Image quality and street photography

[Colin Corneau]

Any idiot can take a blurry picture.

Try telling a photo editor you couldn't do any better. Capture the greatest moment you can think of, but if you aren't prepared/skillful enough/too lazy/bad luck/whatever to capitalize on it...well, sorry but it's just not worth as much as an expertly crafted photograph.

A photograph with compelling content (composition, light, subject, etc) coupled with competent craftsmanship (focus, exposure, etc.) is always worth more than a picture with only one of those two characteristics.

 

[ebino]

Or, remember that famous HCB picture of the man jumping over a large puddle in some kind of backyard? Again, it's NOT just the moment that makes the picture. What's almost unbelievable is that Cartier-Bresson managed to catch this moment in perfect technical quality!

Don't worry (too much) about content. Content's the easier part. Get the technical stuff right. Then try not to miss the decisive moments.

Actually HCB waited for quite sometime for that shot. He put his camera through the fence and waited (The Genius of Photography: Episode 3). When he got the shot half of the frame was black, which was cropped. If you search online there is the picture of the actual negative.

 

[ebino]

Any idiot can take a blurry picture.

Try telling a photo editor you couldn't do any better. Capture the greatest moment you can think of, but if you aren't prepared/skillful enough/too lazy/bad luck/whatever to capitalize on it...well, sorry but it's just not worth as much as an expertly crafted photograph.

A photograph with compelling content (composition, light, subject, etc) coupled with competent craftsmanship (focus, exposure, etc.) is always worth more than a picture with only one of those two characteristics.

You're thinking of a photograph as a product and photo editors as the standard for photography. That is absolutely fine but I wish it was that easy.

 

[antiquark]

Here's a truth table for photographic possibilities, with respect to techical quality vs content. A photograph can consist of:

1. good quality, good content.
2. bad quality, good content.
3. good quality, no content.
4. bad quality, no content.

Everyone agrees that #4 is worthless. #3 is next to worthless -- sharpness doesn't matter if it's a pointless scene. #1 is optimal, and #2 is acceptable, because the content can carry the image.

Doesn't this logically conclude that content is king, in photography?

 

[gshybrid]

Here's a truth table for photographic possibilities, with respect to techical quality vs content. A photograph can consist of:

1. good quality, good content.
2. bad quality, good content.
3. good quality, no content.
4. bad quality, no content.

Everyone agrees that #4 is worthless. #3 is next to worthless -- sharpness doesn't matter if it's a pointless scene. #1 is optimal, and #2 is acceptable, because the content can carry the image.

Doesn't this logically conclude that content is king, in photography?

I'd say it indicates that good quality and good content combined are king... everything else are shades of grey.

 

[SeonNantonPhotos]

Here's a truth table for photographic possibilities, with respect to techical quality vs content. A photograph can consist of:

1. good quality, good content.
2. bad quality, good content.
3. good quality, no content.
4. bad quality, no content.

Everyone agrees that #4 is worthless. #3 is next to worthless -- sharpness doesn't matter if it's a pointless scene. #1 is optimal, and #2 is acceptable, because the content can carry the image.

Doesn't this logically conclude that content is king, in photography?

I do think content does speak largely about a photo and content is king, getting a bad bad quality photo in a difficult setting or social movement is much better then crowning image quality... It is best to have both but numbers 1 and 2 are the only relevant ones