Quality vs. Content

[hepcat]

Does this image work? Is it interesting?

Not sure what you think yourself, but for me no it's not, but I don't think it would be any more so if it was tack sharp either.

how about this one? Is it interesting? Neither image for me is grabbing at first. The first one I posted I find interesting tho for a number of reasons... first, why is there a woman dressed in '50s garb riding a bike in front of what is obviously a modern strip mall... and where is she going in such a hurry? The one posted below is, of course, a famous image by Stieglitz. And I want to be very clear that I'm not suggesting that my image is the equal of anything Stieglitz has ever done, but the images have many of the same features, set in a city, illustrating a mode of transportation, and motion blur. In today's world most of us wouldn't look twice at it if I'd taken it. And yet, it poses similar questions...

My point is that in both of these images the technical quality of the image, particularly in light of the clinical standards some of us expect to see today, isn't centrally important to what the image is or the feeling that it gives, or the questions that it brings to mind.

Commercially, I once made images of tractor serial numbers for a client that are technically perfect but socially useless. They're interesting from a technical perspective about the technique, lighting, and printing. They're absolutely of no art or social value other than recording a serial number photographically. I think that's the crux of the central issue here; when we view an image are we looking for the technical qualities of the image itself, or the idea or feeling that the image was created to convey? I think that if we're looking for qualities of statement in an image, the technical quality is almost irrelevant.

 

[rivercityrocker]

Nice image, I dont think the blur distracts at the image size you have posted. I also like the rendering of that specific lens, but this is what non-photographers usually dont care about.

What lens did you use?

The blur is more noticeable at a larger size of course. You can see it larger here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsp_custom_photos/10988563224/

The lens is a 50mm Summilux Pre-ASPH v.II on an M9-P

 

[rivercityrocker]

I didn't enlarge either thumnail, but only with the small view my eye went to the papers on the wall. On the other the couple had my attention. It's like the light fell nicely right between the lovers. So with these two I prefer the right hand picture because it grabs my eye/interest, not because of it being "tack sharp" or not. Then I shoot film now don't I.

Good eye. The reason for that is because I liked the blurry image more and spent more time processing it because that was the one I was going to email to the couple. I burned in the papers on the wall for the exact reason you pointed out. Both images were shot at the same exposure.

By coincidence the man is a wedding photographer

 

[rivercityrocker]

I would assume this is why the 'greats' talk less about gear and more about vision, content and/or subject. Though I still bet theres technical/gear related discussions between them when theres an issue of interest.

Not saying that I'm a "great", but the the first time I met Eli Reed just about the only thing we talked about was our mutual like for the Voigtlander 21mm Color-Skopar. It's a lens he shoots with almost exclusively. But, we where at a camera store at the time and not at an art gallery.

 

[rivercityrocker]

So many of these discussions seem to veer towards suggesting one or the other. Surely anyone wanting to take 'quality' images will have the technical side down pat allowing the photographers attention to be on the potential image. The two should go together and when a situation develops that means the technical side is slightly lost then the individual image will decide whether people see merit in it.

I would assume this is why the 'greats' talk less about gear and more about vision, content and/or subject. Though I still bet theres technical/gear related discussions between them when theres an issue of interest.

OP, you preseme a fee things iI don't agree with:

1) blurry = low quality. Why? blur is often created intentionally to enhanche an image. Some photographers go as far as adding blur in in post production to achieve a certain effect.

2) The old greats cared more about content than quality. well, maybe. Maybe they used the best equipment that suited their needs and was available to them. Who knows whether they would use FLE multi-couated lenses if those guys were starting photography now. At the very least, I don't think they went out of their way to create lo-fi images.

1. You're presuming that I'm speaking about blur in an absolute sense. I know that blur is intentionally used to create effect. I used it for years shooting motorsports. What I'm referring to is accidental blur. Like the example I posted. I was shooting at 1/30 because they weren't moving, but when I saw her move in for the kiss 1/30 wasn't enough to freeze motion. I didn't capture blur on purpose. Similarly, I could have taken the shot when they were actually kissing and it would have been sharp, but that wasn't the "decisive moment" that I saw.

2. You actually prove my point with your last sentence:At the very least, I don't think they went out of their way to create lo-fi images. Of course they didn't, but they didn't scrap an image that they felt had real content because it was blurry. An example being Capa's falling soldier. Many of Gene Smiths images especially the jazz loft photos are blurry presumably due to the low light and the need to achieve an exposure that would appear on film at the expense of using a slow shutter speed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Interestingly, looking closely at many of his portraits, the focus isn't perfect. . . .

Especially when the prints are over-enlarged. There's one of Desmond Tutu with the arm of the chair in focus. Pity about the face.

Cheers,

R.

 

[shadowfox]

The higher the "quality" of the content, the less important the technical aspects of the image are.
The reverse is not true.

"Quality" here is a mixture of relevance, profoundness and beauty.
Good luck defining those three concepts 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Overall, it doesn't matter until it matters. A truly great shot can survive all sort of technical shortcomings. A dull shot (cf Neue Sachlichkeit) needs all the quality it can get. As soon as you notice the technical deficiencies before the content -- which I'm afraid I did with the Desmond Tutu portrait, because it was grotesquely over-enlarged -- then the quality matters. I was also quite shocked at the muddiness of a Rodchenko exhibition I once saw: the pictures looked better in repro than as originals, and of course I was used to seeing them in repro...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

1. You're presuming that I'm speaking about blur in an absolute sense. I know that blur is intentionally used to create effect. I used it for years shooting motorsports. What I'm referring to is accidental blur. Like the example I posted. I was shooting at 1/30 because they weren't moving, but when I saw her move in for the kiss 1/30 wasn't enough to freeze motion. I didn't capture blur on purpose. Similarly, I could have taken the shot when they were actually kissing and it would have been sharp, but that wasn't the "decisive moment" that I saw.

2. You actually prove my point with your last sentence:At the very least, I don't think they went out of their way to create lo-fi images. Of course they didn't, but they didn't scrap an image that they felt had real content because it was blurry. An example being Capa's falling soldier. Many of Gene Smiths images especially the jazz loft photos are blurry presumably due to the low light and the need to achieve an exposure that would appear on film at the expense of using a slow shutter speed.

... where is the blur in the Falling Soldier?

PS personally I never, ever, agree with absolutes

 

[bobbyrab]

My feeling is if you have the best quality equipment available to you, you can always dial it down should you desire movement or softness, whatever it is you desire for the final image. If you have a lower quality you can't dial it up, so quality just gives you more options.

 

[regularchickens]

For many people, it's easier to achieve technical mastery than to develop a sense of style or pathos or to find compelling subject matter. Technical excellence is something money can buy, and many hobbyists have much more disposable income than time to develop their eye.

But I've had more than my fill of cityscapes, portraits of women, street scenes, moments with family/pets, and travel snaps taken with expensive gear, bleeding sharpness, and little aesthetic sense. Give me an Instagram shot taken with a keen eye and with heart and I'll be happy.

 

[jsrockit]

Let's be real here... quality and content are not mutually exclusive. Use whatever works for the photograph you want to make. As far as how people perceive it, you cannot control that. Photography's been around long enough for us to have seen examples of unsharp photos that are great and sharp photos that are great. It's all just photography. I think photography tends to get stale when one focuses on a certain technical aspect (bokeh, grain, sharpness, etc.) instead of the big picture.

 

[TXForester]

But as Chris said, best not to focus on the ears.

I agree to a point. If it is formal or semi-formal portrait, then this point is valid. But for unscripted photos, often with some action then I don't think it is that important, but it is nice when it happens. The photo above, posted at that size, is just fine because the woman leaning in for the kiss (action) is the point of the photo. It conveyes the emotion and gives the viewer and emotional connection to photo, that in this case trumps all.

 

[Sparrow]

Let's be real here... quality and content are not mutually exclusive. Use whatever works for the photograph you want to make. As far as how people perceive it, you cannot control that. Photography's been around long enough for us to have seen examples of unsharp photos that are great and sharp photos that are great. It's all just photography. I think photography tends to get stale when one focuses on a certain technical aspect (bokeh, grain, sharpness, etc.) instead of the big picture.

