Jump to content

Is Image Quality really important?


Recommended Posts

<p>Over and over again, in the more technical forums discussions always turn to Image Quality, or how important it is.</p>

<p>But more over, in the less technical forums, those which have more topics about photographers, or photography; photographers with little apparent concern for Image Quality are discussed, and admired.</p>

<p>With the only exception of the Australian wide angle photographer, virtually every other photographer discussed expresses very little technical skill, or little regard for image quality itself. They command fame and fortune, admiration even.</p>

<p>What separates these photographers is not their camera, their lenses, the quality of the images. But invariable it is the context, the subject, is the photographer living or dead(and how did he or she died), or the collection which gives the photographs and the photographer value.</p>

<p>He took photos of farmers.<br /> She took a bunch of photos of places you can't get into.<br /> She took a bunch of photos and then killed herself.<br /> He took photos of Picasso.<br /> She took street photos, and was a hoarder and a maid.<br /> He took photos of the Rolling Stones, Beatles, and other famous people in the 60s.<br /> She took photos of herself satirizing movies, and made the most expensive photograph to date.<br /> He takes other peoples' photos and draws on them with a Sharpie(and then gets sued), but gets lots of money when he doesn't get sued.</p>

<p>How on one had, photographers stress image quality. Then on the other hand, photographers with little to no inherent image quality derive fame and fortune from them despite being all around crappy; and more importantly discussion amongst other photographers? Why does everyone seem to like crappy photos, if Image Quality is really important?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Why does everyone have to agree on what makes a good photograph? If some people think it's image quality and others think it's content or whatever, so what? Whatever turns you on, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, is fine with me.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think you're answering your own question. Technical perfection per se is painfully boring. It's not about Image Quality, but Quality Images. The people you mention above aren't famous because of the subjects they photographed, or being dead. Cindy Sherman photographed herself on a tile floor with her clothes on and that picture sold for almost $4m. For a lot of people, that is impossible to grasp. The same subjects were photographed long before and after by others. It's because if the way they photographed.</p>

<p>You have a basic and deep misunderstanding about photography.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Image (technical) quality is an attribute available to photographers as part of their arsenal of tools, but unlike other attributes, it is (usually) solely dependant on the quality of gear which a photographer has little control over. </p>

<p>So, is image quality important? I would say it is, if you need it as an attribute of your image which contributes to its overall perceived (artistic) quality. If you don't need it, then no, it's not important. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It's not about Image Quality, but Quality Images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. But I was pretty shocked when I saw the batch of early digital images from a world famous photographer come in. This guy (I won't name him) is a very accomplished photographer who travels the world for his photography. Nikon had sent him a couple new D70 bodies and sent him to some islands in the Pacific to shoot with them. The contents and composition of the images were superb. The quality of the images he sent us was horrible. He had tried to make them look "Velvia-like" as he told me on the phone. He seemed baffled about how to process a digital file, so the whites were completely blown, and the shadows completely blocked up. I tried to reject them from going into the archive and out to the web, but the editor overrode my decision and they went out anyway. </p>

<p>So image quality matters!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The original post presents a logical fallacy. The suggesting, however subtle, is that by focusing out attention on technical image quality, we are sacrificing quality images. That's just not true.</p>

<p>First of all, some people are better at making quality images than others. We can all agree on that point. But the people who make great images are NOT hampered by, for instance, sharp lenses and high-resolution cameras. These technical advances won't turn a highly regarded photographer into a no-talent snap-shooter.</p>

<p>Second of all, the term "quality images" is completely subjective. A poorly composed images of a toddlers first steps would go into the recycle bin - UNLESS it's YOUR toddler. Then it's the most important photograph that you've ever taken. Why not have it be sharp and detailed and printable to eight feet wide if that's what you want to do with it. (That large print would make a heck of an embarrassing wedding gift for your toddler someday!)</p>

