Is it a distraction that takes away emphasis on what can really matter in a photo (i.e., composition and lighting)? For example, if people spent as much time studying lighting techniques as they do researching pixel pitch, MTF charts, etc., would there be better results?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is the concept of IQ bad?
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 18,130
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
Better by whose definition? There are definitely people here whose only goal is maximum IQ, and they praise images to the sky that don't interest me in the least as pictures. But that's their art, and they do it their own way.
My own interests lie pretty strictly with subject matter, light, and composition, and with the shooting experience behind the camera; I don't shoot RAW and in general don't care much about pure IQ at all. Doesn't make me better than the people in the first group, doesn't make me worse. We just have different interests and goals.
I do my art and you do your art.
My own interests lie pretty strictly with subject matter, light, and composition, and with the shooting experience behind the camera; I don't shoot RAW and in general don't care much about pure IQ at all. Doesn't make me better than the people in the first group, doesn't make me worse. We just have different interests and goals.
I do my art and you do your art.
5
57even
Guest
No, if you are a competent photographer
Digital photography is a technical craft. Understanding the technology is arguably as important as understating lighting, or any other technique.
Yes, if you think bigger numbers translate into better pictures.
But then, expert lighting doesn't translate into better pictures either. You can still have well lit and technically perfect image that's dull and uninspiring.
Good pictures are taken by people who have the instinct for - or have learned the art of - creating something worth looking at. Everything else is window dressing.
Cherry_F
Senior Member
The issue is: how to define quality.
Something I believe most people wouldn't be able to explain.
In the industrial world, quality is defined as the adequacy with expectations. Expectations vary with the user. Cars, for example, respond to very different expectations: for some people, fuel economy will be the first criterion, whereas others will put comfort at the top of the list. And a third category prefers flashy models.
It's worse for photographs. However, I'm afraid that for many people, a photo has to be beautiful. There are much more emotional responses that one can try to trigger with a photo: laugh, curiosity, anger, ... But unfortunately, beauty still ranks first, and IQ is supposed to be one of the ways to measure beauty. IMO it's sad, it considerably restrains imagination and creativity.
J
JasonTheBirder
Guest
I spend way more time thinking about lighting and composition than I do MTF charts and pixel pitch. However:
(a) for some reason people on forums don't have the tendency to get into depth on those topics so it's not so interesting to discuss,
(b) which lens is best in terms of sharpness is not something I can figure out myself without looking at tests, whereas I don't need to research composition as much, as it's more of a personal artistic journey,
(c) IQ does matter for me as much as lighting and composition. Maybe that's more true with bird photography, but great lighting and great composition with bad IQ (lack of sharpness) in a bird photo just doesn't look that great IMO. Why should IQ matter less? It's harder to get a great composition than great IQ but it's not less important for the final result.
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 18,130
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
There's a big difference between "beautiful" and "pretty". You can make a thoughtful and well crafted image (photograph, painting, drawing, whatever) of a desolate, grim, painful, challenging or otherwise difficult subject and it can be utterly beautiful without being the least bit pretty.
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
Those aren't the only things that can really matter in photography.
Studying lighting techniques doesn't matter much for shooting birds in the wild (which a lot of people do, it seems), or for any number of other types of photography where you have little if any control over lighting, and about all you can do is pick your shooting position, approximate composition, and moment of exposure.
Lots of things can matter - even pixel pitch and MTF charts - depending on what photography means to you.
Last edited:
Cherry_F
Senior Member
Can't disagree with that!
Back to the OP question: when I look at the images I like most, be they beautiful or pretty, IQ is often pretty bad, as I look at prints made before the digital era....
And my point was, whether one is struggling to make a beautiful image or a pretty one, it's based on a pre-conception of beauty (or prettiness, respectively) that in both cases, will restrain creativity.
5
57even
Guest
I think we all have such preconceptions, but what's interesting to look at is different from one person to another. I am not much for 'pretty', even with faces. I like character, quirkiness, something enigmatic, hidden, something you can weave a story around.
My wife was pretty as a youngster. I've seen the photos ;-) Typical art-school hippie, all hair and freckles and dungarees.
She's 60 this year. She has lines and wrinkles, a look that would freeze a swimming pool when she's p****d off, and a laugh that's more infectious than Covid. In short, she is utterly beguilingly fascinating, scary and beautiful.
--
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Last edited:
Cherry_F
Senior Member
well, I believe many preconceptions are shared by a majority. I regularly look at dpr challenges and it's frequently very predictable to guess which pictures will be in the top ten.
IMO another interesting question would be: how did we inherit from those preconceptions? I have a book that deals about some painting masterpieces. But who decided they were masterpieces? And why?
Have you posted photos of your wife? If yes, why? If not, why?
personnally I wouldn't post pics of my OS :-D
It depends on what criteria you are using for measuring image quality when you ask that question.
Image quality is especially important to me when I want to make a large print.
