Roger Hicks
Mentor
Does anyone know the origin of 'Quality Threshold'?
I think I invented it about 25 years ago, in one of my books, but at this remove I'm not sure if I borrowed it from somewhere else. Anyone have any references pre-1985 or so?
And of course others may have hit upon the same idea independently. It's hardly Einsteinian.
Cheers,
R.
I think I invented it about 25 years ago, in one of my books, but at this remove I'm not sure if I borrowed it from somewhere else. Anyone have any references pre-1985 or so?
And of course others may have hit upon the same idea independently. It's hardly Einsteinian.
Cheers,
R.
yanidel
Well-known
Over the last three years I basically went from R-D1 with CV lenses to M9 with Leica and Konica lenses. Looking at my pictures, I feel that most of my progress was made composition and technique wise. Nevertheless, as I shoot almost only wide open, I do see the difference between the quality of lenses (and files), especially at F1.4. There is no contest let's say between a 35mm Lux Asph and the Nokton at 1.4. This is important to me because I like clear differences between the sharp and unsharp planes. It probably won't show on the web, but in prints of A3 size or on a large LCD screen, it will. Most people won't notice / care but I do and in the end I first shoot for myself.
More equipment quality won't make a bad shot become good, that is for sure. Yet it can make a great shot become even greater.
More equipment quality won't make a bad shot become good, that is for sure. Yet it can make a great shot become even greater.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
No... Greater never... A tiny little bit sharper? Perhaps, but almost invisible... And for sure most of the times not even that insignificance... I remember those nice Bill Pierce's words: "Don't you ever confuse sharp with good..."
Cheers,
Juan
dmr
Registered Abuser
I think I picked it up (in the context currently being discussed) from you. Either from a Shutterbug article or on the net.
I know the term is widely used in other disciplines as well and has been for some time.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Rob,
If you read option 1 you'll see: "...if an image is great."
If after seeing an image, it's great, it's because it had great content apart from conveying the subject at hand... How could it be considered great if it didn't even do such a basic thing as conveying the subject at hand?
Clearly, option 1 implies the great image has to be enough (and more) to convey the subject at hand...
Have you heard of a gear brand as bad as to be unable to convey the subject at hand? I've heard of people only...
Even real cheap cameras can convey the subject at hand, but especially if there's a great photographer behind them knowing how to shot in the precise direction and in the precise moment... That's why shots made with cheap cameras and even disposable ones earn big prizes sometimes...
Cheers,
Juan
yanidel
Well-known
I guess we all have our criterias to judge the quality of pictures and whether it helps to its greatness or not. I don't look for ultimate sharpness (what's F8 ?
) but dramatic transition from sharp to unsharp. A 60mm Hexanon at F1.4 is absolutely amazing to do that. Obviously, this is not what will make or not the greatness of a picture and 80% of times focus will be slightly off, but why not aim for the the best with the most suitable equipment available ? It for sure won't make a great picture become bad ...
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I guess we all have our criterias to judge the quality of pictures and whether it helps to its greatness or not. I don't look for ultimate sharpness (what's F8 ?
Hi yanidel,
I'll tell you about criteria away from mine: In the 6-year career on photography I cursed in the biggest photography school in Europe (near 2000 students from all over the world and only photography and history of photography taught) the out of focus zones rendering and the term bokeh just were not considered, not even once in any assignment any year by any teacher. Not my criteria...
Another thing: your images from Leica lenses are vulgar and inferior in image quality compared to those made by a Hasselblad both for sharpness and tonal range. But if after doing an image with your Leica gear you repeat it with a Hasselblad, you won't get a better image. If you worry about better image quality in your images, avoid Leica, because Leica shots clearly show they're 35mm photography and are just the same as other 35mm brands... A change of format is a real and visible difference... Any cheap medium format system is far above Leica in real IQ results...
Cheers,
Juan
yanidel
Well-known
Not much to comment on the photography schools except I went to three excellent Business Schools and all I learnt was to think structurally, which is already a big deal. The rest came with my experience of real life...
As for Hasselbad, you have a point yet superior IQ comes at the cost of more weight, less portability and less responsiveness. This is more important than IQ to mem, I think fast M lenses are a good trade-off.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Not much to comment on the photography schools except I went to three excellent Business Schools and all I learnt was to think structurally, which is already a big deal. The rest came with my experience of real life...