<p>Yes - Image Quality is important.</p>

<p>No - Image Quality does not negatively impact Quality Images unless you're a totally obsessed gearwanker, in which case there probably wasn't a whole lot of hope for your images in the first place. ;-)</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You need to use some thinking power to complete the *act of photography* -- getting a result you are happy, satisfied, or content with as the product of your work. The camera, the lens, the light, some luck, and your brain all have to work as a *team* in some manner to get those photos of empty buildings; farmers; street activity; the Rolling Stones; and so on.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dave Lee, I did not say image quality <em>doesn"t</em> matter, but that -- by itself -- is boring. People had this same exact discussion when Robert Frank's <em>Les Americains </em>came out. They saw his miniature (35mm) grainy pushed, blurry, handheld at impossibly low speeds negs as a mortal sin against the convention of the day in image quality. Instead, it redefined what we thought about those things.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>An hour ago, not many people had responded to this. At least not with the fervor that I would have expected this chestnut of a topic to elicit. That seems to have changed. Good, I was becoming concerned that this community had lost its fire.</p>

<p>I'm usually somewhere near the front of the line when it comes to disdaining those who obsess over histograms & tack sharp lenses, but, like Matt I don't think quality content and quality technique/tools are mutually exclusive. To use one of Richard's examples, Vivian Maier's images (from the brief view I've had of them) appear technically clean and accomplished. Robert Mapplethorpe's images are hardly cherished by Main St America, but they are technically elegant, and they've certainly earned a pretty penny in the art world. Irving Penn and Edward Weston were hardly slouches when it came to technical accomplishment. What they all share (and perhaps this is more to the originally intended point) is that they are admired and appreciated for their content, not their technical ability. Using a Leica M3 will not make someone the next Bresson, but using gifted eyes might. How to acquire those gifted eyes? There's the rub. No camera manufacturer in the world can offer those for sale.</p>

<p>And I think Robert Cossar seems more in agreement with Richard in his profile statement than in his post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It is the ART that matters most. All the techie stuff is just part of the path. I strongly feel that Art education will make anyone a better photographer, and I tend to sigh at how little we spend on it compared with buying all the latest "stuff"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would tend to agree with that statement, Robert.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Steve.......The techie stuff IS part of the path.....but a VERY important part. Far to many people are <em>sort'a'techies</em>......they talk the talk, but often, even usually, don't walk the walk.</p>

<p>To produce meaningful, intentional art, you simply must have mastery of the medium you want to use. Can you imagine a pianist giving a rendering of, say, Beethoven's 5th.....with out having any real piano skills?</p>

<p>It may look like something to its maker.....but, if it looks like a dogs breakfast....then that's what i'll see.....Regards, Robert</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>So, is image quality important? I would say it is, if you need it as an attribute of your image which contributes to its overall perceived (artistic) quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Michael Chang</strong> answers the question to perfection. Thanks!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The IQ of the image is PART of what the viewer experiences......be it good, bad, or indifferent. so the author's obligation is to <strong>decide</strong> what the IQ <strong>SHOULD </strong>look like and then achieve it.<br>

Anything less is just slinging hash in a pot and hoping people will like it.....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Unless we are talking in absolute term, image quality probably does not matter much most of the time. I mean...no one is breaking out their 8x10 camera to snap pics, right? Or, say, makes 20x30 family portraits with a diana/lomo. Most size prints (say 8x12) done by most lenses/cameras in most lighting conditions these days are pretty damn good. Well...to most people anyway as evident by successful photo businesses (adequate photo skill, more marketing skills). There will always be those after more IQ (technical pixel peepers) and QI (undisciplined artist type). Left brain, right brain etc...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Why does everyone seem to like crappy photos, if Image Quality is really important?</i><P>

Because "crappy" photos are more interesting than photos that are taken primarily as a technical exercise?<P>

Tomorrow, I'm shooting photos for a a regular fashion feature in a local magazine. I'll take the usual shots with my 5D2 that will have good technical quality even printed at ten times the size of the magazine's pages, but I think I'm also going to shot it with the Hipstamatic app on my iPod (yielding 720 x 720 pixel images). If they turn out well, I'll send those to the magazine instead of the big shots. Gotta have some fun . . . ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, it is easy to make crappy photos with a camera with excellent image quality. It is quite impossible to make photos from a crappy camera get decent qualities like sharpness, contrast and colour reproduction.<br>

