Is Image Quality really important?

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you saying that you believe Hido's photos, apparently shot through a wet windshield, contain image quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm saying that it doesn't contain lack of image quality. What would image quality be then, a clean spotless windshield ? The wet windshield is what the scene looked like viewed through that windshield and what its photographic quality is, whether it's being shot with a Hasselblad or a Holga. In fact, the Hasselblad's better "objective image quality" will render it even more as <em>shot through a wet windshield</em>.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Let's be clear......<strong>all photographs have Image Quality</strong>.....It can be good, bad, poor, excellent, evocative....etc., BUT....If you can SEE the darn thing, then it HAS image quality!</p>

[luis_g]

<p>This is almost funny....a lot like the tower of Babel. Isn't it obvious that image quality does not constitute what people value in photographs? Yes, I agree one needs enough to be a viable vehicle for the image, but by itself, it is painfully boring. More is required. Obviously, a lot of people here haven't a clue as to what that is. I would suggest what Alan Z. said about obtaining a little art education, or keep on ranting and raving.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>lol, Luis.......I do agree with you....:)</p>

[richardsperry]

Robert,

 

I don't think it is clear.

If I shoot a focused photo with a good lens.

Then I sandpaper the front element and take the same shot.

You may say that they both have image quality, but they don't.

 

One quality is less than the other.

If to you they both, philosophically, have the same value... There really is no discussion, is there.

 

Luis G,

 

Wouldn't a major portion of "art ed" be listening to what a lot of other people(instructors) think of art. Most probably

instilling other people's opinions of what has value and what does not? Maybe this is exactly the source of where

these common or shared opinions originate in the first place. I think you're on to something there. Thank you for that

insight.

[bobcossar]

<p>Richard.....try to follow this......They DO both have image quality.....but <strong>different image quality.</strong><br>

Like it or not, the photograph one creates HAS image quality. Either by <strong>design</strong>.......or by utter <strong>indifference, </strong>or <strong>incompetence </strong>they both do have IQ......and there's no way I ever suggested that they <em>"philosophically, have the same value".......</em>whatever that even means<em>.....</em></p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>They both have differnent image qualities.</p>

[richardsperry]

Nm

[randrew1]

<p>Of course image quality is important, but image quality includes all aspects of the image. This includes not only the grain, sharpness, and color reproduction, but also the lighting, subject matter and the composition. The lighting, composition, and subject matter probably count more. I know of a group that established an image quality rating scale. Subjects are given a stack of prints and asked to place them on a board in order of quality. On the average, this scale is repeatable. A given print will be placed in about the same place by different groups. One thing that was clear in these ratings--the prints that were rated highest all benefited from professional management of the subject matter, lighting, and composition. Some other things that might influence the desirability of the image are the mounting, framing, the presentation, the name of the photographer, and whether it is signed.</p>

<p>In determining the price of a print at an art auction, the name of the photographer may be more important than the comprehensive image quality. As for me, I have an Ansel Adams print hanging on the wall at home not because it is initialed by the photographer, but because I like the image. </p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course image quality is important, but image quality includes all aspects of the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>More cow bell!</em><br>

If this "test" is all you have to bring to the critique of pictures one has to wonder how to evaluate other art. I'm guessing that paintings or sculpture that looks more "real." How about game stamp art? I sense the usual resentment of intellectualism as well as conflation of auction price economics with merit in some responders: It's all the gate-keepers and scammers!"</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>When I talk about image quality, I'm usually thinking more of technique and less of narrative, content, emotion, or story. I do, however, think that image quality can greatly affect narrative, content, emotion, and story. Loosely speaking, image quality may have to do with the parts: color control, exposure, texture, sharpness, bokeh, etc. For me, the whole can be greater than the sum of those parts. So there is something beyond image quality that matters to me when looking at a photo.</p>

<p>A critique or "ranking" of photos that limits itself to lighting, composition, sharpness, etc. might be a start but could also easily miss the point.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sorry, double post.</p>

[stp]

<p>After reading through the comments, I think Michael Chang said it best right at the beginning: IQ is an element, and it will be an important element in some photos but not in others; it depends on the nature/subject of the photograph.</p>

[jtk]

<p><br />Richard Sperry: Do you make prints? Do you actually talk with the people who make your prints or do you simply accept what they send you? Do you care about prints? </p>

<p>Please share some of your work...to put your notions of "quality" into perspective. </p>

<p>I don't know how anyone can claim a Hasselblad is higher quality than Holga unless they consider cameras to be nothing more than commercial objects, rather than as tools that suit certain kinds of images. </p>

<p>If we were to think of them as photographic tools, Hasselblads would be inferior to Holgas for a certain kind of imagery. Or do we think Holga photography (and large format shot with Petzval lenses) is inherently low quality photography? </p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>I think Richard and many others are confusing "quality" with some vague, theological sort of abstract merit. </p>

<p>And no, I don't think "quality" is subjective, I think instead it means nothing whatsoever unless it is used in some kind of detailed, defining context. In other words, careless use of the term "quality" is definitively poor "quality" writing. </p>

<p>People who work with film/video/TV/graphic design/photography as vehicles for communication (as in advertising or entertainment) typically talk about "production values" rather than "quality," which is probably more commonly part of a used car salesman's lexicon because, after all, it specifically suggests over-priced in that context. </p>

[richardsperry]

John Kelly,

 

I print my own bw prints. From negatives I develop. To answer your question.

 

It's not theological, or abstract.

And I am certainly not a relativist.

 

Example:

I have two holgas. One has a plastic lens. One with a glass lens. The 120N has the single aperture. And no vignetting. But focus is poorer than the 120GN. The 120GN has relatively better focusing, it is

clearer, but vignettes, and it has the two operational apertures. Neither have any light leaks(out of box). I am able to

make distinctions between the two cameras, and am able to observe and state that the image quality of the 120GN is

better, superior to the 120N.

 

A relativist might say that they both have equal image quality(produce images of equal quality). They are just different, one is not allowed to say one is superior to the other; because everything is relative.

[richardsperry]

John,

 

Just an aside to answer your challenge.

I have a crappy scanner, and scans of my prints are decidedly low in quality. I've tried. I'm not inclined to buy a new

scanner to post photos here. Besides, how could you even tell if the print is glossy or matte, RC or fiber. Those are

qualities I choose for the prints I make.

 

A good majority of my digital images are naked women, or scantily clad women. And really they have no place on a

forum like this one. And the remainder of digital are merely snap shots of parties, graduations, and stuff, also not

really appropriate for posting here.

 

Additionally, one needs to have Java installed on the comp to upload photos. I don't like Java on my machines, and can't upload from iPhone.

 

PayPal me a few bucks to cover shipping, and I'll send a couple prints out to you for you to look at if you like.

[alan_zinn]

<p><br />Quit picking on my Holga, sob, sob, sob! Here's how it works: A Holga in skilled hands, with a light <em>character </em>leak, and a poor, I mean, a unique lens, makes a particular kind of picture that suggests rudimentary properties of the photographic idea. Some people - quite a lot it seems - like that quality. An 11 x 14 Deardorff, in the right hands, makes a particular quality of picture… well you know the rest. But wait! Joy of joys, one can attain the Holga magic from a 11 x 14 negative using a PS Holga plugin!</p><div></div>

[jtk]

<p>Richard, sorry about your scanner situation...fwiw very cheap flatbed scanners (eg long discontinued Epson 3200) easily do amazingly good scans from fine prints (not necessarily from film).</p>

<p>I agree 100% that an online rendition can't tell us much about a print, but it certainly can tell us (you, me, whoever) something about image aspirations and accomplishment: is somebody's work stimulating, is it derivative etc. Perhaps an online rendition is a low "quality" sort of equivalent.</p>

<p>Mapplethorpe was mentioned earlier: I think his photography was far over-rated (but Wagstaff sure did know how to market it!). The print quality (which he didn't produce) was indeed very fine (why not..there was plenty of money to buy it). I prefer to read about our individual responses to prints, rather than rank ordering it by "quality"...especially if that means taking seriously the price at some auction or praise by some famous critic.</p>

 

[ruben_bittermann]

<p>Form vs contents. It depends.<br>

Once there was a limit about how much the image quality could be bad. It was called an acceptable picture, and it was independent of the contents. The issue was if it can be publishable in a magazine/newspaper, or not.<br>

I think there is a mutual relationship between how much the quality may suffer, and its dramatic contents. There cannot be a better example for this than Robert Cappa's famous image of the US soldiers landing in France during WW2.<br>

Anyway, these days of Photoshop, there is a very wide space to make a so so image quality picture, into something else, a styled byassed image. </p>

[richardsperry]

Rubin,

 

When looking at that photo, it appears that it is the best possible photo given the circumstances.

He has many photos, on google images at least, which are apparently high in quality, I'm not going to immediately

judge that image, or the qualities of the image, as contrived. We know that the Iwo Jima flag photo was staged, but

this one sure appears to me that there are real NAZIs in bunkers with real machine guns really shooting at him,

behind him.

 

With these other photographers, there is a repetition in the artifact of low quality, that they have chosen to rely upon.

It's as if some art or photography student thinks to him or herself(probably formed at the end of art or design school)

"What piece of the technical process can I mess up intentionally, over and over again, to be original?" "Maybe I should

use a crappy TLR with a crappy lens." "No, I can't do that, it's already been done." "I know what I'll do, I'll shoot all

my photos through a plate of glass smeared with dog poo, that's original."

 

The problem with that is that so many photographers appear to have done that, that it's not really original, is it. Except

maybe to curators or collectors. Who have a vested interest in valuing these photos, or photographers, the way that they do.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There's a history behind <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima">the photograph of the flag raising over Iwo Jima</a> that is a bit more substantive than "being staged." And its "being staged" won't change the fact that it has enormous significance. Plenty of staged photos and works of art have had great impact on the world and will continue to do so. </p>

<p>The history of photography and of art is rife with examples where technique is specifically undermined as a mode of expression. Do you think the realists would have thought much of the Impressionists' play with technique? Do you think the expressionists weren't accused of undermining traditional technical and expressive values? The lack of a sharp focus and the undermining of certain technical expectations is not always a matter of "messing something up" in order to be original. In the right hands, it is creativity at its finest and a willingness to throw tradition under the bus in order to cry out against the tried-and-true. Traditionalists will never take kindly to that. It's a reason artists often struggle and a reason art is often not recognized in its own era. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p> And its "being staged" won't change the fact that it has enormous significance. Plenty of staged photos and works of art have had great impact on the world and will continue to do so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. And what that Shakespeare dude said.</p>

[richardsperry]

Fred,

 

I mentioned it because I do not think that the Capa photo is staged. I have no suspicions that Capa artificially retuned

or intentionally lo-fi'ed the photo. That increases it's value to me.

 

Even before I knew that the Iwo Jima photo was staged, I thought that it was.

 

 

I have no problems with Impressionism. I love it myself. But if the majority of paintings which sold, and sold well were

Impressionist paintings, I would suspect something amiss. And quickly come to the conclusion that even if I could paint

in other genres, that to turn a buck I should adopt Impressionism.

 

Why am I spending all this money on fancy 000 camel haired brushes, the best paints I can afford, and 1500 thread

count canvases, when every notable painter(noted by critics, academics, curators and collectors) of my time uses

crappy nylon brushes, 99 cent store paints, and drop cloth canvas to paint on.

 

I can paint with crappy stuff making crappy paintings just as easily as anyone.

[richardsperry]

And I think instead of Impressionist, if we used Abstract art it would be an apt analogy.

 

Any idiot can splatter paint on a canvas on the ground. The problem is that someone already has, in order to gain

traction the next idiot who comes along wanting to sell paintings has to come up with a different gimmick.

 

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

 

Edit, previous post: retuned should be detuned.