Is the concept of IQ bad?

Does the distraction of learning to tune and play a musical instrument instrument get in the way of creating the perfect melody? No, because they aren't mutually exclusive. The whole thread is based on a false dichotomy.

• Know your equipment
• Get the best possible equipment
• Learn composition
• Learn lighting
• Learn how to tell a story and engage the viewer

These are all important and you can't emphasize one at the cost of another.

Have you even gone to a kid's violin recital where they laboriously play some famous musical piece? Even through the piece has withstood the test of centuries, it sounds terrible but they don't have the technique yet.

This is just another variation on the "I don't want to do the hard work just let my creative genius shine through" thread that occurs not just on photographic sites, but on writing and painting and other creative sites. It's a variation on the "I only want to please myself with my art" thread.

Do some get it out of proportion? Undoubtedly. Do some like to spend an excessive amount of time argue about technical matters they don't even understand? Sure. The nature of technology invites heated discussions over vague artistic concepts. I'll bet if you go to a guitar forum it will be filled with people discussing wood types, bow strings and amplifiers.

Bob said:

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?

Click to expand...

Don't know about bad, but overrated possibly. I've thought this anyway, but just looked through the results of some different apparently large photo competitions and not sure saw a single photo in the winners that were what many seem to strive for as to ultimate image quality. Great photos, maybe depending on your taste, but high quality images? Almost across the board no.

Bob A L said:

Don't know about bad, but overrated possibly. I've thought this anyway, but just looked through the results of some different apparently large photo competitions and not sure saw a single photo in the winners that were what many seem to strive for as to ultimate image quality. Great photos, maybe depending on your taste, but high quality images? Almost across the board no.

Click to expand...

Another thing to consider is that the bigger the print, the more any faults in image quality show. If you only view on a small screen, or make small prints, IQ is less important -- until you happen to shoot a great photo but find it's spoiled by noise or other faults if you see it on a large screen or want to have a big print of it on your wall.

Don

But in the case I mention above, the winning photos were viewed at no more than full screen on a 13.5" diagonal screen with 267 ppi resolution (small screen with very high resolution) and still did not appear to show great image quality as seems to be accepted by those inclined to require this in their photos.

By now, surely photography falls in line with the way we evaluate and respond to all other art forms: demonstration of good technique is never a bad thing.

Mastery of technique arms the creator with a greater range of expression: it enables them to better communicate intent. Great technique isn't necessary to make a great piece of art, but it underpins most great careers because it lubricates the creative process.

Having said that, there are many artists (and artistic methods) that don't rely on technical ability and are nonetheless valued because they demonstrate wit, intelligence or an engaging personal vision that resonates with viewers in the moment. Like any art, photography is a broad church with an infinitely divided audience in which a label of 'bad quality' is as likely to win plaudits as demerits.

The question really heads into that vexed 'what is good art?' territory that seems more controversial now than ever. Does the popularity of the most viewed YouTube videos make them the best 'quality'?

The only thing that's very clear, to me, is that we need to retire the word 'quality'.

tbcass said:

yardcoyote said:

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.

Click to expand...

I suspect that IQ does matter to you but possibly you have a lower threshold of what is considered good than some others.

Click to expand...

How about we deem it a 'different' threshold rather than term it 'lower?'

Daido Moriyama as well know has more than just a few fans Henri Cartier Bresson (cliche in these debates but true non the less) did not attribute much to just IQ

He and Daido and klien have multitudes of admirers.

Does everyone like Daido's work? No. I do, you may not.

My friend likes Clapton, I like Cobain. One is arguably more 'low fi' than the other but not 'lower'. Still millions of people love his work.

Not better or worse, just different. And the acceptance of this in each other that is where we find and may delight in our shared humanity!

Perfect technical ability is great and is no bad thing at all. But neither is delighting in an image for purely other reasons

The old Punctum and Studium couple. Not a divorce but a marriage Some lean more one way, some the other.... some works achieve both and some people admire that too. I like all of it.

I also like wabi sabi in some photographs like Moriyama's famous 'stray dog' something so arresting about that photo, so much raw feeling!

Don wrote

tbcass said:

Another thing to consider is that the bigger the print, the more any faults in image quality show. If you only view on a small screen, or make small prints, IQ is less important -- until you happen to shoot a great photo but find it's spoiled by noise or other faults if you see it on a large screen or want to have a big print of it on your wall.

