Is there such a thing as "Good enough" for you?

[shadowfox]

Regards the bolded text: Please do. I have no idea what is meant by "image quality" by anyone other than myself.

I mean this without disparagement or the desire to debate. I sincerely have no idea what you mean by "image quality" or what anyone else means by it, other than some fuzzy notion that "Da pitcha's look good to me." 🙂

G

That's exactly what I mean.
You know what "image quality" means to you.
It's a subjective measure, not an hard and objective one. I hope I never said or infer the latter.

And thus my question is addressed to you as an individual, I want to know what you think about "good enough" image quality. Do you wish your cameras produce "better image quality" or not?

For me, I don't. Judging from your using polaroid, probably you agree with me also.

And yet a lot of people out there are still looking for better image quality, camera manufacturers are still touting that as the main reason for releasing a new camera.

So I'm expecting half of the responses here would be "Yes, I'm still looking for a better image quality."

 

[shadowfox]

Is there such a thing as "Good enough" for you?

Well, yes, obviously. Why would you bother to take pictures with kit that wasn't "good enough"?

"Good enough" is what I have elsewhere called "the quality threshold", the quality of kit where "better" equipment would not give the photographer a "better" picture: where skill counts more than kit.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,
To me, there is a difference between:
1. "Good enough" because (for now) I can't afford or can't find anything else that is better. But I *want* something better.

2. "Good enough" because I am happy with the results, therefore I don't *need* to look for anything else

I am speaking about no.2

 

[shadowfox]

I am really into the 'good enough' idea... I have a 'good enough' hi fi and don't sweat about cables etc ect, and likewise with cameras, love my Konica Hexar, which is definitely 'good enough.'

My Fuji X100, though, is only nearly good enough; just processed a hexar roll from a shoot I did using the X100, and those pics were so much better it was indecent.

Paul,

You answered my question perfectly.

 

[shadowfox]

no.

neither gear nor my own skill will ever be good enough for me.

That's an interesting answer.
Thank you.

 

[shadowfox]

'Good Enough' comes when I look at a Photograph and it puts a Smile on my Face....
Though as most things its ever Fleeting

Good Enough Exists , You just have to 'find' it...

I agree with you, Helen.

But it seems to me for some people, "good enough" is like a Fata Morgana, an unreachable goal, an ever increasing ceiling.

I'm tired just to think about that 🙂

 

[mfunnell]

To me, there is a difference between:

1. "Good enough" because (for now) I can't afford or can't find anything else that is better. But I *want* something better.

2. "Good enough" because I am happy with the results, therefore I don't *need* to look for anything else

I am speaking about no.2

That's where I find myself. But I might think differently if I needed to print a lot larger or needed to nail, every time, high-energy sports photos with a long, wide-aperture, lens or otherwise had some technical requirement my current gear couldn't meet. Fortunately, I'm not in that circumstance. Unfortunately (or so my bank manager might tell me) I've discovered a taste for RF cameras and lenses purely for my own enjoyment - and that isn't a cheap set of preferences, even if I've (so far!) avoided just some of the worst aspects of the syndrome.

...Mike

 

[williams473]

"Good enough" is the point at which I stop working on an image. It rarely occurs after just capturing the image. It takes living with an image for a while, editing etc., working it... then when it's "good enough" I'll show the image.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,
To me, there is a difference between:
1. "Good enough" because (for now) I can't afford or can't find anything else that is better. But I *want* something better.

2. "Good enough" because I am happy with the results, therefore I don't *need* to look for anything else

I am speaking about no.2

Dear Will,

The conflation of "want" and "need" is at the heart of the matter. First, you have to define "better", which for me would be "give me more pictures I am happy with". Then "need" would be "my current equipment is garbage" (which it isn't) or "I'm getting into something totally new" (which I haven't for some time).

Cheers,

R.

 

[dee]

Despite more recent and 'better' not quite DSLR, - Sony A35 I had cause to revisit my Leica Digilux 3, which, even a year old was not inexpensive.

The £250 Panasonic L1 body and a couple of £100 Panasonic zooms, were certainly cost effective, especially as my Rokkors are still usable with comparative ease, given the shutter speed dial.

Image quality seems perfectly acceptable, however, I seem to create fewer and better snapshots with a camera I just love handling and using.
O.K. it's an M styled chunky brick with 4/3rds squinty viewfinder and autofocus is somewhat erratic, and is a Leica dead end in development, but it suits someone raised on Minolta SRt and XE 1.

 

[dreamsandart]

I got my first digital camera when 2MP was ‘good enough’ for a point and shoot and I could get the family photo files on my computer with ease. The RD-1 was ‘good enough’, a great RF camera with higher image quality and I could use my Leica glass. The D-LUX 4 was ‘good enough’ for a versatile compact with good image quality for family snap shoots. The M9 is ‘good enough’ with better image quality and FF for my RF glass. I’d love a Monochrom and its image quality would put me in that ‘film standard’ range, more than ‘good enough’, but the question now is more about can I afford another ‘good enough’ camera ;-?

I am very satisfied with my Ricoh GR, everything about it is 'good enough' maybe even better, the first digital that has actually exceeded that ‘good enough’.

Maybe at some point digital will top out, but for now I seem to still have a sliding ‘good enough’ scale.

 

[TXForester]

That's a little ad hominem for my tastes, you're saying that if someone disagrees with you, then it's because they're more into gear than photography.

No. What I'm saying is that quality of gear has its place, but I think some people make the mistake of denigrating a good photo because there is too much noise/grain, not enough DR in the sensor or the lens isn't sharp enough for them.

 

[NickTrop]

Tessars - the ubiquitous 35/2.8's on point-n-shooters from the 80's/90's.

Generally they won't win the MTF race? But I do often like how these simple lenses render. Something about them.

 

[thegman]

No. What I'm saying is that quality of gear has its place, but I think some people make the mistake of denigrating a good photo because there is too much noise/grain, not enough DR in the sensor or the lens isn't sharp enough for them.

I agree to a point, but why must it be a mistake? I like large, printed landscape photos, I like the feeling of being in a particular place. Large prints can help with that. At the same time, noise/grain, purple fringing, camera shake/blur, too much or too little dynamic range can detract from that.

For many types of photography, getting the 'craft' side of photography right can help a lot, for me anyway. If I want to 'feel like I'm there', then I need a reasonably close approximation to reality.

A lot of photos don't need that close approximation to reality, or care/attention with regard to getting technical quality, but many do.

A case in point would be a 4x5 photo I took of the 12 Apostles in Victoria, Australia. My partner took pretty much the same photo with her iPhone. On the screen, the photo was great, perhaps better composed than my one. But the technology used to make it simply didn't permit the large prints that I like. Even scaled up a little bit, it's all pixels and noise.

 

[TXForester]

I like large, printed landscape photos, I like the feeling of being in a particular place. Large prints can help with that.

And that 4x5 negative is right for that.

But let's say a person captured a candid of a tender moment. Maybe a mom enjoying her child discovering a butterfly. And it's a nice composition with nice light, but it was shot with an Olympus RC and Fuji Superia. In my opinion it would be wrong to say "That would be a nice photo if you had used a Canon 5D III with a L lens." Or maybe "Too bad you didn't have a good camera."

This is what I mean by a "mistake" of putting gear quality before the art.