As for Hasselbad, you have a point yet superior IQ comes at the cost of more weight, less portability and less responsiveness. This is more important than IQ to mem, I think fast M lenses are a good trade-off.
Isn't THREE a bit excessive?
Seriously, I don't think 'qualifications' mean anything at all in photography. I went to law school and have earned a living from photography and writing for 80-90% of the time since I left.
Cheers,
R.
yanidel
Well-known
That was my point ...
Three because of the great life experience they provided around it ( Switzerland, US, Mexico). Fun!
Last edited:
Turtle
Mentor
I agree. IMHO qualifications are utterly meaningless to the issue to true photographic achievement. For some they give a start and those people go nowhere, but to many they are not needed and some of those go everywhere.
Look at the great names in photographic history. While many ended up teaching courses, not too many sat in on them and got degrees, PhDs etc. Sadly there are too many people who think they do matter (far more in the US than Europe, but the US does have IMHO a fixation in paper qualifications for absolutely everything), but I think this generally more of an issue for those who don't have the talent than do. There tends to be a pack of protective types who look to include or exclude others based on their photography education and 'who they know.'
I do see a correlation between credentials and those who have tried to stamp their intellectual authority on photography, particularly in the current conceptual fine art mould. In this area I feel it gives control to the critics and managers of the field, both in the form of 'entry requirements' and 'rites of passage'. Call me cynical but the same happens whenever humans have long enough on something. A friendly club meeting of like minded enthusiasts of (anything) ten years down the road with 10000 X the membership can become all about rules that would indeed have prevented the founders being able to join (without anyone thinking what this means for the validity of the entry requirements...). Not too oddly enough, it tends to be those without the talent that end up setting the rules (because they need them as a crutch for themselves and a hindrance for others). Those without too much by way of talent end up vetting their peers to thin the competition. Those with real talent dont care.
Outside the photographic field I see a significant number of inept people being employed based on paper qualifications (and remaining employed despite gross incompetence), while demonstrably far more capable individuals are excluded for lack of them. Its a game everyone plays and everyone gets to decide how far and for how long they will play and the cost benefit balance. PS I am educated and support education, but I am also a supporter of common sense (i.e. employ the sharp cookie without the quals and not the numpty with the file full of paperwork who is wearing his trousers back to front). Clearly where certifications are required its another story altogether, but what shocks me is how some disregard or disbelieve evident ability due to a lack of qualifications while some assume ability because of them even when the incompetence of the individual is staring them in the face (and continue refusing to see it). I think excessive rigidity on qualifications can be a complete cop out on the part of the employer. It can mean they dont have to bother interviewing many people or making decisions of their own. It seems there are a lot of people afraid of exercising judgment - they'd rather have the decision pre-formed for them requiring them to only compare facts (qualifications). this way they cannot be criticised even if they end up with a fool (well, his CV said he had a triple PhD in XYZ)
As for equipment, its personal and there is no generalization to be made other than that. Its only ever about satisfying your own nagging doubts and releasing yourself to the creative task at hand. If you dont care about the technical quality, odds are it does not matter. If you do care, odds on it does.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Sorry: I did in fact take your point. But I still think that THREE is excessive!
Cheers,
R.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Not much to comment on the photography schools except I went to three excellent Business Schools and all I learnt was to think structurally, which is already a big deal. The rest came with my experience of real life...
As for Hasselbad, you have a point yet superior IQ comes at the cost of more weight, less portability and less responsiveness. This is more important than IQ to mem, I think fast M lenses are a good trade-off.
Hi yanidel,
I just talked to you about it (a career and an amount of people) because -far enough from my own beliefs- brand and bokeh have never been relevant to thousands and thousands of people who dedicate their lives to photography: really the vast majority of photographers of all times. Good enough gear and focus and defocus control, yes, but you don't need Leica for that: just any brand with those characteristics... Only you know why you need or feel better with Leica. That's precisely what this poll's about, and that's what's inherent to the members' voting.
Cheers,
Juan
J. Borger
Well-known
@Juan
You completely neglect the rangefinder aspect.
If you want to shoot with a rangefinder you have few options: Leica, Zeiss, Bessa.
If you want to shoot digital with a rangefinder you have only 2: Epson, Leica.
You make it sound like a crime to use a Leica. But IF USING A RANGEFINDER CAMERA is your prefered way to take pictures it is the most logical choice (if you can afford it).
