Digital and the obsession with quality

Anorakus

Anorakus

Messages
836
Edit My Images
Yes
Having a look at this thread about the 5D mk II got me thinking about the obsession we seem to have about quality in the age of digital photography, i.e. the endless discussion about sharpness, lenses, sensor size, noise etc.

I picked up a copy of In England by Don McCulllin at the Borders closing-down sale. Fantastic images that (for me anyway) evoke an emotional response - mostly sadness and anger in the case of the depictions of poverty - but I couldn't help noticing that many of them are technically flawed. Blurred or out-of-focus subjects, camera shake etc. Most of the prints are contrasty and very dark - anyone who obsessses over keeping shadow detail would be horrified, as dark clothing, hair etc. is invariably shown as solid black.

And yet.. these pictures do more for me than any number of technically perfect images that seem to be intended to show off the capabilities of the camera and photographer.

It's a timely reminder for me to concentrate on getting the right picture, and not getting hung up on achieving a perfectly sharp and exposed shot. This is especially important with a camera like the 5D mk II, which is capable of superb quality under the right conditions. One needs to avoid the temptation to use the delete button on anything that isn't technically pristine.

A few examples of DM's work here

A.
 
I think the deal with quality of image from a Digital SLR is that we have come to expect good quality from the early digital SLR's. With the instant feedback of the LCD screen, there is less should i say Guess work involved.

But i agree with you about picking up a book with great photos that are not perfect in say sharpness, noise and so on.

I think its like art, and everyone has a view of whats good.

Its still nice to have the tool that can do what its supposed to for what ever style of photography you like. Usually its user error, and lack of knowing photogrpahy , but sometimes like all things, the tool isn't functioning correctly

thats my take on it.
thegary
 
I don't think it's just digital, back years ago with film people would argue that a certain lens was marginally sharper than another, people spent their entire lives trying to find a developer that produced a fractional improvement without the grain getting any larger or more noticable.
 
I guess in the winter on days like this (pouring down out my window) it gives us something to talk about... But you know you are actually 100% correct!

Sometimes we do go on to much about image detail and quality and the one thing that has more effect and impact in our shots is the composition and make up of the actual image itself!

For example I love travel photography... but some of my best shots are slightly out of focus... its the image and what it conveys with travel photography that is important... If your image educates the viewer on your experiance of being there... they feel what you felt at the time... and feel they know more about the country from your image then as a photographer you have succedded... and no matter how technically perfect or not the shot is ... its the actual moment and composition of the image that is the critical factor.

What makes great shots to me is being at the right place at the right time and having the eye to capture that moment in a composition... once you get that right you have it... and have the potential to be great!

Any of us can pick up the technical basics through a bit of hard work and trial and error... its having the eye which is special!

Just my thoughts anyway!

M
 
swanseamale47 said:
I don't think it's just digital, back years ago with film people would argue that a certain lens was marginally sharper than another, people spent their entire lives trying to find a developer that produced a fractional improvement without the grain getting any larger or more noticable.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's always been like that.
You'll recall the days when there was a large array of SLR makes and mags were forever comparing them for image quality.
Nowt wrong with wanting technical perfection for your money even if it does not have to be the be all and end all.
 
I think part of the problem these days is the ability to 'pixel peep' more than ever. Quality has always been an issue as swanseamale has said, but th emore technology we have to scrutinise our images, the more obsessed we become.

Having said that, I suppose it also fair to say that photography has become more affordable and accessible for so many more people. Its unlikely more than a small percentage of those people will ever be able to take the kind of pictures that transcend quality considerations with gut wrenching, soul grabbing images such as mentioned by the OP, so I suppose for most of us, the only way we can 'focus' our shooting is to aim for 'perfection' of image instead.

Got to admit on a personal level, despite having updated a camera because of noise issues, I have learnt not to be bothered by noise or grain and accept it as part of the natural outcome of certain ways of shooting, certain camera settings. I would much rather have a correctly exposed sharp shot with some noise over no shot at all. Hell, its great fun playing with mono conversions to get those lovely deep blacks normally associated with film.
 
I totally agree with you and I've raised this point before.
Even in this digital age I've seen photos taken by big name pros that are technically flawed.
Last night I was looking through a book of landscapes and if I wanted to be fussy, I could find faults in some of the photos.
Quite often I've been told a photo I've taken is good and I've not agreed and deleted it.
Perhaps we are to critical of our own work but then there is nothing wrong with striving for improvement.
I'm now leaning towards the fact that the most important critique comes from the public rather than photographers.
In the world of art there are plenty of critiques who will say a piece of work is flawed but then the work becomes famous due to the appraisal it receives from the public.
I suppose it boils down to who we are trying please, ourselves, other photographers or the public?
Somehow I think it’s hard to please all three.
 
That's the wonderful thing about photography in my opinion.

The thing is, some of the "greatest" images ever produced were never "perfect" be it exposure or composition or whatever. What makes an image great can be any number of things - is it a unique capture of an intense moment, or does it convey a special emotion to the onlooker? What does the image say to you? Non of these things is about the technical quality of the image, in fact I doubt any image was ever pronounced "great" because of the images technical quality.

I posted a picture of my little one not so long ago, now it wasn't anything special, it'd been a bit of a snap really but that's not the point I'm making. To my family and friends, the image is amazing (they aren't photographers and they aren't looking for technical perfection, they just see a nice picture) but I had one comment on here - "nice picture but I hate the dummy"

I took this as being a helpful pointer and thanked the poster for that. But, when I thought about it I began to wonder. The shot was afterall meant to be a record of my baby. It wasn't a staged portrait, it just happened to come out reasonably good (to me) but here's the thing - the dummy is there because my daughter likes her dummy. The image is telling the viewer about her, and so surely the dummy should be there? The dummy is an important part of my daughter's life? The comment didn't upset me by the way, I asked for opinions and as I said, I took it in the spirit it was intended of course. But I can't help feeling that this is relevant to this thread. Whoever it was was looking for "perfection" in the image and that's not, to me, what photography is all about.

In a great image the subject might not be quite in focus, might not be quite right "technically", but that doesn't matter - it's what the image says or makes you feel that is important.

Just my humble opinion :)
 
I think when asked to criticise work, there will always be an imperfection, something that is not right, but surely that is the point nothing is perfect.

Look at the amount of people (me included) with thousands of pounds worth of gear, who buy and shoot with a Holga sometimes. Sometimes non perfection is what people desire.

Great pictures, pictures that go down in history have that all important element of luck to them. Look at Lebowitz. ~Right place, right time and she managed to capture some defining images of the Stones and John Lennon. Could other people have taken those pictures, yes, could there have been more technical perfection in them, yes, but the point is she was lucky enough to be the person to capture them, to be there.

Photography is not all about perfection, it is about a place, and a moment. Does it give us something to talk and moan about while we wait for our time to be in the right place at the right time? Damn right it does.
 
Anorakus said:
A few examples of DM's work here

A.
Click to expand...

I shall be heading to our local Borders tonight, will try and pick up a DM book.

The images in the link are very powerful, a couple fit the bracket of "I wish I hadn't of seen that image but feel compelled to look again" due to their distressing nature.
 
Exactly!

My point isn't to moan about the critique I received, far from it. I'm pointing out that I show the picture to "the public" and they love it, I show the pic on here and it doesn't get the same review. If I were "in business" then that picture would have got me lots of work so far - I have been asked by numerous people to do their baby portraits because of it, but nobody on here thought it was all that good (rightly or wrongly, I don't know, I'm far too critical of my work!) which I think illuminates the message of this thread very well.

I've seen many a youtube video of top photographers banging on about this and that, faffing around for ages with the exposure of a particular shot and then the shot hasn't really moved me at all, and I've seen others where the photographer has concentrated more on the aesthetic appeal of the shot they want to get, and been wowed by their result. The technical aspect of things has appeared effortless as, I think, it should be, and as a result the photographer can concentrate on the artistic side.

The luck element is indeed important - look at Cartier Bresson. I doubt he would have achieved his status as an artist if he'd worried for countless hours over megapixels and which L glass was marginally sharper etc!

My other half is an artist. She doesn't worry over the quality of her canvass or the chemical composition of her oils. In fact she buys the cheapest she can find (well, money is tight we have a baby!) and cares not a jot over it. She uses these cheap materials to produce some amazing pictures having not once worried about anything technical. I think, as photographers, we could all learn something from that.
 
Absolutely!

There seems to be so much agonising over which lens is the sharpest, which sensor is the least noisy, even which filter will degrade the image the least.

But if the photographer makes those enquiries, buys the gear, and then forgets all about, that's fine. At a certain level of ability, those things do matter.

But if s/he carries on hankering over the next bit of gear which may be marginally "better" than s/he already has, instead of getting out there and taking photos that MATTER (in some way), then I think s/he has lost his/her way.
 
Good point well made. :)

My own personal view is that the subject comes first, then composition, focus, exposure and lastly issues like noise.

If you look at pictures that have changed the world, you are quite right, it's more being in the right place and less about technical superiority.

Yes we should all be aiming to be as good as we can but sometimes a less than technically perfect image can speak volumes and much louder than an image that may be technically perfect but may as well be mute.
 
kluen said:
The images in the link are very powerful, a couple fit the bracket of "I wish I hadn't of seen that image but feel compelled to look again" due to their distressing nature.
Click to expand...

Then the photographer has done his job, and the result is as he probably intended.

I'm sure we all know of that image of the buddhist monk who set himself on fire in protest - I'm sorry I don't know the photographer's name. I doubt there would have been time to "correctly expose and compose" that shot. When I think of that image I can see it clearly in my mind - however I can't remember what's in the background (except for his car) I just remember him sitting there with the flames. Once you've seen that picture you won't ever forget it's subject, it will always be there. How many of you know exactly which image I mean and can see it in your mind now I've mentioned it? I couldn't even tell you how technically perfect it is but that doesn't matter does it?

This is a great thread and a bit of a breath of fresh air - thankyou.
 
There are of course other factors to consider. 30 years ago when I got into photography, as a teenager, there were far fewer variables in camera technology. No matter what body you had they would all achieve the same result for that given format, the only quality variable was the the lens. Ok, newer models may have had a higher top shutter speed, but that was about it. No auto focus to argue over, no sensor, no pixel counting. The new technology was in the the film emulsion, like when Kodak T-Max came out.

Don McCullin is a hero of mine, I was lucky enough to have met him once. His work is highly emotive and the actual quality of the images in terms of sharpness and exposure are completely irrelevant, Which is the way it should be for editorial journalism.

However if you were a Commercial photographer, I think you may struggle with poorly exposed or out of focus images, but then again some one somewhere will still probably like it :)

If I wanted to achieve greatness as a photographer, as someone has said earlier in the thread, I'd be asking my prospective buyers if they liked my work, most definitely not other fellow togs. (not sure what that's got to do with the original post, but hey it's nearly Christmas!)
 
I am totally convinced that the amateur photographer is and always will be, much more fanatical about quality than a pro, frankly quality is of secondry importance, to the subject matter and impact of an image. This of course doesn't go for the pro style Weddings Portraits etc. as it is important to them but for me a very secondery thing.
I think I've just put my head in a noose !!
Phillip
 
You are missing the point completely , what else would we do to fill the gaps in between taking photographs, it's part of the raison d'etre of being on the forum :)

Slightly more seriously, it is important that we can have the debate (sometimes heated) regarding merits (or not) of different bits of equipment, it's healthy, usually informative and often fun.

Regarding Don McCullin, the 'technical flaws' were not accidental, because he is such a great photographer, he knows how to push the technical boundaries to create a particular mood.

There's a huge difference between his 'technically flawed' images and your everyday tog who screws up his/her focus, white balance/exposure etc.

I think I kind of look at it from the other end, I do think it important to get the technicals right (regardless of the gear you are using), but that means knowing your kit inside out, so that you don't need to think about the technicals too much, therefore being able to concentrate on the subject.
 
Phillip Mac said:
I am totally convinced that the amateur photographer is and always will be, much more fanatical about quality than a pro, frankly quality is of secondry importance, to the subject matter and impact of an image. This of course doesn't go for the pro style Weddings Portraits etc. as it is important to them but for me a very secondery thing.
I think I've just put my head in a noose !!
Phillip
Click to expand...

No noose is good noose Phil :LOL:

But you're right - to us Wedding peeps it's generally considered to be...

"Expression, expression, expression" as the '3' fundamentals of a good image and while perfect capture is nice it is not always achievable

Noise is probably the biggest issue with Weddings as some venues are so damn dark, but the images taken in those dark place rarely make for a big print and even in a good sized album they are often well below their capture size, meaning they are reduced in size and so is any apparent noise

We (well some anyway) do certainly fret too much about 'quality' methinks

DD
 
Phillip Mac said:
I am totally convinced that the amateur photographer is and always will be, much more fanatical about quality than a pro, frankly quality is of secondry importance, to the subject matter and impact of an image. This of course doesn't go for the pro style Weddings Portraits etc. as it is important to them but for me a very secondery thing.
I think I've just put my head in a noose !!
Phillip
Click to expand...