If you mainly produce images for online display, especially smallish screens, you can "hide" many flaws in an image.
Last edited:
Thomas A Anderson
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,385
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,801
Many variables can combine into a result that is greater than simply the sum of the parts.
For example, human consciousness relies on a brain, but a brain doesn’t exist without a body. If you don’t have a heart and lungs and blood and white blood cells and DNA and kidneys and about a million other things than a brain is useless. So to ask “which of the items on this list are most important to being conscious?” is on its face a logically incoherent question. They are all REQUIRED for a human to exist and be conscious.
So is the camera more important or the composition or resolution or color fidelity or so on? Placing a zero sum scoring system on the scenario is nonsensical. That is to say, if composition gets 100 out of a total possible 100 points then you still don’t have an image because you forgot that you need a camera. If IQ is all you care about then you’d hang a perfect image of a resolution chart in your living room because it has the best IQ.
One needs to have some working technical knowledge on top of creative ability. And in some cases greater technical knowledge is necessary to simple capture a certain subject in the first place.
Several things go in to the making of a great image, and I agree lighting and composition are both important. As a matter of fact, I think lighting is one of the most significant things.
Just the same, when it comes to the camera itself, the images it's capable of producing (image quality) is a factor everyone should consider.
And, yes, although most modern cameras are capable of great results, there are differences.
Whenever I read a review of a particular camera, and the reviewer says, in order to get the most from the camera you have to shoot raw, I usually shy away from that camera.
Just the same, when it comes to the camera itself, the images it's capable of producing (image quality) is a factor everyone should consider.
And, yes, although most modern cameras are capable of great results, there are differences.
Whenever I read a review of a particular camera, and the reviewer says, in order to get the most from the camera you have to shoot raw, I usually shy away from that camera.
Last edited:
alcelc
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,830
- Solutions
- 77
- Reaction score
- 10,751
Before everything, we must have to know the 2 aspects of a photo. i.e., the artistic side and technical side.
The composition, the story it can convey to its audience etc belong to artistic department. This is very audience dependent unless it is a master piece. Generally has no objective standard to judge good or bad. Can be highly controversial.
The exposure condition, the required sharpness, noise condition, focusing etc belong to technical department. It is still audience dependent but generally there are more definite objective standard to judge. Less dispute among commentators.
So, when art is not easy to judge (e.g. I do not appreciate the cubism work of Picasso) but technically correctness can easily be judged.
As this is a gear forum, naturally we shall be more serious on technical matter, specially if we wish to compare gear.
IMHO no harm to do it, and we should do it. The point is could we apply such knowledge when using the gear?
--
Albert
** Please forgive my typo error.
** Please feel free to download my image and edit it as you like **
The composition, the story it can convey to its audience etc belong to artistic department. This is very audience dependent unless it is a master piece. Generally has no objective standard to judge good or bad. Can be highly controversial.
The exposure condition, the required sharpness, noise condition, focusing etc belong to technical department. It is still audience dependent but generally there are more definite objective standard to judge. Less dispute among commentators.
So, when art is not easy to judge (e.g. I do not appreciate the cubism work of Picasso) but technically correctness can easily be judged.
As this is a gear forum, naturally we shall be more serious on technical matter, specially if we wish to compare gear.
Is it the basics of photographing?
This will lead to better understanding the potential (or capability) or our gear hence we can max use them for their best result?
IMHO no harm to do it, and we should do it. The point is could we apply such knowledge when using the gear?
--
Albert
** Please forgive my typo error.
** Please feel free to download my image and edit it as you like
**
Last edited:
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 18,130
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
Sorry, but you do. That may not be your intention, but you do it all the same. You manipulate tools to create an image, making aesthetic decisions in the process. The idea that "art" means something fancy, significant or pretentious, or something that requires a specialty education, or something that's especially "good", is bogus. If you join the kids and draw a butterfly on the sidewalk with chalk, and choose to make it purple and blue rather than pink and orange, hey, that's art. It's not good art, or sophisticated art, or important art, or lasting art, or museum-quality art, but it's art all the same.
Any photograph a person makes that goes beyond the lowest level of brute documentation (security camera output, automated photography in a lab, etc.)-- if a human being does anything to the image, however simple, to make it look better, like straightening, cropping, raising the shadows, then that's art by definition.
Any photograph a person makes that goes beyond the lowest level of brute documentation (security camera output, automated photography in a lab, etc.)-- if a human being does anything to the image, however simple, to make it look better, like straightening, cropping, raising the shadows, then that's art by definition.
5
57even
Guest
Neither would I. I'd be out on the street in a minute ;-)
Besides, she hates having her picture taken. If you want to see her p****d off face, just point a camera in her direction. I'm afraid my camera might stop working :-D
My goals in life are simple. Avoid that look and keep her smiling. So far, I'm doing OK.
--
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Last edited:
Yep, if you treat she who must be obeyed like a queen, you will feel like a king
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum