Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
No but what is hard to learn is the ability to make a compelling image that tells a compelling story and to do that whilst developing an individual and identifiable visual style.
-
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
tfeb
Member
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 55
Except it's more complicated than that, isn't it? I have two cameras which essentially have fixed 40-45mm (equivalent) lenses: a Minolta CLE (film camera but bear with me) and a Sigma dp2 Quattro. The CLE's lens is technically not fixed, but I have only taken it off the body to check I can.
The DP2Q's lens certainly has far higher technical IQ than the CLE's. It's also ~twice as large in every dimension (and two stops slower!) and perhaps ~eight (2 cubed) times as heavy therefore. I can carry the CLE all day in one hand, and often do. I would struggle do that with the DP2Q, simply because the lens is so bulky and heavy.
So, OK, I'm not comparing like with like, because I wanted to compare two lenses I actually own. But it is clearly (and inevitably I think) the case that the search for very high technical IQ from lenses has resulted in very big and very heavy lenses. Because that's how you get very good technical IQ: lots of elements. A Tessar (4 elements in 3 groups) is never going to compete with the DP2Q lens (8 elements, including one aspherical, in 6 groups) in technical IQ. But it is going to be a lot smaller and a lot lighter.
And no matter how high the technical IQ, if you don't have the camera you don't make the photograph. That's something people carrying Leicas (low technical IQ, tiny, light, quick) taught people lugging around large format cameras (high technical IQ big, heavy, slow) in the 1930s. And it's a lesson that still matters today.
Technical IQ is one factor. But it is only one factor: there are others which matter as much or (heresy!) more.
(Note: I love my DP2Q, I didn't buy it to compare with the CLE. Also note I own a LF camera, so I know what I'm talking about with regards to lugging them around.)
Last edited:
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,976
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
Yes certainly, my point would be that I think the "technical" side in photography tends to be much less of a barrier and less of a source of individually than in music.
Really learning how to use a camera and basic of post processing shouldn't be something that takes a great deal of focus/time.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Absolutely. It seems to me that too many people view IQ vs composition/lighting as an either/or proposition when in reality it's a sliding scale where all 3 affect the result in varying degrees depending on the photographer's goal.
I don’t think striving for high IQ within the photographic community is counterproductive in the whole. It may be for some individuals for some portion of their photographic lives. But balancing IQ with other aspects such as light and composition will come with time and experience for each individual.
My goal, in shooting nature/landscape photography is to create engaging images. The level of IQ, IMO, needs to be sufficient to achieve engagement and not be a distraction. But it can vary from social media postings to creating images for juried shows and contests or carrying out professional assignments.
--
Alan Clark
https://arclark.smugmug.com/
My goal, in shooting nature/landscape photography is to create engaging images. The level of IQ, IMO, needs to be sufficient to achieve engagement and not be a distraction. But it can vary from social media postings to creating images for juried shows and contests or carrying out professional assignments.
--
Alan Clark
https://arclark.smugmug.com/
Last edited:
The technical definition of image quality is probably perfectly fine. The problem is when those definitions predominate over other aspects of photography that can matter equally to those involved. For many photographers in many fields, composition and color rendition/output will likely matter more. Additionally, levels of image quality that may matter for competitions won't likely matter when it comes to posting on Instagram.
Additionally, given that nearly every camera made in the last 10 years does a great technical job of taking photos and nearly every lens made in that same period is of high quality, the matter of image quality is often a nonfactor other than to those who want to do Chelsea Northrup-style autofocus tests that have no bearing on real-world usage. Given that so much of image quality is dependent on the settings used (shooting wide open will always lead to lower levels of sharpness), the technical measure can often radiate more heat than shed light.
Why wouldn't color rendition be part of IQ?
This is not exactly a fact, and of course, there are many great lenses on sale today not
Because color output and rendition are highly dependent on the photographer and what he or she wants. You have folks who prefer Zeiss colors, others who prefer Sony colors, and others still who want something else entirely. There's an entire discussion going on right now in the Sony Full Frame forum about these preference issues and what folks consider to be 'pleasing color' (as well as arguments over what is or isn't 'color science').
Additionally, so much of color output is driven by other choices. In portrait photography, there's the matter of lighting, whether or not a stray light or object with a different color than what you seek bleeds into the image, even skin tones and how to compliment them through props and settings. In product photography, the use of Photoshop to change backgrounds as well as steps such as photographing a background before shooting the subject product, also plays parts in color output and rendition.
In short, color rendition and output is really subjective, driven by various biases (including racial biases, a point made by the fact that until the 1970s, when Hershey and other chocolate makers demanded that Kodak produce better renditions of dark tones, Black and Brown people's skin were poorly rendered in images - https://petapixel.com/2015/09/19/he...lm-was-originally-biased-toward-white-people/), and even by people's physical ability to assess colors (one in eight men suffer from sort of color blindness). So talking about it as an objective measure of image quality doesn't work.
I did not say that it was a measure or even that it had to be objective. To me, color rendition is a major factor of, well, IQ. For some, sharpness is not. Sharpness varies as well in a subjective way; many people prefer oversharpened or aliased images, which I detest. Sharpness can also be manipulated by pp, and often is. It is affected by the people's vision even more than color, and yet, for some reason, IQ is typically associated with sharpness mostly.
Color rendition and output may be your measure of something. But in the context of image quality objectively (as possible) measured, it isn't. It's highly subjective to the point of fights over whether Sony should adopt Canon colors (because that's what some prefer) while some Canon shooters feel the converse.
For you, color rendition is a measure of whatever you deem to be important in a photo. But that's artistic by nature. Art, in turn, is always subjective and while there are technical measures that can be applied, it still ends up being based on your point of view. That ultimately isn't image quality as measured objectively (as possible).
Brev00
Forum Pro
The human brain is capable of integrating many streams of information. IQ, composition, lighting, subject matter, post processing, etc. On the other hand, we are also capable of infinite distraction and obsession. Do I read a lot about image quality here and elsewhere? Sure. Do I spend a good deal of time processing my images? Yes. Do I own different types of photo paper of various sizes and print my images? All the time. And, do I think about composition and lighting when taking pictures? Of course. We will all emphasize these different aspects of our craft in our own individual ways.
One area I think we often overlook is the importance of viewing the output of others, whether in photography or any other art form. Going to museums, looking at photos in magazines, newspapers, and books, checking out various websites and apps, opening our eyes to the architecture around us. I seek to express myself through my photography and to experience and appreciate the expressions of others. I can also entertain my brain by researching image quality along the way.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
One area I think we often overlook is the importance of viewing the output of others, whether in photography or any other art form. Going to museums, looking at photos in magazines, newspapers, and books, checking out various websites and apps, opening our eyes to the architecture around us. I seek to express myself through my photography and to experience and appreciate the expressions of others. I can also entertain my brain by researching image quality along the way.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
Last edited:
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
It could be possible to use a Kodak colour separation guide and grey scale or similar to test the colour accuracy. the closer to the test card the better.
Why do you keep talking about measurements? SMI is a measure of color fidelity, if you really need one.
In audio, no serious audiophile cares about measurements. In fact, some prefer tube electronics which measures worse than the rest. The notion of quality of gear or music still exists, and it is primary. Yes, it is subjective but so what?
Back to photography. IQ is subjective as well. When I see a photo which I would call a photo with great IQ, I do not say - show me the MTF, then we will talk. IQ is something you know it is there when you see it. No much difference.
As I noted in an earlier response, Kodak itself was forced to address how its film and cameras rendered Black and Brown skin tones primarily because its oversights also also gave chocolate candies (as well as furniture) unpleasing color outputs. Even now, the legacies of racism essentially make Kodak's color separation guides (which are themselves subjective and based on its own ideas of color rendition and output) not all that useful.
The key point here is that color rendition and output are subjective. What is pleasing to you isn't pleasing to others. While using color checkers can be helpful in addressing some aspects of color output, the question of whether the ultimate output is pleasing is highly dependent on the individual.
But even the audiophiles will argue that there are objective measurements of quality in audio gear and output. Signal-to-noise has been a traditional approach. It's just that at the end of the day, audiophiles will also admit that the entire measure of what is pleasing is highly dependent on each person.
To wit: Most people are perfectly fine with MP3 output, even if audiophiles prefer FLAC because it is lossless (and would generally disdain digital files to start). Audiophiles also admit that many folks prefer bass-heavy headphones from firms such as Beats and Sony, even if they prefer cans with more-balanced output. Audiophiles will defend their preferences and yet, still admit that the preferences are just that.
By the way: We measure what we think matters enough to measure. This is why folks in every field talk about measurement. That's elementary understanding of these things.
But then, you're not talking about image quality, are you? If you were talking about image quality, then you would be talking about levels of noise as well as levels of sharpness in the corners and center, among other things.
What you seem to be talking about instead is what you find appealing in a photo. Some of that could be related to the technical and measurable measures of image quality, the rest really tied to what appeals to you subjectively on an emotional and/or artistic level. The issue here is that you are more-confused about the matter than I am. That's okay. But it is your job to address your confusion and the definitions of your terms, not my job to figure your job out for you.
Ultimately, there is image quality, and then there is what we find to be pleasing in terms of photo production. Sometimes they intersect, sometimes not. But either way, we are entitled to have opinions about the latter.
Last edited:
I do not know a single one, I was an audiophile in the past.
Not really. Today's amps have negligeable noise, so nobody really cares anymore. I am not even sure if my electronics lists them (the reason I am not sure is because I never checked). In the old times, people talked about THD, frequency range, etc., but that is history.
They would admit that there is no measure, subjective or not.
Just like the amount of sharpening?
This is kind of tautology. We want to measure things, true but this does not make it right all the time.
No, this is what you would be talking about. I would be talking about color, microcontrast, whatever that is, acutance, the way texture is rendered, tonality, and all that je ne sais quoi that makes an image stand out based on its technical qualities alone; even if it is an image of a table, a few chairs and a bed.
Don't go there, you will end up in the dpreview jail for a week (or I will).
Son of Thunder
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,142
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 817
tony field
Forum Pro
Indeed! Bad cameras insisting not taking the image that "you wanted".
LOL!
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum