Image Quality? No Such Thing?

[cgw]

Thoughtful, as usual:

There is No Such Thing as Image Quality

 

[Overread]

I always think that people write articles like that after they've just bowed out or been economically forced out of the "high end gear" and have instead wound up using "cheaper" gear. Or they've never been able to afford the top end from the start.

I say that because they always start to make the "painters don't care about paint" or "the viewer doesn't care what you used to make the photo" comments. These always seem very shallow to me. Sure only another photographer is really going to care what lens or camera you used - but that isn't the point is it. The point is that the quality of the final work that they are admiring IS partly a property of the gear they used


Which is the other aspect that creeps in. Many photographers show a huge amount of insecurity about their creativity. They get to a mindset where they are worried that people don't value them for their skill and instead value the camera for its quality and performance (hey that's a great shot you must have a really expensive camera).






The article does start well in raising understanding that quality is a subjective term based upon the situation and requirements of the photographer. That is a very valid point; but it then goes into the same old traps that I've pointed out above rather than building on where it started to show how softer lenses (or even choices like soft-focus lenses); or lenses that render a different way etc... start to come into things.
If anything lenses get left behind and it sort of lingers into micro4/3rds and sensor sizes (personally I'll be glad when this wave of madness about m4/3rd and mirrorless eases off somewhat)

 

[fmw]

I think image quality is important. If you have it and wish to be "creative" you can do that with technique and post process. If you don't have it you can't be accurate. I think the article was pure nonsense. There aren't many bad cameras in this day and age.

 

[Derrel]

Yes...image "properties" is really the issue...different types of cameras and lenses DO produce different types of photographic results.

 

[nerwin]

I agree with @Overread - I as well think a lot of these articles are written by people who coulden't afford higher end cameras/lenses and therefor write articles justifying their reasoning and that's perfectly fine. Not everyone can afford high end camera equipment, I certainly can't. There's nothing wrong with shooting with the gear that you can afford, I don't think it should be a reason to not take pictures.

A friend of mine only shoots with a entry level body and the 18-55 kit lens and his work is stunning and even in galleries.

Like everyone says, gear doesn't matter.

If you can afford to purchase higher end equipment, do it. If you can't, that's fine!

 

[zombiesniper]

This seems to be the same trope that some of the wannabe art crowd fall back on when their skills/equipment aren't up to par.

No level horizon = Dutch angle which somehow makes it "edgy"

Out of whack white balance = setting the mood

Can't get an in focus shot to save your life = "How I see the world man"

Any true artist (which most of the fakes will quote) became proficient in their field and then began to experiment.

Blanket statements like image quality doesn't matter are usually made by somebody that is trying to compensate for lack of quality.

Same is true of the you don't need more than a 10 mix camera or nothing beats film.

Now that being said. It's an opinion, however narrow and it's the owners right to have it........but it's our right to point out how obtuse it is.

 

[DanOstergren]

Image quality is important, I think, but when it comes to most DSLR cameras and lenses, the gear itself has nothing to do with the image quality; the skill of the user dictates the image quality.