Don

Click to expand...

I agree for a finely detailed landscape but I wouldn;t say no to a free copy of a largest possiblle quality print of Moriyama's 'Stray Dog' or Steichen's 'Flatiron'.... or Frank's 'Americans...'

D Cox said:

Papa48 said:

I started in 1969 as a college student with B&W and a darkroom in my landlady's basement fruit cellar. My primary camera was a Yashica D purchased for $65 and my favorite film was also the most reasonably-priced Kodak VP 120. It was soft working in Edwal Minicol II pushed to ASA 400, and very forgiving.

Over the years stepping up through gear has afforded me increasing technological advantages. The last stop is probably my current kit. I shot this while my beloved companion of fifty years took a reading break tonight. I don't pretend to call it art, but it brings satisfaction as an image.

At 73 I'm thankful for where it has all gone. This morning I struggled with this thread, because I wearied myself through too much debate. Tonight I've stepped up to just shoot something and post it, so those who might be interested can see what I do. I know this kind of image will be appreciated by our family and friends. That's what matters most.

Click to expand...

That's a great portrait. It does help that you told us who it is.

I'm left wondering what the book is -- she's nearly finished it. Was it good ?

Don

Click to expand...

It’s The Racketeer, by John Grisham. She did finish it. She liked it! The portrait, not so much.

--

Yup don;t take photos of women sleeping or without having put their face on and hair done.... They rarely like it! Even many blokes like to only show their best!

Chris Noble said:

Bob said:

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?

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of picking between technique and esthetics. You need both.

Click to expand...

I completely, unequivocally agree with you Chris, however, countless examples throughout human history shows (at least to me) that we are contrarian in human nature.

I think the best photographers recognize this and transcend it.

Mark S Abeln said:

57even said:

One might say that technical quality only matters when the lack of it detracts from the image (or story). You don't need to be a master wordsmith to write a good book, but you do have to be literate and have a readable style.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting observation.

And since we mainly have printed, good handwriting is not very important nowadays, but there are folks who do have excellent calligraphy: but fancy calligraphy would be totally wasted on a shopping list, and would be completely appropriate for a book cover.

I've seen some writing and other art that is bad on all levels except arguably for the ideas expressed, but these works are usually of no interest except to fellow ideologues, and they repel everyone else.

Click to expand...

Communication is a craft like any other. When done by an expert it seems effortless and transparent, as if there is a telepathic link between the teller and the told.

57even said:

One might say that technical quality only matters when the lack of it detracts from the image (or story). You don't need to be a master wordsmith to write a good book, but you do have to be literate and have a readable style.

Click to expand...

This is an insult to many great writers.

J A C S said:

57even said:

One might say that technical quality only matters when the lack of it detracts from the image (or story). You don't need to be a master wordsmith to write a good book, but you do have to be literate and have a readable style.

Click to expand...

This is an insult to many great writers.

Click to expand...

Why? Were they illiterate?

57even said:

J A C S said:

57even said:

One might say that technical quality only matters when the lack of it detracts from the image (or story). You don't need to be a master wordsmith to write a good book, but you do have to be literate and have a readable style.

Click to expand...

This is an insult to many great writers.

Click to expand...

Why? Were they illiterate?

Click to expand...

You ignore the fact that many of them were "master wordsmith(s)" and more.

Yes. Until you understand lighting, composition, subject, and the feelings you're trying to express, it doesn't matter how technically perfect your shot is, it will be boring.

At the same time, learning the technical side of any art takes years and it's just as important because technical flaws can distract viewers from your subject. If the audience is wondering why your subject's skin has a green cast or the horizon is crooked they're not going to be able to pay attention to what you're trying to express.

Bob said:

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?

Click to expand...

--
Sit!

Bad? No. Some people are gear-heads and IQ is their hobby. I have no issue with that. Personally I don't like it when IQ takes a back seat to competition, but that's just my preference... I'm sure there are photographers who feel the opposite. Diff'rent strokes.

Aaron

Bob said:

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?

Click to expand...