I'm taking that as my calling, because I must be destined to be pro so :LOL:... I'm not at all concerned about the image quality or pixel peeping... not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing though :cautious:

I have to agree with everything here. I've actually gone back to film to try learn photography without getting fanatical about quality. With digital you've this uncontrolable urge to check out every photo. And even hover over a delete button (something I've stopped doing). But hey, everybody chimps, right? :LOL:
 
The obsession with quality seems to have arisen since DSLR's are now capable of images that we could only dream of a few years ago. Pixel Peeping does not seem to be a sensible way to look at an image. Have you ever looked at Constables "Haywain" at 12", it looks absolute rubbish, viewed from the other side of the room, well a different story.

I've had people scrutinising my paintings in the same way, OK, fine if you need to study technique, but the normal viewing distance for a painting is usually from the comfort of the sofa across the room. A classic case in point was yesterday a sparrowhawk came into my garden whilst I was having lunch, grabbed a shot through rainstreaked double glazing, technically it's awful, but a great reminder to me of the moment.

Img_0064.jpg
 
Anorakus said:
Having a look at this thread about the 5D mk II got me thinking about the obsession we seem to have about quality in the age of digital photography, i.e. the endless discussion about sharpness, lenses, sensor size, noise etc.

I picked up a copy of In England by Don McCulllin at the Borders closing-down sale. Fantastic images that (for me anyway) evoke an emotional response - mostly sadness and anger in the case of the depictions of poverty - but I couldn't help noticing that many of them are technically flawed. Blurred or out-of-focus subjects, camera shake etc. Most of the prints are contrasty and very dark - anyone who obsessses over keeping shadow detail would be horrified, as dark clothing, hair etc. is invariably shown as solid black.

And yet.. these pictures do more for me than any number of technically perfect images that seem to be intended to show off the capabilities of the camera and photographer.

It's a timely reminder for me to concentrate on getting the right picture, and not getting hung up on achieving a perfectly sharp and exposed shot. This is especially important with a camera like the 5D mk II, which is capable of superb quality under the right conditions. One needs to avoid the temptation to use the delete button on anything that isn't technically pristine.

A few examples of DM's work here

A.
Click to expand...

you hit the nail on the head from my point of view...and strangely as i look for another camera i think...what do i want it for...and to what degree

an image can have punch..and impact...and flaws as you pointed out
certain flaws fall into the category of photography and not equipment

lighting
composition
message
emotion

i remember the judges words..."well taken rubbish" at a club evening...

i envy the crispness and smoothness of the shots i see here..and the expertise in the digital dark room...pp...but at times i wonder if that is a facade, and/or barrier to deeper things
 
At the end of the day it's all about the composition and emotion in the picture, the technical stuff doesn't really matter. I run a design business and I'd rather see (and use) a stunning image with a bit of blur than something "technically" perfect that is bland and sterile.
 
Some US forums have long threads started by people posting about their new lens, and asking how to check if they're got a "good copy", before they decide whether to keep it or not. It's always puzzled me a bit. I just take photographs and if I'm satisfied with them, the lens is fine. OTOH, I don't take photographs of test charts, sheets of newspaper or rulers. We didn't scrutinise our photographs at 100% on a monitor in the film days either.

Nick Ut's 1972 photograph of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, the naked child running down the road in Trang Bang in the aftermath of a napalm strike, is one of the most harrowing and iconic images I have ever seen. There were others, including movie footage, but this is the one I remember from the time, and I will probably remember for all time. It's not technically great.

I do think we should strive for quality, and it's critically important in some applications, but there are many times when the power and emotion of the shot overrides the technical issues, even if it's only on a personal level.
 
I'd always thought that Don McCullin is a photojournalist rather than a photographer. He is telling a story or reporting an incident.
To fuss over composition or exposure would risk "losing the moment" and we would all be poorer for it.
To apply criticism to this kind of photography is rather like listening to someone sing a moving song at an emotional moment and then criticise their tunefulness.
 
It all depends what you are shooting for. There is, after all, no point in buying a 5D Mk2 if you have no need for 20MP, noise-free files. If you've got one you have paid a lot to have the technical quality there when you need it. I use mine for advertising shots, where the agencies demand over-the-top perfection, just because they can have it, I suppose.

I also shoot film on a variety of cameras, ranging from medium format folders (Nettar, Beirax, Voightlander, Moskva 5, Franka Solida) and a Pentacon Six to 35mm on an old Nikon F and a Leica R4s Mod P.

For artistic landscapes to exhibit I would favour the 1930s technology of the Beirax 6x9 over the Canon 5D, but for stock agencies everything really needs to be shot with the digital camera (I can always do it both ways). I feel that film adds depth to a scene and grain adds texture, whereas noise is just ugly.

So I don't think there is a right answer. Except to know your tools and use them to create the effect you want.
 
Hello everyone,

This forum is a pleasure to read. I belong to a couple of US/CDN forums and well everything seems to turn into a personal attack.

Its nice to read everyone giving their opinion with attacking each other.

Good topic as well.

I must agree, that some of my favorite pictures are those that were not spot on in one form or another.

I am originally from Portsmouth, but now live in Canada. We are just starting Winter, but i do miss photographing the UK.

Thegary
 
Some of the best shots I've ever managed to capture were mostly taken at a split second without preparation or technical thought just because the circumstances unravelled in front of my eyes and all I could do was push the shutter button.

In my opinion image quality in terms of sharpness etc is important, but not as important as capturing the subject in a way that creates some sort of emotion in the person viewing it. I'd say if you were shooting for a publication then you need to obsess about image quality... it's what gets you the pay check at the end of the day.

Don's photography is amazing.
 
thegary said:
Hello everyone,

This forum is a pleasure to read. I belong to a couple of US/CDN forums and well everything seems to turn into a personal attack.

Thegary
Click to expand...

Welcome. It's one of the best. I think I know the forums you're talking about, and one in particular. Someone asks if the new Canonikon XYZ is worth considering, and the thread degenerates into posts about pinko/bleeding heart liberals, neocon dinosaurs, retards who don't know anything about photography, and whether an assault rifle (fully auto, just for the trip of course) is good protection when "shooting" in bear country! That one was a couple of years ago, but there have been others.......

We have our moments, but we can usually ask "dumb" questions and get help without anyone climbing all over us, and telling us to do a search before putting them to all the trouble of posting a pointless reply telling us to do a search.
 
I got an email from Nikon to do a survey, which I did.

Lots of questions were asking about the MP count of your camera, was it enough? Is 25mp enough?

I agree with KayJay, one if my best shots this year wasn't sharp, infact it was slightly blurred in places. But it added to the shot and it captured the moment.
 
LOL - just found this thread; as one of the obsessives in the other thread I'll add my 2p.

My best selling shot this year (by a long way) isn't sharp - the tripod moved (quite a lot) during the four second exposure resulting in motion blur.
I still love that shot, so I completely agree with the sentiment of this thread!

Also, most of the bigger than A1 prints I've sold this year were taken on my trusty 20D.
It's a big ask for 8Mpix, the difference is obvious to me, but not one customer has ever commented.
Perhaps one key realisation is that as far as I know none of my pictures has been bought by a photographer.

On the other hand lets mention my bigger than A1 print that you can walk right up to and still not see all the details.
Is 21Mpix enough? Maybe not, I had to upres the full frame image to get that image printed, so more pixels would have been used if they had been available :)
This print went at the center of both my exhibitions and was close to being my most commented on print, probably because of the astonishing way the detail leaps out at you as you get closer.
I placed it in a prime spot in both this year's exhibitions, it made people stop and look twice and got them thinking about the content in the other images.
But it never sold, not even a tentative maybe.........

I don't feel I'm being obsessive just for the hell of it.
The number of shots I'm binning because they aren't good enough to print at A3 has dropped dramatically.
Also, my composition has improved and I've noticed I'm getting far less snap happy than I used to.

I still get it wrong - one of my favourite images of the last couple of months was a gorgeous wet rock texture shot that looks fine at A3 from 20ft, but at arms length the top of the image is unacceptably soft and it kills the image.
I still love the image deeply, but will never be able to use it for anything. I was cold and tired when I took it and rushed the shot; I so wish I'd been obsessive enough to take the time to get it right.
 
"....and i like the razor sharpness of the image....."

part of judges comments, and indicator that shot lacked other aspects
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top