the eye capture) (Cropped), (The 28mm is better at f/11 and put the focus ring on the 5m mark -- 2.5'-INF)
So, I voted "not that important".... But still worked on when I have the time of a non fleeting moment.
Last edited:
sanmich
Veteran
Quality is everything wherever you do something.
Blurry can be far superior to sharp, and so can be grainy.
so for me the question is: what does quality mean when it comes to street photography?
Well, a bit of grain is ok, and sometimes, a blur saves the shot.
sometimes the shot needs some sharpness.
The only quality that I found to always be needed in any situation, including street/ PJ is a minimum of good tonality/quality of the light. The rest is really secondary.
EDIT: BTW, two of the landscapes I am completely in love with where shot on 35mm film, probably with quite crappy lenses by modern standard (HCB). I always make more difficult to haul a huge MF system when I remember that.
Blurry can be far superior to sharp, and so can be grainy.
so for me the question is: what does quality mean when it comes to street photography?
Well, a bit of grain is ok, and sometimes, a blur saves the shot.
sometimes the shot needs some sharpness.
The only quality that I found to always be needed in any situation, including street/ PJ is a minimum of good tonality/quality of the light. The rest is really secondary.
EDIT: BTW, two of the landscapes I am completely in love with where shot on 35mm film, probably with quite crappy lenses by modern standard (HCB). I always make more difficult to haul a huge MF system when I remember that.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
sanmich
Veteran
goes without saying
Archlich
Well-known
Image quality is but another element of narrative you could control and play with.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
There are valid criticisms of Adams, and of course you're entitled to an opinion, but it's nonsensical to say that his images were not content focused.
WRT the thread topic: it depends on the picture, of course.
FrankS
Registered User
Content is most important, IMO.
I' rather take a technically inferior picture with compelling content, than a technically superior but boring picture.
I' rather take a technically inferior picture with compelling content, than a technically superior but boring picture.
Last edited:
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Content is paramount, but that doesn't allow you to get sloppy. S
andersju
Well-known
Funny you mentioned both Adams and Erwitt - I was just thinking of a wonderful quote by the latter:
"Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy – the tone range isn't right and things like that – but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention."
xxloverxx
Shoot.
When I'm actually making the photo, it hardly matters at all — getting the right moment is priority.
When it comes to selecting the photos to upload and/or share, quality comes into consideration.
When it comes to selecting the photos to upload and/or share, quality comes into consideration.