I do not believe the concept of image quality is bad in and of itself, as it may be important to some photographers -- but not to others. I think if you're doing wedding photography where your shots will be judged by your clients, then it may be very important to you. For landscape photography, it may be important to you. As an artform where it's very subjective as to whether or not people like it, it's probably not as important. Being slightly out of focus, while not ideal, is probably not critical in that type of scenario. It's up to you whether or not having a slightly nosier image, or slightly blurry image, or less DR is very important. Because if the shot grabs your audiences' attention and is enjoyed, you could argue that not having the best IQ is not the be all and end all. Most people probably won't be able to tell if you used a Canon 5D or 5D Mark IV, or any other camera for that matter. Or if you didn't nail focus on the eye. Or if you used your phone. Some amazing shots I've seen where taken on a smartphone. And I would never have guessed that they used a phone with some photographs. Possibly the same model or from the same brand as the one that's in my pocket. You never know for sure.

Papa48 said:

D Cox said:

Papa48 said:

I started in 1969 as a college student with B&W and a darkroom in my landlady's basement fruit cellar. My primary camera was a Yashica D purchased for $65 and my favorite film was also the most reasonably-priced Kodak VP 120. It was soft working in Edwal Minicol II pushed to ASA 400, and very forgiving.

Over the years stepping up through gear has afforded me increasing technological advantages. The last stop is probably my current kit. I shot this while my beloved companion of fifty years took a reading break tonight. I don't pretend to call it art, but it brings satisfaction as an image.

At 73 I'm thankful for where it has all gone. This morning I struggled with this thread, because I wearied myself through too much debate. Tonight I've stepped up to just shoot something and post it, so those who might be interested can see what I do. I know this kind of image will be appreciated by our family and friends. That's what matters most.

Click to expand...

That's a great portrait. It does help that you told us who it is.

I'm left wondering what the book is -- she's nearly finished it. Was it good ?

Don

Click to expand...

It’s The Racketeer, by John Grisham. She did finish it. She liked it! The portrait, not so much.

Click to expand...

Well, we would all like to still look as we did at age 20, but our friends and family love us (or at least tolerate us) as we are.

I'll look out for that book. Thanks.

Don Cox

tko said:

Does the distraction of learning to tune and play a musical instrument instrument get in the way of creating the perfect melody? No, because they aren't mutually exclusive. The whole thread is based on a false dichotomy.

• Know your equipment
• Get the best possible equipment
• Learn composition
• Learn lighting
• Learn how to tell a story and engage the viewer

These are all important and you can't emphasize one at the cost of another.

Have you even gone to a kid's violin recital where they laboriously play some famous musical piece? Even through the piece has withstood the test of centuries, it sounds terrible but they don't have the technique yet.

This is just another variation on the "I don't want to do the hard work just let my creative genius shine through" thread that occurs not just on photographic sites, but on writing and painting and other creative sites. It's a variation on the "I only want to please myself with my art" thread.

Do some get it out of proportion? Undoubtedly. Do some like to spend an excessive amount of time argue about technical matters they don't even understand? Sure. The nature of technology invites heated discussions over vague artistic concepts. I'll bet if you go to a guitar forum it will be filled with people discussing wood types, bow strings and amplifiers.

Click to expand...

I would say the example of music is a little different in that the technical side their is significant more complex than photography and indeed open to more creativity. Really knowing how to use a camera correctly and post processing isnt that hard to learn relative to playing most instruments.

Photography is I think an artform were quality work is almost also marked out by the creative side, especially in the digital age. A concert pianist being able to recreate a work exactly without much individual input is valued a lot higher than simply being able to operate and process an image on a technical level.

J A C S said:

57even said:

J A C S said:

57even said:

One might say that technical quality only matters when the lack of it detracts from the image (or story). You don't need to be a master wordsmith to write a good book, but you do have to be literate and have a readable style.

Click to expand...

This is an insult to many great writers.

Click to expand...

Why? Were they illiterate?

Click to expand...

You ignore the fact that many of them were "master wordsmith(s)" and more.

Click to expand...

How is my comment insulting to them?

J A C S said:

57even said:

One might say that technical quality only matters when the lack of it detracts from the image (or story). You don't need to be a master wordsmith to write a good book, but you do have to be literate and have a readable style.

Click to expand...

This is an insult to many great writers.

Click to expand...

Emily Bronte

Case closed.