The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Views on technical image quality

jonoslack

Active member
Basically it is just me questioning some people's demand for ever better image quality and dismissing certain cameras because they have too much noise or are not as sharp like other cameras. For me the aim of these people for ultimate technical image quality just seems pointless because I find that it robs the picture of any character and in parts it looks like a computer generated image if it's too perfect. I think sometimes a technical flaw can actually add to an image whereas technical perfection can distract from the image.
I'm not sure that a technical flaw is ever a virtue in itself. But I'm absolutely sure that technical perfection isn't either. Just for once I think that Neil and I will probably agree.:ROTFL:

I admit to being a dreadful equipment freak (and I'm not proud of it) . . . but when I'm taking pictures, that's a different thing, and I have a mantra which I try really hard to keep to:

If it's interesting . . .then nobody cares if it's technically perfect.

If it isn't interesting . . . . then nobody cares at all


I think that this can be applied to 'lesser' cameras as well, if their limitations add 'interest' then of course, they are worthwhile, if they don't, well, then they aren't!

A decent artist will make the most of whichever tool he happens to be using, and if he doesn't, then he may still be a decent artist, but his image isn't decent art.
 
N

nei1

Guest
neil, now we agree! that's my feeling about most travel photography. taking pics in mexico seems like shooting fish in a barrel. so much is given to you. that said, a few pictures of the eiffel tower really stand out from others. kertesz, frank, hcb. and bravo and iturbe make the most of mexico. these days i'm feeling we do best in our native place. however, that may only be true for me, out of laziness.
best,
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp
Ive always tried to discount what appears new to me but is normal to the locals,but it isnt easy and is possibly silly,and trying doesnt mean I succeed.Glad we agree Wayne,best to you,Neil.
 
N

nei1

Guest
I'm not sure that a technical flaw is ever a virtue in itself. But I'm absolutely sure that technical perfection isn't either. Just for once I think that Neil and I will probably agree.:ROTFL:

I admit to being a dreadful equipment freak (and I'm not proud of it) . . . but when I'm taking pictures, that's a different thing, and I have a mantra which I try really hard to keep to:

If it's interesting . . .then nobody cares if it's technically perfect.

If it isn't interesting . . . . then nobody cares at all


I think that this can be applied to 'lesser' cameras as well, if their limitations add 'interest' then of course, they are worthwhile, if they don't, well, then they aren't!

A decent artist will make the most of whichever tool he happens to be using, and if he doesn't, then he may still be a decent artist, but his image isn't decent art.



I think that the use of super quality has been the fallback of the unimaginative for centuries,it does have a passing interest but its just normal noseiness.
This is also relative,my minox b gives superb unbeatable quality but only for its size and up to a 11x8 print.

Jono,I think weve probably always agreed on life the univerese and everything,its just on the important stuff we have"discussions"but I enjoy every letter,all the best to you,Neil.
 

Lars

Active member
I've been staring at 8x10" trannies on the light table enough to feel that technical quality is important to me. It doesn't carry the image per se, but everything else being equal a technically perfect 8x10" capture of a great composition is immensely more valuable than the same composition captured on a 12 megapixel DSLR.

Why? Digital, and smaller film formats, fall short on presentation. Even if the capture has the detail, it cannot be communicated to the viewer unless a very large print is made. Viewing a good 8x10" transparency on a light table is an immersive, often emotional experience. It's like looking through a very clean window. It's about presence, about being there.

In digital terms, you are confronted with several hundred megapixels of resolution. Even with a MF or scanning back there is no way to communicate that to the viewer unless you make meter-sized prints. Best monitors today are four megapixels, and prints have crappy dynamic range and resolution is at best moderate.

I can understand the argument that artistic style matters. And with most images being "consumed" on the web today, technical perfection is a different factor than it was ten years ago. But to say that worse is better, which - to me - the original poster implied, is something that I would have to take exception to.

Perhaps it's the times we live in, where digital rendering technologies creating cleaner images than cameras, that is when is behind the original poster's remarks.
 
V

VladimirV

Guest
If however I throw it once the resulting photo is pure chance and can not be attributed to the photographer,only the initiation of the process can be attributed to him.
This is interesting and reminded me of the winning photo in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats...s/wpy/photo.do?photo=2450&category=54&group=4

"But one freezing morning I checked my remote-controlled camera and found a snow leopard had triggered it the night before, in the frame I'd dreamed of "

Can this really be attributed to the photographer and should this photo really be selected as a winning photograph?

Then again, what about people who fire away with 10-20 shots per second on their dSLR and pick the best out of the hundred they get. Can this be attributed to the photographer?
 
V

VladimirV

Guest
GRD/GRDII with optional 40mm lens?!?
It was the GRD II with 40mm lens, they had a video showing where he was using it and you could see the green LED.
That said, some of his b&w documentary pictures looked a lot like they could have been taken with the GRD I, had the same contrast and noise pattern.
 
V

VladimirV

Guest
. . . but when I'm taking pictures, that's a different thing, and I have a mantra which I try really hard to keep to:

If it's interesting . . .then nobody cares if it's technically perfect.

If it isn't interesting . . . . then nobody cares at all
This I fully agree with. :thumbup:
 
V

VladimirV

Guest
Perhaps it's the times we live in, where digital rendering technologies creating cleaner images than cameras, that is when is behind the original poster's remarks.
This is what I wanted to say, if the images are too clean and perfect they look a bit artificial to me, even if they are printed very big.
 
N

nei1

Guest
"But one freezing morning I checked my remote-controlled camera and found a snow leopard had triggered it the night before, in the frame I'd dreamed of "

Can this really be attributed to the photographer and should this photo really be selected as a winning photograph?

Then again, what about people who fire away with 10-20 shots per second on their dSLR and pick the best out of the hundred they get. Can this be attributed to the photographer?[/QUOTE]


Seems wrong to me,some one should find that cat and give it a nice man coat to wear as a prize for taking the photo.As for the motordrives,what is going to happen to reportage when a high resolution photo can be taken straight from video(already nearly there),no more missed shots.and possibly one camera per battle.
 
Top