Is Image Quality really important?

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe splatter paint on a big sheet of glass on the ground. Has that been done before? No?, do it make a buck.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Richard, try it. See if it's that easy. Get back to us. :-)</p>

<p>Photographs and art integrate technique with content and form. It is in that integration that expression and some sort of communication happens. Image quality is used differently and thought of differently by different photographers. Much of technique and "image quality" has to be viewed both individually and with a historical perspective.</p>

<p>Using refined technique can enhance one photo as much as undermining refined technique can enhance another one.</p>

<p>For me the question of whether image quality is important if fairly easy, do I have photos where I would like them more if the image quality was higher? For me the answer is sure, I have lots of photos where better image quality would greatly improve the photo, less motion blur, less noise/grain, sharper image etc. <br /> <br /> Now I am an getting the best out of my camera, I have lots of light and a stable camera, then I would say that very few of these image would improve much with better image quality. <br /><br /> But for me the question of image quality is most important when the conditions for shooting are not idea.</p>

<p>yes and no:<br>

yes: if the content of the image is not particularly newsworthy - thus still life, portraits of regular folks and non-regular folks too, a dramatic close-up, an image of an oft-photographed monument etc. here, the image quality is absolutely crucial<br>

no: if the event/person being photographed is newsworthy - for example, princess diana leaving her hotel just before the fatal crash - it's best to have even a very bad IQ rather than fiddling with aperture/shutter speed etc. and getting no image at all.<br>

if the content of the image itself is crucial, IQ takes second place: if the content is available to anybody, IQ assumes more importance.<br>

or, as i see it!</p>

<p>Richard, while we all know "artists" are sometimes driven to make a name for themselves, I don't think that necessarily takes away from their work.</p>

<p>I'm thinking of Salvador Dali. The painterly "quality" of his work was extraordinary, and his motives involved a tremendous amount of self glorification. I wonder if he would have accomplished a lot more if he didn't chase fame? The fact that few know about his conceptual, non-painted work may have to do with self glorification.</p>

<p>When I'm negative about some bigwig's work (eg Cindy Sherman, Mapplethorpe), or encounter someone else's negative response, it's draining....even though the negative responses may be justified in some way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any idiot can splatter paint on a canvas on the ground</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Cynical ignorance about artists being nothing more than seekers of money, fame and new "gimmicks" is irksome to me. The many responders who use the "I don't understand it so it can't be any good" reasoning, not only for this topic but consistently, should save their remarks for the guys down at the tap room and quit insulting more thoughtful people here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Cynical ignorance about artists being nothing more than seekers of money, fame and new "gimmicks" is irksome to me. The many responders who use the "I don't understand it so it can't be any good" reasoning, not only for this topic but consistently, should save their remarks for the guys down at the tap room and quit insulting more thoughtful people here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said, Alan. Francesca Woodman, Adam Fuss, Igor Posner, Michael Ackerman, Man Ray and many others...something offered in their work that goes beyond the "Golden Mean, Tack Sharp Photo Club" aesthetic. </p>

<p>I like splatter. Usually better if it's blood. I like Cindy Sherman. I like Mapplethorpe. I like Diamanda Galas too, sonic splatter. </p>

Alan,

 

Pollack's stuff is abstract. It has no meaning.

What is there to be thoughtful about?

 

Care to share your 'understanding' of it.

<p>Richard, a viewer doesn't have to impose meaning on something (an abstract, for example) to respond to it thoughtfully. Responding thoughtfully would be considering its place in art history, talking about what and how it makes you feel, discussing it as an intentional process even in its randomness, allowing for the possibility that Pollock <em>considered</em> what he was doing and did it as an <em>exploration</em>, or even as a a matter of freeing himself from something and not as a matter of gimmickry. One doesn't have to find meaning IN the picture in order to thoughtfully approach it or talk about it.</p>