... quality and content not mutually exclusive, I'm shocked

 

[OurManInTangier]

For many people, it's easier to achieve technical mastery than to develop a sense of style or pathos or to find compelling subject matter. Technical excellence is something money can buy, and many hobbyists have much more disposable income than time to develop their eye.

But I've had more than my fill of cityscapes, portraits of women, street scenes, moments with family/pets, and travel snaps taken with expensive gear, bleeding sharpness, and little aesthetic sense. Give me an Instagram shot taken with a keen eye and with heart and I'll be happy.

I'd agree with that thought in general. Leaving aside 'excellence' and concentrating on basic technical competence I, personally, would hope that once this has been accomplished the photographer is able to move on to finding the subjects that they care about, the aesthetic that will become their own and improving, or at least maintaining, the keen eye.

I'd suggest that the reverse is also possible. I'm sure there must be photographers out there that started out with a passion for a subject that they needed to communicate or a just a keen eye that then determined that if they could improve their technical competence they would improve their photography and their ability to communicate their message or view.

The whole "sharpness" debate is one I find a little odd. I can't help wondering if some use the "sharpness is overrated" war cry as a bit of an excuse😱 It certainly isn't that important, the content should always come first (IMO) but lets not overlook mastering your craft completely.

To the OP, I'm not suggesting in any way a lack of craft on your part, I hope that is clear. Simply that if we have the craft and knowledge then images such as your second one are the way they are because of circumstance and not potluck.

 

[OurManInTangier]

... quality and content not mutually exclusive, I'm shocked

You're shocked...and very pretty Stewart😉

 

[TennesseJones]

True that.

My ears were metaphorical ears really.

I agree to a point. If it is formal or semi-formal portrait, then this point is valid. But for unscripted photos, often with some action then I don't think it is that important, but it is nice when it happens. The photo above, posted at that size, is just fine because the woman leaning in for the kiss (action) is the point of the photo. It conveyes the emotion and gives the viewer and emotional connection to photo, that in this case trumps all.

 

[Sparrow]

You're shocked...and very pretty Stewart😉

... why, thank ye kind sir

 

[rhl-oregon]

Heres what goes through my head at this point.

It's easy to get caught up in refining and criticizing the terms of a pro/con question; watching its test balloon deflate while the ad hoc committee redefines the terms of the question, that's a little sad...seeing someone approach the balloon with a hatpin to pop whatever helium remains, a little alarming...likewise, someone approaching with a tank of helium too big for the balloon to contain.

It's just a red balloon! Let it ascend. See how it wobbles and drifts in flight, not a paragon of controlled ascent or banking or gliding. It's not a dove or biplane or boomerang or Scud missile. Does it seem to mean more when it's in your hand, straining to pull loose? Or when it's a tiny red dot in the vast sky? Even that depends on whether your mood is about cherishing possession or absence. We get both in each breath we take--can't keep the held breath, or live without air. Though many here will have wished they could hold their breath longer to get that sharp discreet handheld 1/4s exposure of lovers in low light, and might hate to do it with a tripod and a cable release even if they could get a great moment clear and sharp from being methodical and prepared. (I'm one of those, btw, but reconsidering my priorities since I love low light and dislike bad exposures in it.)

But to the question: content matters most, and sharpness (not the same as quality, to nitpick) matters relatively less, sometimes far less--as the Steiglitz image reminds me. The Capa D-Day blur is not the same as a Duane Michals posed/staged blur, but both are compelling, and worth treating as technical lessons. I love having high iso digital to help refine my own film standards (and capabilities, flawed as they are) for what constitutes quality blur/shake/sharp.

And yes, mostly it's there or it's not--the Q/C balance in an image--and if it is not, it's easy to throw away, because no amount of rationalization will improve its failure in either aspect. Which I have learned through many failures.

 

[Bille]

The lens is a 50mm Summilux Pre-ASPH v.II on an M9-P

Excellent, thanks