My Hasselblad is NEVER a substitute for my Leica's, despite it's superiour image quality.
It gets different use.
You completely neglect the rangefinder aspect.
If you want to shoot with a rangefinder you have few options: Leica, Zeiss, Bessa.
If you want to shoot digital with a rangefinder you have only 2: Epson, Leica.
You make it sound like a crime to use a Leica. But IF USING A RANGEFINDER CAMERA is your prefered way to take pictures it is the most logical choice (if you can afford it).
My Hasselblad is NEVER a substitute for my Leica's, despite it's superiour image quality.
It gets different use.
emraphoto
Mentor
i can't believe i am going to say this but gear is important (to me).
there are attributes beyond performance specs that come to play for me. weight, battery life, durability, aperture priority, flare resistance etc. most of this works hand in hand with my preoccupation with subject matter. i often become myopic and find myself forgetting about rules and techniques. i appreciate a piece of kit that can pull up the slack.
on the flip side, i sometimes like to use gear either foreign to me or with a terrible attitude about cooperation. the 'glitches' can sometimes add a little something i can't quite generate myself.
there are attributes beyond performance specs that come to play for me. weight, battery life, durability, aperture priority, flare resistance etc. most of this works hand in hand with my preoccupation with subject matter. i often become myopic and find myself forgetting about rules and techniques. i appreciate a piece of kit that can pull up the slack.
on the flip side, i sometimes like to use gear either foreign to me or with a terrible attitude about cooperation. the 'glitches' can sometimes add a little something i can't quite generate myself.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi J.,
No crime in using Leicas...
I have tried a few mechanical ones this year (from a friend and at a couple of stores, never an M7) and I prefer my Bessas: I like 1/2000 (use it constantly under direct sun) and back door loading and less weight... I use an R4M and two Ts, and I enjoy the line design: bodies made for precise lenses... I am thinking of buying my fourth Bessa because they're very reliable: one year using them daily and traveling with them (some bumps too!) without a single problem... I don't think Leicas are very expensive... They cost more than other brands, but I payed more for my MF or my digital gear years ago... I think some people grew with Leicas, and then it's natural for them to use them, but the truth is (check galleries) most Leica users make bad photographs and use Leicas because they think the "best" brand can help in some way... Sometimes I've wanted to get a Barnack, but I bought two Ts and these are a lot better tools... No doubt! Bessas are great equipment, really... I would like a black M2 (very beautiful), but even if one day I buy one, I swear I'll be unhappy with its slower shutter and its slower loading... I see no benefit in Leica RFs over any other brand except for the mechanical speeds in their AE model... Just my opinion, of course... If my shots could be better with Leicas, I'd use Leicas for sure... As a photographer I deeply respect and thank CV and Mr. K's vision and amazing development of their very complete and superb RF line of lenses and cameras! I thank heaven I came to RF's when CV had already built their gear for more than a decade!
Cheers,
Juan
tlitody
Well-known
Some images and especially digital images, are so smooth toned with no imperfections that they look sterile.
now define IQ.
now define IQ.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Scientists talk about science and professional photographer about the next job / paycheck.
yanidel
Well-known
Hello Juan, a bit stereotypical don't you think ?
Actually I think the learning curve with a Leica is much longer then a DSLR for example. The all manual aspect means a lot of practice will be needed before one masters the camera and gets the shots he wants. The lack of zoom means one needs to move around and not stay back. And finally, I am pretty convinced by now that you can't take good pictures with a rangefinder if you are not ready to engage with your subjects.
So when you add up beginners, lack of technique and shyness, galleries might indeed show quite a bunch of average shots. Nevertheless I also tend to think that people that have resources to spend thousands of dollars on equipment, are not that stupid in the first place to think Leica will make them a better photographer. There will always be a few show off people, but the majority (and I have met quite a few RFF members) are just passionate about photography. Like you obviously.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I'm not willing to disagree with you about the quality of Cosina's products, but isn't that a bit of a paradoxal statement?
I've seen people getting themselves a second girl, even though their first one didn't cheat on them, neither was she defective, but this here is a different thing.
(seriously though, I have thought about getting myself a second 35mm f1.2, not because I'm sure it will never fail me but because it is my #1 favourite lens and I've had my 1.5/50 nokton and my 2.5/35 skopar go down without much of my help.)
Last edited: