How important is image quality?

[Roger Hicks]

A lot of the time, I suggest, the answer is "Not very". Only very, very rarely do I need the kind of quality I can get from (say) my 75 Summicron on my M9.

To me, it's a lot more important that my Leicas are (relatively) small and light and (for me) extremely easy and pleasant to use. Conversely, I get no pleasure at all from trying to use a camera the size of a cigarette packet with a screen on the back.

It comes back yet again to the 'quality threshold'. Once a camera delivers results that are 'good enough', then they're, well, good enough. My old Pentax SV with its 50/1.4 is 'good enough'. After that, for me, it's usually down to how happy I am using the camera: to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.

Who else feels the same way?

Cheers,

R.

[rxmd]

Well, in general I agree. There have been a few instances where afterwards I was happy that I could print something very large or make a good-quality crop from a small section, though.

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by photomoof

It is still probably better not to rely on cropping to make photos, rather to move closer?

Fred: Of course I agree with you, but are there not times..............?

[dave lackey]

Getting back to defining IQ...where the hell did that come in, with the advent of digital or before? I don't know. But it does seem that image quality is defined differently now with the common usage of digital cameras than it has ever been defined.

With millions of fine photographs in the past, including many Pulitzer prize winners, it is incomprehensible that only sharpness, contrast, etc. define the quality of an image, IMO.

Thought-provoking threads are good to keep us thinking but our thinking needs to be not completely free-thinking. It should have parameters defining what we are discussing and so far, I don't think the IQ definition has been agreed upon or, if it has, then I missed it. And then, there are the subjective opinions as to IQ...I may like (and I do) macro images with 2mm DOF and other may not... I happen to like impressionistic images.

http://billynewmanphotography.com/

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by dave lackey

With millions of fine photographs in the past, including many Pulitzer prize winners, it is incomprehensible that only sharpness, contrast, etc. define the quality of an image, IMO.

Does that even make sense? You're the first to suggest, even in the negative, that only these might be defining qualities. This thread seems not to be about whether they're the only defining qualities, rather about how important they are at all. You're making up a straw man.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by rxmd

Does that even make sense? You're the first to suggest, even in the negative, that only these might be defining qualities. This thread seems not to be about whether they're the only defining qualities, rather about how important they are at all. You're making up a straw man.

I have no idea what you are saying about a straw man. My statement is perfectly reasonable in that IQ as defined in a previous post would exclude millions of photographs prior to the current definition.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by photomoof

It is still probably better not to rely on cropping to make photos, rather to move closer?

Yeah, of course.

In my case, one of those instances when I was happy to have some reserves was when I did a fair amount of digitization of medieval manuscripts (for my PhD, about a mile of scrolls with legal documents on them). It was useful to have the quality reserves to crop into, say, a seal imprint or a particular word and get a good-quality printable image out of it.

But that's of course not the kind of scenario we're usually talking about on RFF. (And not really a Leica scenario either.) In the general case I agree.

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by photomoof

It is still probably better not to rely on cropping to make photos, rather to move closer?

Moving closer changes the perspective, so, no, I don't consider that to be an option. A longer lens, on the other hand, would work fine.

[ssmc]

As you say, once it is "good enough"... but good enough for one purpose may not be good enough for another; for example the difference between candid street shooting, portraiture and stitching shots for a huge panoramic landscape. But there is quite a (huge) gulf between a low-ISO shot from an M9 with the 75 Summicron and, say... a great many other cameras!

Lighting, composition, timing, all the technical parameters must be in place for a harmonious image, but what if you stumble across a scene that deserves your best camera, but you only have your P&S backup on hand, and there is no question of coming back later with your heavy-hitting gear? Then image quality may suddenly be the one thing you no longer have "up your sleeve", as you might with the M9/75mm. And so you have to take your best shot (so to speak) and hope it's going to capture what you see. So people should decide what their own "quality threshold" (I like that!) is for the sort of photography they intend to do at that time and place, and select the gear accordingly.

The photographer is always more important than the camera/lens but inadequate or poorly selected gear can make the difference between getting the shot, getting a really good shot, or leaving the camera in the bag!

Regards,
Scott

[Roger Hicks]

There have been a few instances where afterwards I was happy that I could print something very large or make a good-quality crop from a small section, though.

