Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 01 Apr 2013 (Monday) 03:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What is this thing called 'quality'?

 
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,067 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 193
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Apr 03, 2013 16:05 |  #61

OhLook wrote in post #15786840 (external link)
You are so right! The finger is essential to a correct reading of this work. It points to the basket of kittens hidden behind the water tower. Without that finger, viewers would miss all the cuteness that endows 99% of photos on the Web with their undeniable charm, not to mention the implicit public service message, "Spay and neuter your pets."

Goodness! And I thought that finger was just removing a blob of dirt from the front of the lens!

But then again, I'm one of those unwashed philistines who insists on PERFECT pixel quality, rules of thirds, a little bit of red in EVERY picture, and...ad nauseum! Not to mention cuteness! :rolleyes::p

Thank you for elucidating me!


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Apr 03, 2013 17:51 |  #62

ChrisSearle wrote in post #15777774 (external link)
And I'm talking about quality with reference to photographs specifically. I am prompted to ask this question because I am often surprised at peoples acceptance of horrible quality.

Example 1) A friend who is a 'wildlife photographer' uses a small video camera with huge zoom range and the ability to capture 2mp stills. He prints them at 8x10 and shows them to anybody who will look. He always says something like 'Look at this one, isn't it amazing? Isn't it incredible what can be done with digital technology?' I look at the blurred smeary mess of a picture and reply 'Amazing'. Not only does he ( and his wife) genuinely think these pictures are fantastic but both of them seem to see no difference between this type of shot and something done well with a 500/f4 EOS 1D mk 4 etc.
Example 2) My girlfriend uses an ipad for a camera, she prefers it to her 10mp Sony 'because you can see the pictures straight away and anyway they are just as good' ( they aren't, they are nowhere near as good.

I'm beginning to think that the vast majority of people are perfectly content with grainy over saturated, smeary photos and it's only the sort of fanatic that visits gear forums ( OK and maybe photography professionals) that care about quality.

As a part of my job involves technical assistance to newspapers I often see print managers getting very upset about (say) the colour of flesh tones being produced with a particular ink set when I know that 99.9 percent of the people who read that newspaper the next day will not even notice that they were, perhaps, a tad on the magenta side.

And I must confess that there are times when I look at two photographs, maybe produced by two similar but competing lenses, and I think, 'what am I missing here? Do I need my eyes tested?' Because although the images look pretty much identical to me there will be heated arguments that one has 'truly horrible' bokeh while the other has a 'strong green cast'.

So, back to my original question: What is this thing called 'quality'? Is there ever an ultimate 100% quality or is it like beauty, forever in the eye of the beholder?

You replying amazing doesn't help the situation. I've quit doing that. If someone asks and the photo is crap, I tell them. It's not helping anyone if you say it's amazing when it isn't. They think you must know because you know a lot about photography and it fosters their terrible taste.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChrisSearle
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
352 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: My time is divided between Totnes, UK, Mumbai, India and The Ardeche region of Southern France..
     
Apr 04, 2013 02:36 as a reply to  @ elrey2375's post |  #63

Very easy to say of course but does not take into account the complex nature of relationships between individuals, the calculations that need to be made weighing the possible hurt that may be caused vs the benefits that would eventually accrue from an 'honest' evaluation. I find your response crass and simplistic I'm afraid and it also assumes that I am not aware of the possible options. I certainly considered telling them that, 'no your pictures are of a very poor quality' but considered that this was not an appropriate response in this particular case.


Chris:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jeaunse23/ (external link)
5D Mk iii, 1D MkiiN, 1Ds Mkii. Zeiss 21 mm Distagon, Canon 24-105 L. Sigma 150 Macro. Canon 400 L. Sigma 50 Nikkor 24 mm 1.4 Ricoh GRD3 Canon G1X Fuji X100,Sigma DP2M and a bunch of other stuff.

My Sigma DP2M blog at:http://chrissearlesdp2​m.blogspot.in/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Apr 04, 2013 13:18 |  #64

ChrisSearle wrote in post #15789172 (external link)
Very easy to say of course but does not take into account the complex nature of relationships between individuals, the calculations that need to be made weighing the possible hurt that may be caused vs the benefits that would eventually accrue from an 'honest' evaluation. I find your response crass and simplistic I'm afraid and it also assumes that I am not aware of the possible options. I certainly considered telling them that, 'no your pictures are of a very poor quality' but considered that this was not an appropriate response in this particular case.

I find your response broad and sweeping:cool:. Relationships are as simple or as complicated as we make them. Yes, let's all go around lying to people we are 'friends' with in order to make them feel better. That seems logical... doesn't it. Thrusting people out into the cold, cruel world having always been coddled, doesn't help anyone. Let's not use red pen to grade papers, someone might get their feelings hurt. Everyone gets a ribbon, everyone wins. Unfortunately that isn't how the world works. The sooner people find that out, the better off they'll be. You had no problem coming onto a public forum and absolutely trashing the photos as horrible but you aren't willing to tell your true feelings about them to someone who is supposedly your friend? That doesn't even make sense to me


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 04, 2013 13:30 as a reply to  @ elrey2375's post |  #65

More true-but-not-helpful comments [variations on a theme]:

----------
"Does this dress make me look fat?"
"Dress?!! I thought it was a tent!"
----------
"Does this dress make me look fat?"
"No, but your 300-pound body does."
----------




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,067 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 193
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Apr 04, 2013 13:43 |  #66

20droger wrote in post #15790587 (external link)
More true-but-not-helpful comments [variations on a theme]:

----------
"Does this dress make me look fat?"
"Dress?!! I thought it was a tent!"
----------
"Does this dress make me look fat?"
"No, but your 300-pound body does."
----------

Thank you Roger...we seriously needed some perspective in this!
BTW, don't you have ANYTHING better to do?:D:D


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Apr 04, 2013 13:50 |  #67

20droger wrote in post #15790587 (external link)
More true-but-not-helpful comments [variations on a theme]:

----------
"Does this dress make me look fat?"
"Dress?!! I thought it was a tent!"
----------
"Does this dress make me look fat?"
"No, but your 300-pound body does."
----------

The lesson in those is don't ask a question you don't want the answer to.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 04, 2013 13:50 |  #68

Ricardo222 wrote in post #15790639 (external link)
Thank you Roger...we seriously needed some perspective in this!
BTW, don't you have ANYTHING better to do?:D:D

Nah! I'm long retired.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,067 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 193
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Apr 04, 2013 14:00 |  #69

20droger wrote in post #15790673 (external link)
Nah! I'm long retired.

I have a lot to look forward to!


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
20droger
Cream of the Crop
14,685 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 04, 2013 14:02 |  #70

Ricardo222 wrote in post #15790710 (external link)
I have a lot to look forward to!

Aren't you lucky!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 544
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Apr 04, 2013 15:56 as a reply to  @ ChrisSearle's post |  #71

elrey2375 wrote in post #15790541 (external link)
I find your response broad and sweeping. Relationships are as simple or as complicated as we make them. Yes, let's all go around lying to people we are 'friends' with in order to make them feel better. That seems logical... doesn't it. Thrusting people out into the cold, cruel world having always been coddled, doesn't help anyone. Let's not use red pen to grade papers, someone might get their feelings hurt. Everyone gets a ribbon, everyone wins. Unfortunately that isn't how the world works. The sooner people find that out, the better off they'll be. You had no problem coming onto a public forum and absolutely trashing the photos as horrible but you aren't willing to tell your true feelings about them to someone who is supposedly your friend? That doesn't even make sense to me



Hmm, I'm not sure why you are "singling out" the OP for criticism? If you go back and read the original post, note that he was not "defending" the use of "phony" compliments. In fact, to save you the trouble, here is his description of a scenario and his "leading question":

And I'm talking about quality with reference to photographs specifically. I am prompted to ask this question because I am often surprised at peoples acceptance of horrible quality.

Example 1) A friend who is a 'wildlife photographer' uses a small video camera with huge zoom range and the ability to capture 2mp stills. He prints them at 8x10 and shows them to anybody who will look. He always says something like 'Look at this one, isn't it amazing? Isn't it incredible what can be done with digital technology?' I look at the blurred smeary mess of a picture and reply 'Amazing'. Not only does he ( and his wife) genuinely think these pictures are fantastic but both of them seem to see no difference between this type of shot and something done well with a 500/f4 EOS 1D mk 4 etc.
Example 2) My girlfriend uses an ipad for a camera, she prefers it to her 10mp Sony 'because you can see the pictures straight away and anyway they are just as good' ( they aren't, they are nowhere near as good.

I'm beginning to think that the vast majority of people are perfectly content with grainy over saturated, smeary photos and it's only the sort of fanatic that visits gear forums ( OK and maybe photography professionals) that care about quality.

As a part of my job involves technical assistance to newspapers I often see print managers getting very upset about (say) the colour of flesh tones being produced with a particular ink set when I know that 99.9 percent of the people who read that newspaper the next day will not even notice that they were, perhaps, a tad on the magenta side.

And I must confess that there are times when I look at two photographs, maybe produced by two similar but competing lenses, and I think, 'what am I missing here? Do I need my eyes tested?' Because although the images look pretty much identical to me there will be heated arguments that one has 'truly horrible' bokeh while the other has a 'strong green cast'.

So, back to my original question: What is this thing called 'quality'? Is there ever an ultimate 100% quality or is it like beauty, forever in the eye of the beholder?

I won't suggest that someone saying that a sub-par photo is "amazing" is a good thing, although sometimes people who are not photographers make compliments like that...

But then, that wasn't the OPs actual question (or proposed action), was it?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Apr 04, 2013 16:54 |  #72

The person you quoted IS the OP


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 544
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Apr 04, 2013 17:29 |  #73

elrey2375 wrote in post #15791257 (external link)
The person you quoted IS the OP

Ah, you're right, I was referring to your comment here (I'll edit the post):

elrey2375 wrote in post #15790541 (external link)
I find your response broad and sweeping:cool:. Relationships are as simple or as complicated as we make them. Yes, let's all go around lying to people we are 'friends' with in order to make them feel better. That seems logical... doesn't it. Thrusting people out into the cold, cruel world having always been coddled, doesn't help anyone. Let's not use red pen to grade papers, someone might get their feelings hurt. Everyone gets a ribbon, everyone wins. Unfortunately that isn't how the world works. The sooner people find that out, the better off they'll be. You had no problem coming onto a public forum and absolutely trashing the photos as horrible but you aren't willing to tell your true feelings about them to someone who is supposedly your friend? That doesn't even make sense to me


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Apr 05, 2013 00:42 |  #74

tonylong wrote in post #15791368 (external link)
Ah, you're right, I was referring to your comment here (I'll edit the post):

My contention still stands. What kind of upside-down world do we live in where we tell the truth to strangers and lie to our friends?


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 544
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Apr 05, 2013 00:44 |  #75

elrey2375 wrote in post #15792608 (external link)
My contention still stands. What kind of upside-down world do we live in where we tell the truth to strangers and lie to our friends?

Well, you were contending with the OP, who was not suggesting that "we tell the truth to strangers and lie to our friends", but asking a question about the scenario...

And yes, there are complications about personal relationships...so?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,703 views & 0 likes for this thread
What is this thing called 'quality'?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is heflerbj
909 guests, 291 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.