Sooooo....... IQ vs artistic expression

[Compaq]

I've been reading BT's "Learning to See Creatively". Great book, very nice. Anyway, what I have noticed is that he, without thinking about the image quality, stopped down to f/22 or even f/32 to get max DOF.

Today, I see people fearing stopping down that much due to the de devilish, image quality eater diffraction. Why is that? Is IQ that important? It didn't seem to worry BT. Also, a little diffraction can be taken care of in PS, and get very good results. A little less contrast, we can even shoot RAW.

Do anyone see what I mean? Don't get me wrong, artistic expression can be image quality. Just tried to get a good head line.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think that photogs should do what they want to get the result they want.
Image Quality is a characteristic we should care about in lenses and sensors but it is only an enabler to get the pictures we want.

 

[Compaq]

Mr. Petersen did what was needed with his camera, lens and film to realise his vision. I of course don't know what went through his head when he shot his images, but the book gives the impression that he would gladly stop down to f/32, or open up to f/2 to get what he wanted.

Or perhaps I'm just over thinking this.

 

[Christie Photo]

I've been reading BT's "Learning to See Creatively".

Man... I feel SO out of touch. I have to ask... who is BT?

I've always been a bit amused at the sort of things we concern ourselves with when it come to technical issues. Much of what we are cautioned about can be detected only under laboratory scrutiny. I've witnessed discussions about which lens is sharper, what aperture affords the greatest performance and the like, only to learn a lens-mounted diffuser was being used. Or how one meter is better than another because it measures in 1/10th stop increments.

Reading through many of the critiques offered here, it seems most folks presume a photograph should absolutely reflect real life... reality. I agree that some departures are not readily recognizable as deliberate, causing the viewer to be confused. But when it comes to art, sharper is not necessarily better, true color is not always the aim, detail in every bit of an image (shadow or highlight) is not always desirable, and so on.

I see no problem in choosing to shoot at minimum aperture to achieve what the maker intends.

-Pete

 

[Compaq]

Oh, I've gotten the impression that Bryan Peterson's books almost are a "rite of passage" on this board, much like buying a shaving blade sampler pack is the rite of passage in my online shaving community But I digress.

You brought up something important, that when discussing sharpness of lenses, barrel distortion or any other distortion that I don't know what is (other that it bends straight lines), or contrast, laboratory results have a very big impact on us, it seems. I'm not suggesting that a poor sigma super zoom and a canon L prime aren't clearly different.

Just something to think about. Many are so hung up on lenses, myself included (although I only own the cheapest lens available by canon, hehe), that it's easy to forget other things about photography than razor sharp images.

 

[KenC]

Most of the photographs hanging in museums or published in fine art books were taken with lenses and film inferior to the lowest-tier equipment available today. Would these images have been better if produced with current equipment with less distortion and better sharpness? Probably not, and in some cases they might have been worse.

With regard to diffraction, it is worse with small-sensor DSLRs than with film, so I can't use my 100 mm macro past about f14 or so without paying a significant price in sharpness, while with my past film cameras I used my 105 macro at f22 all the time. Of course I wasn't viewing the results at the high magnifications possible on a screen now, but I could get 8x10 prints that appeared to be sharp, which I can't do now at f22.

 

[usayit]

I personally think there is a bit too much obsession over IQ.

Artistically, you can create with anything.... and enjoy doing so. Lomography, polaroid shooters, old film shooters, toy cameras, plastic lenses, whatever... speaks to the person behind the camera.

Bryan's choice of aperture was to achieve some purpose as a teaching tool. Don't be afraid to deviate from what people preach.

 

[The_Traveler]

much like buying a shaving blade sampler pack is the rite of passage in my online shaving community But I digress.

Online shaving community?

Compaq, you've got to get away from your computer more.

 

[pgriz]

Really depends on what you're going for. I know with my equipment the amount of fine-detail blurring I get due to diffraction at specific apertures (did the tests), and if the image requires that fine detail, then I don't go into those aperture ranges. On the other hand, sometimes DOF trumps fine detail, and then it's perfectly fine to go into the apertures where the fine detail will be lost. For me, it's one of those mental checkpoints - what's the point of the photo, and which characteristic is more important in that photo. If both are important, then you need to reach out to techniques such as focus stacking (something I've learned about recently and am experimenting with).

 

[imagemaker46]

It really doesn't matter what the technical side of a camera is, it's what the final outcome of the images created are. I rarely shoot higher than f6.3-8.0 and usually am at 2.8-5.6, it is how I work and the type of photography that I do shoot most of the time. It really doesn't matter as long as what you want is what you get.

People argue over the technical aspects of photography, I don't, I know what I need to know. Some people enjoy learning all the technical ins and outs of everything photographic, it doesn't make them better photographers, it just gives them the edge when dealing with other technical types. I've said it before, I'm one of the least technical photographers I know, but I do know light, composition and the rest of what is really important to being a good photographer.

 

[flea77]

Some people enjoy learning all the technical ins and outs of everything photographic, it doesn't make them better photographers, it just gives them the edge when dealing with other technical types. I've said it before, I'm one of the least technical photographers I know, but I do know light, composition and the rest of what is really important to being a good photographer.

I'll have to disagree here. Learning the technical side in my opinion is crucial if for no other reason as it give you options. The better you know how things work, the better you can use that knowledge to improve your photography. I don't know a single photographer who thinks their work is perfect, they are all striving to make it better. That doesn't mean you have to use the top of the line equipment, but knowing what the top of the line CAN do for you, and then deciding on whether or not you need that to improve your images, that IS important.

Allan

 

[Overread]

^ +1 agreed - plus the technical side is really simple to lean - either from books or if you can't learn from them, through experimentation and in the field testing. Once the basics of the technical sides are mastered the photographer has the base skills - its like learning to use a hammer to build with - you need that basic tool and tool skill - beyond that everything then starts to break down into skills, experiences, diversity of influences, artistic skill, imagination, realisation (either before the event or at the time or (ideally) both).

 

[The_Traveler]

I think that at least some people's drive for technical perfection comes from coming up against the talent wall. If one can't create 'art', then one can get some satisfaction out of technical perfection. I watched an acquaintance progress up through FF digital then MF film then LF film, talking all the time about IQ and producing technically perfect but completely empty pictures - but damn they were sharp and, where Ansel Adams had ten zones, this guy had his turned up to eleven.

 

[Overread]

I can certainly agree to that - not everyone has a "natural artistic talent" and it can take them a lot longer to learn the artistic side to photography - to learn to express themselves and to also work out what it is they want to express (ever notice that a lot of beginners don't always know beyond "me take photo of that" with regard to the photos they take ).

Also we have to remember that, like many other creative talents, photography isn't just about art in itself. We can oft end up thinking that it is because dedicated photography forums tend to lean toward more arty (if not in actual skills at least in hoped for skills) - but photography can be used purely for alternative uses; eg products or documentary type photos where art isn't necessarily the key component - or is not necessarily aiming to challenge the pre-constructed base elements that make for good basic artistic construction (your good old rule of 3rds )

 

[The_Traveler]

This is the reason that newbies need to get technically proficient first.
Once you know your camera and its abilities/limits and can produce conventional photos adequately then you can exercise your art.