Sure. But, as you say, "a few instances". Which is the mirror image of my "most of the time."

inadequate or poorly selected gear can make the difference between getting the shot, getting a really good shot,

Absolutely, which is why it makes sense to go for the best image quality you can get, even though it very rarely matters. But most of the time, unless we have a very specific shot in mind, we have to guess at what we're going to shoot and where it will end up. This is why I don't see the point of a P&S except as a backup in the event of loss or failure of the 'good' camera. Yesterday II went to a vide-grenier (a sort of village-wide swap meet). Why wouldn't I take the M9 (or an MP if I was planning on shooting film)?

Define "image quality" first, then the answer will follow

Only 'sort of'. Most people have no difficulty in defining image quality for most purposes -- sharpness, contrast, distortion, etc -- and there are times when you want other qualities (or I wouldn't own a Thambar, or have a weakness or 85/2 Jupiters), but otherwise, see my response above: "most of the time . . . we have to guess at what we're going to shoot and where it will end up."

Cheers,

R.

[LeicaFoReVer]

Yes mostly I feel the same but it really depends on the purpose. I am amateur to semi-professional. What kind of photography are we talking about?

[Michiel Fokkema]

For me IQ is important, even if I don' t really need it.
I can just not enjoy a photo with mediocre IQ.
I use Leica;s because they give me this IQ not because they're small. The LTM's are okay but the M's, and especially the M7 are too big for my liking.
I just bought an Olympus XA and XA4. i hope their IQ is very good. If so I can ditch my Leica's. Well , I probably won't but you get the dea.

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

[sanmich]

I very often wonder about this issue, the threshold being the jump to medium format.
Even if I enjoy the negatives, I find 35mm to be so easier to use in comparison, that I really think I could do with a good 35mm camera loaded with Delta 100.
The thing making me think so is these two landscapes from HCB that I simply love and that were probably taken with lesser means than today's film and lenses.
As Keith would say, long live 35mm!
Maybe I'll change my mind when as I plan I come back to wet printing again..

Now I have the hardest time to decide myself to sell that nice MF kit it took so long to put together

[oftheherd]

My only 35mm RF with interchangeable lenses is a Kiev. Quite often it is indeed good enough. But the camera isn't as easy for me to use as my Fujica. And the Fujinon lenses are absolutely "good enough." Assuming we are only discussing lenses and the camera they are attached too, there are indeed a lot of combinations that most would consider good enough. I think you are correct it must be a combination of both the lens and camera where usage is concerned, but not always camera dependent on results.

I think you have mentioned this before, and I don't think anyone could disagree unless their photography is narrowly defined. Of course, the definition of good enough is going to be somewhat subjective and personal.

[bobbyrab]

Surely it's hugely important, otherwise why would you spend so much of your hard earned on cameras and lenses such as your M9 and 75, it's not a point that can be argued by the owners of such expensive cameras and lenses, anymore than cars being a seat in a box that takes you form A to B by Ferrari owners. I fully accept that great photographs can be taken with crap gear, and a great meal can be had with good bread, butter and olives, but ideally you want your chef to have access to a few more ingredients. Although I'm not a big fan of landscape photography, it is usually is very reliant on the IQ to be worthwhile, street photography it's not such a big issue, still life it probably is. Perhaps a better question would be to ask for nominations of well known photographs that would be improved by lowering the quality.

[sanmich]

Originally Posted by bobbyrab

Perhaps a better question would be to ask for nominations of well known photographs that would be improved by lowering the quality.

All reportage/documentary/street pictures that have NOT been taken because the photog was using a 4x5 camera to get the ultimate sharpness.

[edit] well obviously these can't be famous, right?

[theno23]

With regards to sharpness, resolution and so on, yes, absolutely. The M9 has way more of that than I need 99% of the time.

But, when it comes to dynamic range, sensitivity, flare resistance and so on it's a different matter. They can ruin otherwise good photos, even when printed at small sizes.

Of course they can also be used to artistic effect, and many times those issues aren't visible in real photos, but when they are it can make a big difference.

[haempe]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

... to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.

I agree.
In my eyes the Leica M is a reportage-camera.
And for reportage I would set content over IQ.

If IQ is the need, I would choose MF for people or LF for land- or cityscapes.

And... to get the IQ of high end glass to the picture, there is always also needed high end processing or (for digital) high end PP. There is lack often...

