Is Image Quality Important?

[Mike Farley]

Well, it is so far as many judges are concerned. And to many denizens who inhabit Internet forums. Not on this forum, of course.

Mike Johnston has written an essay on the topic and argues that it is one component of artistic expression.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... ality.html

I particularly liked the comment about those who argue in favour of cameras with large sensors to create limited depth of field. "Apparently they like their pictures extremely sharp and extremely soft." I have been wondering about whether once a lens is stopped down, just how much affect sensor size really has on the final image. Yes, certain looks can be achieved more readily shooting fast lenses at or near maximum aperture with full frame or medium format cameras, yet that is not something which every situation requires. Neither is the capability beyond smaller sensors with the appropriate lenses. Those lenses need not cost a fortune, either. There are a lot of very capable older manual focus lenses which can be readily adapted to digital cameras on sale at reasonable prices.

[Paul Heester]

My favourite Youtuber Thomas Heaton recently published a video on the "perfect exposure", its not very technical but gives a good essence on why achieving perfection is not always necessary - https://youtu.be/Ifk0ZK4EBvk

[Mike Farley]

Thanks for the link, Paul. Very interesting.

I met David Clapp a couple of months ago and he had some images of a Himba tribeswoman and her child who he had paid to pose. It had not been an easy shoot as it look place in indoors with low light, she did not speak English and appeared not to understand what was required of her. On top of that, the results were soft or on the "edge of sharpness" as he described it. Moreover, they were large prints which did not bear close scrutiny. Move away to an appropriate viewing distance and everything was OK. I do wonder whether he is making any sales, although I have found some of the images on his website.

[Rose]

The judge at a recent club comp was talking about sharpness. Comparing two portrait images, he said that although one was 'soft'' there were several elements that made it a better image than the other. One was a perfectly lit studio shot and pin sharp where it needed to be. The other was an environmental shot taken in ambient light, full of emotion. The softness was right, in the context of that image. He marked it higher than the studio shot which was technically perfect.

[Peter Boughton]

The term "technically perfect" seems perhaps to be the modern euphemism for "just a record shot" - one of the ways judges say "I don't personally like this image, but can't actually give useful critique". Though that is probably more highlighting the difficulty of having a single judge for a multi-discipline competition than the problem of photographers obsessing over particular image qualities.

All the while people think of image perfection in terms of focus/exposure/sharpness/etc (but say that it's ok to deviate), there is the danger of developing an attitude that accepts mistakes and encourages laziness.

Does Thomas Heaton really want those water droplets on his image, or is he just making an excuse for failing to achieve his definition of "perfection"? The easiest answer is: would he add them if they weren't there?

That's what I try to use as my measure, whether I can honestly say to a viewer that a particular flaw/property is a choice I made when taking/producing the image. I have a bunch of half-processed images where I've noticed something and not been able to say "that's a feature I want", and if it's significant enough it goes on a pile until I can either re-shoot the photo or have the time/patience to correct it.

Going back to Mike Johnson's opening paragraph: "There is no such thing as "image quality" in expressive photography. There are only properties."

That's a more healthy way to put it. A perfect image is not having particular properties, it's when the properties selected go well with the subject/setting, the title, and the author's vision.

[Mike Farley]

Hi Peter

Thanks for such a thoughtful post which states the position very well.

Rose also gives a good example of a judge looking beyond the technical qualities of an image and assessing overall impact. That does not always happen, as Peter says at the start of his post.