A good tool allows more flexiblity. As other said, the want/need for tools that can deliver excellent image quality does not exclude the pursuit of quality images. A sharp lens does not replace genuine original vision, but a genuine original vision could be obstructed by a fuzzy lens.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with You Richard, most of "photographers" I know mostly talk about the gear, then about lens' quality, rarely discussing photographing, composing, new ideas... That's very strange. It's happening since everyone can afford amateur DSLR. <br /> At the same time people don't have a clue about basics, don't want to spend money for fast 50mm lens, because tweaking ISO is easier, even don't bother to stop while taking picture! And those girls who didn't bother to have small film P&S in the purse few years ago, now hauling DSLR with long and cheap zoom lens, because it's sooo cool, Holding DSLR in one hand and ice cream in the other. All they want to learn is Photoshop, without understanding the basics and using their fancy DSLR as a P&S camera. Here where I work is a lot of tourists, everyone with a camera, people from all around the world, most of them are using DSLR as described... And when they see my film camera sometimes they ask: "Wow, can You still get film for Your camera?"<br /> Please, don't ask dumb questions, open your eyes, You can get roll of film every 500m, every pharmacy store and every place with souvenirs. For the love of God: it wasn't that long ago! <br /> And for those who counting Megapickles: Resize You favorite pictures to 600x400 and see if it's still a keeper. <br /> <em> M. S.</em></p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Is image quality really important ?<br />It depends, but 99% of the time a good quality photo will beat out a crappy photo given the same subject. The thing about crappy photos(not focused, incorrect AWB, too dark, to light, strange hues, bad composition etc) is that sloppy photographers can always write them off as artistic, or creative when actually it was bad technique. On the other hand, relying too much on technique stifles creativity.<br /><br />Some photographic categories require very accurate and exceptional technique. I mean an Advertising Director is not going to buy the artistic/creativity thing, if his product is produced in a bad light.<br /><br />Creativity and technique both have their place. Creative photographers break rules and push us into other ways of seeing and doing things. However, on a professional level, quality does count. Nobody is going to complain about a picture of a flying saucer, or other rare event, that was not well focused, exposed or well composed, but for most other photographic venues especially if the image is going to be viewed often and by a large number of people, that's another story IMHO.</p>

<p>Quality photos was one of my biggest challenges while I was going to school. I had to learn how to take technique seriously since I was being graded on that aspect as well as content.</p>

<p><br />Two photographers that come to mind in this Quality vs Content thing are Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson. Both photographers had their images published extensively. Cartier was considered to be the father of photo journalism. His gritty, unmanipulated, street-syle photography, "AS-is", often shocked his contemporaries. His images were unlike the images from Adams, that were meticulously thought out both inside and outside the darkroom and were very technique and quality driven.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouter, why are people willing to pay more for Franscesca Woodman's photos than yours? For example.

 

A 16 year old with a second hand Yashica Mat with no multicoating. More flare and defocus than you can intentionally

put inside a camera(a very fuzzy lens). Horrible lighting. And little to no technical quality.

 

Why does she have more fame, or more people praising her work, than you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Image quality used to be almost taken for granted as being good to excellent. Even a basic Kodak Colorsnap 35 from 1959 offered excellent sharpness and colour from its fixed 45mm triplet lens. As we progressed into the 80's, 90's and even nowdays, slow and soft zoom lenses along with poorly processed digital images show me that perhaps things have not got that much better after all.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Image quality used to be almost taken for granted as being good to excellent.</i><P>

 

Only if you ignore the many box cameras, cheap folders, Kodak Instamatics, and other inexpensive cameras and cheap drug store processing used by the majority of amateurs. It's a very rare family that has family albums filled with images displaying high technical quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...