[Pickett Wilson]

As for IQ, for my purposes M4/3 is good enough for anything I shoot for the newspaper. So, that's my "good enough" standard. I carry a 1DMkIV, though, for reasons that have nothing to do with IQ (like durability, killer fast AF, 10 FPS, 12,000 ISO, 300mm 2.8 lenses...blah, blah, blah).

So, for me professionally, ultimate image quality is less a factor than versatility. Personally, I love extremely sharp, noiseless (grainless) photos. You take your choice and you pay your price.

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

A lot of the time, I suggest, the answer is "Not very". ............................................. Who else feels the same way?
Cheers,
R.

Roger: I feel as you. BUT, I also recognize that IQ or the "look" of a photo rather than the content is primary to many here. There are RFF'ers who have multiple lenses of identical focal lengths simply because they look different.

While you and I say "not very", I still have 35mm and 6x7 cameras. You have 35mm, MF, 5x4, and 8x10 (do you say 10x8 over there?)

To each his own.

[Moriturii]

Couldn't give a rats ass about IQ Roger. I started photography about... a year and a half ago? Took me about a year I'd say to complete get over "sharpness" in photos, that is past me. One look at HCB, W Eugene Smith and it hit me that sharpness in pictures is last of my concerns.

I think most, if not all people who obsess over sharpness is mentally and psychologically making up for lack of content and emotional punch, i.e "the thing that matters". Probably because they can physically buy and acquire sharpness, but not "the decisive moment", and that gives them a mental relief.

Borin but sharp pictures... yea thats good. Like trying to perfume a turd :-)

Unless you're thing is still life and landscape of course, then sharpness is very important, but then you'd use a 8x10 wouldn't you?

Enchanté.

[Lumix]

As I get older I feel the need to have a camera that I can carry comfortably.
As I get older I feel the need for a camera that I am as one with.
As I get older I am happy to have 'seen' the photogaph and taken it!
But then I think of myself as a picture taker not as a photographer, I would rather make a picture than take a photograph.

Lumix

[Sparrow]

At one time I would have argued "good enough" was just that, good enough ... but then I started to put a book together and found that photos that had been OK previously were now not quite good enough, so I suspect it's a bit of a moveable feast

[pvdhaar]

I think it's very simple..

A picture doesn't have to be sharp, but it needs to be properly focused..

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

A lot of the time, I suggest, the answer is "Not very". Only very, very rarely do I need the kind of quality I can get from (say) my 75 Summicron on my M9.

To me, it's a lot more important that my Leicas are (relatively) small and light and (for me) extremely easy and pleasant to use. Conversely, I get no pleasure at all from trying to use a camera the size of a cigarette packet with a screen on the back.

It comes back yet again to the 'quality threshold'. Once a camera delivers results that are 'good enough', then they're, well, good enough. My old Pentax SV with its 50/1.4 is 'good enough'. After that, for me, it's usually down to how happy I am using the camera: to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.

Who else feels the same way?

Cheers,

R.

Can't argue with that except for adding a bit.

One's end product may or may not need high resolution, if that is what is meant by image quality in this thread. Indeed, IQ is thrown about by most without actually defining it. I see a lot of great soft photography and to me, that is quality...not high resolution. If the picture is good enough, that to me is quality.

Conversely, if one is after super high resolution, then, I suppose picking up a pimple on someone's arse at 300 yards would be IQ. But, then, I don't know of a person within my life that wants all of their blemishes to be shown on a portrait.

For me, it is necessary to strike a fine balance between the photographer, the equipment and the final image. If, I, the photographer does not enjoy the equipment, then, I am not going to enjoy working hard to produce the final image. So, is an M3 good enough? Yes. Was any one of my Nikon DSLR's gooe enough? Yes and no. Yes, they could produce the sports images but at the end of a game/match, I couldn't wait to put that bloody thing back in the bag, go home and have a drink with some ibuprofen for my sore arms and hands.

In my possession now, since having sold all of my digital gear and studio gear, are a Leica M3/Leica R4/Nikkormat Ftn/Olympus XA2 and a Nikon 4004s. All film cameras of course. The M3 and R4 do all the work. The 4004s does all of the slides. The Ftn and XA2 are being retired as the image quality of both is not up to par so I am not going to waste any more time or energy with those.

Would I like to have an M9? Sure! Even an M8. But my equipment is good enough. So is my life, and I am not complaining.