<p>Google "Action Jackson" !</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Richard Sperry: "Pollack's stuff is abstract. It has no meaning. What is there to be thoughtful about? Care to share your 'understanding' of it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A fair and valid question. I am not an art historian or expert, but rather than sneer (and, lord yes, I have done my fair share of sneering -- and continue to do so below, albeit in a different direction) one can investigate on one's own via books and the internet. But I'd prefer to keep the discussion related to photography, not painting. There's no dearth of problematic or challenging photographs to be considered:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.phhfineart.com/articles/article%20images/fuss1.jpg">http://www.phhfineart.com/articles/article%20images/fuss1.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcdyoiLFSa1qbqfy2o1_500.jpg">http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcdyoiLFSa1qbqfy2o1_500.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_grKYzvbFcBU/SrtgPY9saRI/AAAAAAAACO4/QO_Fn7bLNag/s400/francescawoodman3.jpg">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_grKYzvbFcBU/SrtgPY9saRI/AAAAAAAACO4/QO_Fn7bLNag/s400/francescawoodman3.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.oxfordartonline.com/public/media/F021157.jpg">http://www.oxfordartonline.com/public/media/F021157.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.laurentpernot.net/Textes/MAITRISE2_fichiers/image002.jpg">http://www.laurentpernot.net/Textes/MAITRISE2_fichiers/image002.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.fandor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/william-eggleston18.jpeg">http://www.fandor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/william-eggleston18.jpeg</a></p>

<p>(To paraphrase a tongue-in-cheek "critique" I once contributed to one of PNet member Jack McRitchie's photographs:)</p>

<p>These are all careless, pointless snapshots or meaningless captures of random photons. I should walk past these photographs without looking at them, without wasting any effort on trying to understand them, or to understand why some people find value and significance in them. I'm on my way to more important, urgent, engaging things. Why, then do these photographers and their admirers bother me -- us -- with their images? There are glorious desert vistas with outsized moons to be looked at. Elegant, carefully crafted and beautifully colored high dynamic range vistas of Venetian canals at sunset to be admired. Painstaking emulations of Ansel Adams style landscapes requiring luminance range value analysis and admiration. Draganized portraits of craggy and elderly Turkish/Asian/Eastern European men with 3 day stubble and cigarettes dangling from their mouths to be oohed and aaahed and 7/7'ed over. To say nothing of the countless legions of painfully beautiful nude women with satin flesh, posing in a swirling variety of contorted and provocative poses. With all of this eye candy to occupy my time, why should I bother trying to understand these photographic con artists? </p>

 

<p> Michael Ging took the words right out of my mouth!</p>

Steve G - yours is my nominee for witty post of the month. Well done!

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>Thanks for posting. Gave me a chance to check out your site, I love your portfolio(I have only looked at the California stuff so far). Inspired me to get off my lazy can, drive out to SF, and take some pics of the bridge. Which I have been meaning to for several months.</p>

<p>I tell you what, it is dark up there on those bluffs at the battery. It was wet tonight, exactly what I wanted, drizzly with not a lot of wind. Even though it was late, dark and wet there were several couples walking around the concrete bunkers up there. A white small suv pulled in after I did; by the time I got finished shooting a roll, when I got back the windows of the suv were all steamed up. I figured out quickly that was the place young locals go to swap body fluids.</p>

<p>I would like to get some shots of that huge Martinez refinery. But I could not scout any good vantage places tonight. I will get some night shots of San Quentin next trip. I will also go back and get some night shots of the battery itself, but I want someone with me to watch my back.</p>

<p>Anyway,<br /> Who wants to compare this POS...<br /> http://www.fandor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/william-eggleston18.jpeg<br /> To anything you have posted on your site? This for example...<br /> http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Travel/California-San-Francisco/13049750_q9F5N#1186377574_N4tsk-XL-LB<br /> There is no comparison. Your stuff is immensely superior. In content and in quality.</p>

<p>Richard, boy oh boy, you sure kept that one safe. Unwilling or unable to put up one of your photos, you ask us instead to compare Dan's work to Eggleston's. That's mighty brave of you!</p>

<p>I don't critique the work of PN associates who haven't asked for it.</p>

<p>Your not liking Eggleston's work is a matter of your taste . . . to which you are, of course, entitled. Your calling it a piece of sh*t is a matter of ignorance and <em>hubris</em> combined.</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Your stuff is better too.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/6639853</p>

<p>I really like that one.</p>

<p>What do you like about the Eggleston pic? Enlighten me. Help me shed my ignorance and hubris. I have sincerely removed my sarcastic jabs at this point. I would like to know the importance and value of this pic.</p>

<p>Ps, another member emailed me requesting images. I sent him a few. If you do the same, I will send you some photos to crit. Email me a mailing address and I will send you some prints, if you like.</p>

<p>Richard, we discussed the Eggleston photo at length in a Philosophy thread a while back. I wish I could remember which thread. </p>

