ferider
Mentor
And that's wrong, IMO.
A cook's output is judged not only by recipe and taste, but also by presentation (originality and quality). If he prepares the best meal possible and the serving is messy, more likely than not he will disgust his customer. As a photographer, your work will be judged similarly, by the majority of viewers.
I myself, when looking at other peoples photos and editing my own, only accept lack of technical quality when its either (a) part of the picture core, or (b) when there was no other choice, i.e., the picture is an obvious compromise.
Of course, if you don't care about viewers, that's another story.
Roland.
PS: and I'm not talking about brands or anything money related. But about image quality.
A cook's output is judged not only by recipe and taste, but also by presentation (originality and quality). If he prepares the best meal possible and the serving is messy, more likely than not he will disgust his customer. As a photographer, your work will be judged similarly, by the majority of viewers.
I myself, when looking at other peoples photos and editing my own, only accept lack of technical quality when its either (a) part of the picture core, or (b) when there was no other choice, i.e., the picture is an obvious compromise.
Of course, if you don't care about viewers, that's another story.
Roland.
PS: and I'm not talking about brands or anything money related. But about image quality.
Last edited:
Morca007
Matt
Image 'quality' should not be conflated with image fidelity, or even the accuracy of reproduction.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Juan: You and I are sitting on the same side of the table. Or in common English, I agree 100%.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
For example, the tenth image on The Americans after the very famous bus image, shows a little religious man with the "Awake" message... That image has an IQ that's clearly below most of the rest of the book: what I feel is that Frank didn't care about it, nor about finding elsewhere another little religious man and getting a better image from a technical point of view... I guess there are two reasons: one is that the image speaks clearly anyway. The other one is that his feelings "happened" with that man... At least that's what I feel with my images... And for sure between the thousands images he had, he had thousands of them that were interesting AND of higher IQ... But he picked that one... I think he knew that the image, if shot again, more in the whole frame, less cropped, and even with the same man and place, but just with better IQ, would express just the same... Not better in ANY way... All I say is that most of our images are image quality wise as to speak, and that when we care about IQ is because we need better photographs, instead of better gear...
Cheers...
Juan
Cheers...
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Bob,
Great! On 2009 I was about to go to live in Florida, and I remember a lot a thread about one day you and Al met a woman... I really wanted to meet you both there and talk about rangefinders, as I had never used them... If the next year I go there, I'll be glad to contact you, and talk with you about photography, and your experiences in Cuba...
Cheers,
Juan
ferider
Mentor
I agree.
It does raise the following questions, however:
- if Frank would have had a chance to catch the same moment with better "quality", time permitting, had he returned ? Have you ever returned to technically improve on a photo ?
- Isn't this example very specific to Frank's genre ? Does all "non-commercial" photography fall in that genre, just because it's your personal favorite ?
- And before most, on a gear centric forum, owning several thousand dollars of top-end gear, Juan, what do you communicate by claiming you don't really need any of it to take one of your good images ?
Roland.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
1- Apart from architecture paid work that can require different sun positions or kinds of light, I never repeat shots.
2- I think no matter the genre this applies to most photography that's not commercial. And I don't talk about Frank because he's my favorite: my favorite is Atget... The same can be said about some of Cartier-Bresson's images... I don't pretend less IQ makes an image better: just that there are great images with less than optimal IQ... And I don't mean all great quality a CV lens can give compared to a practically identical Leica lens... I mean real low IQ images can be masterpieces, not just good, if they have content.
3- Exactly: that's what I am sharing... I cared a lot about equipment 15 years ago when I paid big money for Hasselblad gear. Some time after that, I felt Nikon SLRs were enough... And a couple of years ago I have bought three CV RFs, three CV lenses, one old, cheap pre-aspherical Leica lens, an XA and a zoom compact... Less and less worried about brand and top IQ... More and more worried about the instant and the feelings involved...
Cheers,
Juan
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Juan: I went back to look at the image you referred to. I went through the book as my edition has a different image order than yours.
I never thought about the lack of image quality in this one until you pointed it out. Yes, the IQ is not great but it seems to make no difference. This photo is just another one of many great ones.
It is a great example of why IQ really is not overly critical if the content of the image is good.
charjohncarter
Mentor
And Juan, too go along with Bob: this is by Atget:
I hardly think that superior equipment could have made this better. Besides we also have the format debate, is 35mm too small and poor 4x5 lenses better? It is a argument (polemica) that could go on forever.
I hardly think that superior equipment could have made this better. Besides we also have the format debate, is 35mm too small and poor 4x5 lenses better? It is a argument (polemica) that could go on forever.
Paul_C
Established
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thanks everyone for the comments!
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
emraphoto
Mentor
that about covers me...
'mmm, nice photo'.
or not.
'mmm, nice photo'.
or not.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Roland, I just saw that on a previous message, when you said favorite of mine, you weren't referring to Frank but to street shooting with that style... Sorry for reading too fast...
Even if smaller or finer details can in some precise shots help the viewer see more things, or important ones even, my honest opinion is that photography, no matter the genre, much more than the trees is about the forest... Even considering landscape and architecture photography...
Of course this is just a personal opinion... But you are very right: this poll was imagined and related especially to street shooting: thanks for your point!
Cheers,
Juan
Even if smaller or finer details can in some precise shots help the viewer see more things, or important ones even, my honest opinion is that photography, no matter the genre, much more than the trees is about the forest... Even considering landscape and architecture photography...
Of course this is just a personal opinion... But you are very right: this poll was imagined and related especially to street shooting: thanks for your point!
Cheers,
Juan
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Maybe you should have a look through my Flickrstream... the devices used to make those images vary from an iPhone to Nikkor and Voigtlander... phonecam to medium-format... a noisy minuscule digital sensor to 120 Efke R25... check the tags... all the pertinent equipment information is there to let you decide what impact it made in the production a quality image.
Of course... maybe I do not have any quality images!
Of course... maybe I do not have any quality images!
kossi008
Photon Counter
Well, I'm not voting, as I find both positions too extreme. So put me down in the "depends" section... 
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Yes, that happens...
The only time I have charged 2000 euros for a quick and easy session was for a group of food images... I had told the restaurant owner a price for several dishes on 4x5... I had to bring my lights there to shoot carefully and slowly as every dish was just prepared by the cook... I had sent the owner a hi res scan of a velvia 35mm image because the owner couldn't believe a "common roll" could be very sharp... Just before I came out from home with the lights he called me and told me: "I'll trust you... I saw that image on my screen and it's very detailed... Let's do it in 35mm (!) because if you give me the original slides I can project them too when I travel for business..." I said OK, went there, used the same lighting for the near 25 shots, it all took one hour, and used a single Velvia50 roll... He was amazed... After paying me on the next week the 2000 we had talked about, he told me he needed some shots of the special glasses he used and a few details inside his restaurant, and I offered him to do it without charging more for that... He was a very kind man and insisted and paid me 1000 more the next week after the new shots... In the end he told me the previous photographer was a bad guy, who always refused to give him any original (not even digital) and who always was in charge of the printing process too, so the owner was his slave in a way, and now the owner was feeling free at last...
Unfortunately, I haven't been that lucky since...
Cheers,
Juan
Dear Juan,
What a lovely story! It shows how well things can go when both parties are honest and have good intentions.
To return to the main premise of the thread, it's very seldom indeed that an image is harmed by too much quality, so I just can't see the logic of using junk gear, outdated materials and second-rate chemicals unless it's to save money. That's fine - we've all done it - but then to be 'holier than thou' about it, as if there were some inherent merit in not using the best equipment and materials you can, strikes me as very odd indeed.
Then again, many people get really pissy as soon as money as mentioned. Some refuse to admit there's anything they can't afford: "I could afford it if I wanted it." My own view is that if I'm serious about something, I want the best tools I can afford (and 'can afford' is important, as it means giving up other things in order to afford the good tools).
As I said in an earlier post, 'best tools' is 'what I'm happiest with'. I've tried fixed-lens rangefinders, and SLRs, and TLRs, and indeed most kinds of cameras there are, and I like Leicas best. Sure, I could use Bessas or ZIs instead, but I like the Leicas more, and I get a bit annoyed with people who try to tell me that I shouldn't, or that I'm a snob, or that I'm wrong. It's like telling me I should prefer McDo to a veal chop.
If someone doesn't care about something - as I don't care about new furniture, for example - that's one thing. If they can't afford something - as I can't afford Lobb boots, or a Bristol 402 - that's another. But trying to pretend that their choices, whether forced or not, are superior to mine, is not really very defensible. We all do what we can with what we've got, and set our own priorities.
Again as I said in an earlier post, of course there are pictures that rely on 'faults', but most of the time, you shouldn't notice image quality, and often the easiest way to ensure that is to make sure that image quality is as high as possible. Not perfect (if that means anything) but as high as possible. A great picture transcends poor image quality, but a so-so picture generally needs good image quality to succeed.
Of course we can all fantasize about taking great pictures all the time, but that's all it is: a fantasy. There are, however, an awful lot of fantasists around, including some who seem to take no pictures at all, or next to none, never mind great pictures.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Mentor
Eventually, if you spend years really working at photography, and with the image quality of even consumer digital slrs these days, for example, technical quality simply becomes a given. After 50 years doing this every day, most of us who've been in the game that long (and are still alive) can produce technically good photos at the drop of a hat. But, that's about being a good technician. And I believe it should be the baseline every photographer aspires to. The next step, creativity, is the difficult part.
The simple answer is, I think technical quality is important. And should be a given. But without creativity, it's kind of sterile.
The simple answer is, I think technical quality is important. And should be a given. But without creativity, it's kind of sterile.
tlitody
Well-known
I agree 100%. There is no excuse for sloppy work. But the question was about whether its important to have the best quality equipment. You can employ good technique with any equipment so it comes down to whether the best quality equipment matters. Sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Pico
-
Because the middle-ground is excluded, I won't be answering the poll but will offer a comment - lens _characteristics_ are important to me. Sharpness is over-rated.
tstermitz
Well-known
Here's a thought:
How easy would it be to create a superior photo while intentionally using poor quality (however you want to define that)? Could you execute that Frank photo on purpose?
Grain? Focus? Flare? Sunspots? Vignetting? Distortion?
How easy would it be to create a superior photo while intentionally using poor quality (however you want to define that)? Could you execute that Frank photo on purpose?
Grain? Focus? Flare? Sunspots? Vignetting? Distortion?