<p>For me, the perspective, looking up at the ceiling, almost makes my neck feel a strain. The incompleteness, seeing just the tops of the pictures, has a suggestiveness to it. The color is not hyped. It's as found, yet it's strong, especially the way the white wires play against the burnt red ceiling. There's a feeling of abstraction, that geometry and juxtaposition is as important as subject matter and yet, the mundaneness of the subject matter has a pull . . . and a push away. I experience tension (something I'm drawn to in photos) between feeling ambivalent to the scene and yet compelled by it, compelled by the "why." The photo has a lack of pretense, a lack of polish that is considered. It has a kind of rawness of vision . . . "this is what I see and how I see it" as opposed to an idealized homage to "beauty."</p>

<p>It is also helpful to look at the Eggleston (as with most photographers) in the context of his<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=eggleston+photos&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=c0DqTeHvDsm_gQe15r3hCQ&ved=0CBoQsAQ&biw=1919&bih=1080"> body of work</a>, especially if understanding what he's doing is a goal. You can start to see his unique yet unglitzy color palette emerging, as well as the sparks (both literal and figurative) he often finds in the everyday confines of his experienced world. The "beauty" of the photographs will start to emerge, undistracted by the so-called beauty of others' subject matter. We like to quote platitudes like "beauty is only skin deep" but do we quote them hollowly? Can we find something of value in Plain Jane? Maybe Eggleston has. But it might require the viewer to shift his expectations.</p>

<p>In an Elliott Erwitt show I just saw at the International Center of Photography in NY, one of the exhibition plaques talked about Erwitt's uncanny ability to organize a world (or part of one) inside the frame. I think Eggleston does that extremely well and very personally also. That often means not presenting the whole picture and not slapping you in the face with significance. He rather leaves a lot up to the viewer. Eggleston seems to have glimpses rather than grand visions.</p>

Fred,

 

Fair enough. I will retract my previous comment regarding Eggleston. I will research him further. Thank you.

<p>On the matter of Eggleston, fwiw, this is one of my favorites:<br>

<a href="http://williamyan.com/storage/william_eggleston_tricycle.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1262663890039">http://williamyan.com/storage/william_eggleston_tricycle.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1262663890039</a></p>

<p>I think Richard's questioning of Eggleston, or any other "famous" photographer, is important. While it is unhealthy to dismiss work as "crap" merely because we don't understand it, it's equally unhealthy to accept unquestioningly the judgements of others.</p>

<p>In reading Fred's comments on Eggleston (the ceiling photo), I found myself playing devil's advocate. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> "The color is not hyped. It's as found, yet it's strong, especially the way the white wires play against the burnt red ceiling. There's a feeling of abstraction, that geometry and juxtaposition is as important as subject matter and yet, the mundaneness of the subject matter has a pull..." </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I might agree with Fred, but why? Or more to the point, why Eggleston and not a similar photo by Fred, or Richard, or me? "Body of work" is a good point, Fred. But I think there's another aspect one can look at when considering why some images (that many might pass by in they were posted by an unknown on PNet) are highly regarded. Historical significance and lasting, or universal, significance. An extreme example of this would be Niepce's " View from the Window at Le Gras":<br>

<a href="http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/014/cache/niepce-first-photo_1459_990x742.jpg">http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/014/cache/niepce-first-photo_1459_990x742.jpg</a></p>

<p>It is well known, but more so because it is afforded "first known photograph" status than because it exhibits great aesthetic qualities. You can then, if you want, pose the question, in relation to other highly regarded photographs from the past: "Is this still a great and revolutionary photo, or is it only because it was among the first of its kind that we still hold it in high esteem?" </p>

<p>Just a thought....</p>

 

<p>Great points, Steve.</p>

<p>Historical context is so important when discussing a lot of these things.</p>

<p>Just to add -- and to see your devil's advocate and raise you one -- I've seen a lot of Eggleston wannabees that don't quite cut it. He does have a certain something that I, for instance, when I've tried my hand at it, don't (at least not yet). One of his strong suits is that he makes it look easy, but it isn't all that easy. It's not just that he was the first, it is that he is the real thing. Imitators often don't quite put themselves into it. They imitate style, but often don't accomplish the depth of vision that the originator had because the originator was driven to do it from inside. The <em>discovery</em> can make a big difference in the results. The imitator may often be driven to do it because it's been done and approved (more from the outside). The imitator may come to discover things for himself in the process and that usually shows as well, and it makes for better photos . . . usually. None of this, of course, is universally true.</p>

<p>Fred --<br>

Quick clarification: I did not mean to put Eggleston in the "only historically significant" category. Not sure that was clear.</p>

<p>I really like your notion of <em>discovery </em>and<em> coming from the inside </em>versus an imposed imitation coming from the outside.<em> </em>I had not previously thought of looking at someone's work that way...whether considering their style ("look'), or their possible status as a groundbreaker. </p>