How do you define image quality?

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

Last week my aunt and me, we went to a camera store to get our sensors cleaned. Dust had accidentaly entered my canon 1200d and my aunt wanted to have her 10 year old nikon cleaned.  while waiting for the cleaning to be done we browsed the store to look at some other cameras.  1 guy at the camera store was trying to convince her to buy a new camera saying that it offers better image quality.  She told him her camera was still doing a good job.

 

Also Many beginners come to this forum asking for advise on the camera they should buy.  People tell them to buy camera model X because it has better image quality. But what is image quality?

 

Here are photos taken with the canon and nikon, are the image quality really bad that a new camera is necessary?  Is it really necessary for her to replace her D70?

 

 

What about beginners, do they need to buy the camera they don't want but with a better sensor even if they want to buy a different camera because it si what they want?  like some people who want to buy a canon but told they need to get a nikon or sony instead.

 

[Omon_Ra]

No need to upgrade, the photographer dictates the quality of the photograph more than the camera. If you or your aunt are planning on doing large-format prints, then a larger sensor camera would be a useful upgrade; but otherwise just stick with what you have.

[vorticalbox]

lens quality > anything else. 

[mathmeister]

If she's using the stock lens, she should swap that out for a better one. Then try and move on to manual mode instead of using auto.

[ALwin]

1 hour ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

snip

"Image Quality" consists of several criteria, of which only some are about the performance of the sensor.  There are people on this forum (and of course many sales clerks at stores) who think that the only determining factor whether a camera is good or bad is the technical performance of the sensor.  What they don't seem to understand is the fact that photography is dependent on the skill and talent of the person who uses the camera.

 

If someone were to come ask here, or to a store, "should I buy camera A, B, or C?" they will tend to get replies saying buy camera A because it has a (higher DxO mark score/rating, or that the sensor is made by a particular manufacturer, or that it is designed to do something extreme).  The people who respond don't understand or perhaps more like they don't take into consideration:

• Is the person buying it going to be actually using the camera in situations where those performances start to matter? 
  • Most people don't take photos in extreme conditions.  For example, the Sony A7s II can be considered the low light king, with capability to take photos in near complete darkness, as shown in the video below.  The question are: how often would any beginner take photos in such darkness?  Are professionals who take extreme photos going actually use such a high ISO, wouldn't they know how to use external lighting setups instead?
• Other factors that might decide whether one camera is more suitable than another?
  • Without actual experience or at least understanding the use case of the potential buyer, you can't just use image quality (sensor performance) as the only reason to pick one camera over another.  For example, I should theoretically be trading in my D800E and D4 for either the new Sony A7 s/r mk IIs or the D810/D5, but I don't for several reasons:
    • first is cost, my cameras are still in great working condition so why would I want to invest another $2000-4000 on replacing two working cameras?
    • second is, the Sony cameras, while they perform well, are not suitable for the work I do nor do they meet some of the more important requirements I have:
      • tough durable bodies
      • dual memory card slots, for backup and expansion
      • longer battery life than mirrorless cameras, and ability to orient them vertically without twisting my hands (I own a battery grip for the D800E, and the D4 has it built in)
      • I feel more comfortable holding DSLR cameras than mirrorless
      • they feel better balanced when I use my longer, larger and heavier lenses
      • and I have other cameras when I need to travel light or for casual use

 

 

More importantly, the truly relevant use of the term "Image Quality" is for the content/composition of the photo itself rather than whether the camera can shoot super high ISO, has perfect noise handling capabilities, shoots high frame rate video, etc.

 

1 hour ago, Omon_Ra said:

the photographer dictates the quality of the photograph more than the camera.

This is more relevant in talking about image quality than whether one camera has a technically better sensor than another.

 

The other day I responded to another member, that good photos need to contain an interesting story or invoke an emotional response.  A forgettable photo, no matter how clean, how vibrant the colors, how nice it looks... will always be a forgettable photo.

 

For example, by the standards used to judge photos by people who think the sensor tech is important, this photo below would be crap.  But for those who judge the quality of the photo by what it contains, it's a fantastic image.  This is a photo by one of my favorite togs of all time, Henri Cartier-Bresson.

 

If a beginner thinks or someone (via giving advice) propagates the belief that you need a technically advanced camera to create fantastic images, I doubt they will grow as a photographer until they get out of this mindset.

 

If someone gives you advice saying "you should get this camera because it has a better sensor", they are idiots telling you that the only way you can be good as a photographer is by relying on the tech inside the camera rather than the skill and talent you have.

 

1 hour ago, vorticalbox said:

lens quality > anything else. 

Not entirely true.  Modern lenses are more or less of very good quality.  Sure some may suffer from chromatic aberration, flaring, soft edges, and distortion.  Many of which can be completely dealt with in post or at least minimized.  And of course... many of the "best" lenses are beyond the budget of beginners, and even some of them are not completely perfect.

 

47 minutes ago, mathmeister said:

If she's using the stock lens, she should swap that out for a better one. Then try and move on to manual mode instead of using auto.

Why?  Why does she need to change the lens?  Where does it specify that she is using a particular mode on the camera or that she is asking how to improve her skills?

[ALwin]

26 minutes ago, ALwin said:

If a beginner thinks or someone (via giving advice) propagates the belief that you need a technically advanced camera to create fantastic images, I doubt they will grow as a photographer until they get out of this mindset.

 

If someone gives you advice saying "you should get this camera because it has a better sensor", they are idiots telling you that the only way you can be good as a photographer is by relying on the tech inside the camera rather than the skill and talent you have.

 

@Lincoln_Rhyme, this topic below is a perfect example where the OP (or more appropriately, his/her girlfriend) has to consider other factors besides camera specs when choosing the camera to buy.  The OP states she does wedding photography, but of course does not specify if she does it professionally to earn some income from paid clients or is it just taking photos for friends/family weddings.

 

If she does it professionally, being paid by the client, she needs to make choices that goes beyond which is the more advanced camera and consider how she will invest in a camera system (or systems) that enables her to make sure that the clients are satisfied with her work and that her reputation grows as a wedding photographer people should work with.  Both camera systems are good, but there are pros and cons to each that should be taken into consideration and weighted against her work requirements.

 

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

4 hours ago, Omon_Ra said:

 

 

3 hours ago, ALwin said:

 

 

Thank you. What you said about image quality being up to the photographer that part I understand.  I was just annoyed that there are many poeple who think better technology makes someone a better phogorapher.

 

and no, we didnt buy the camera that the sales guy was trying to sell us, and my aunt doesnt need to upgrade, until it breaks.  because we are just taking photos for fun.

[.spider.]

There are several factors like sharpness, dynamic range, noise floor, color reproduction...

[ALwin]

I have to wonder, when

• Sony World Photography Awards
• World Press Photo Awards
• National Geographic
• Magnum Photos
• photography competitions large and small, worldwide, regional, local, etc.
• online competitions

judge photos that are submitted for the competition, how the judges measure stuff like color reproduction, noise floor, dynamic range, etc.?  I guess they must think these factors are more important than the subject matter that is contained within the photos...

 

I guess award winning photographers like Jerry Ghionis who capture fantastic images such as these below are applauded for the dynamic range, sharpness, color, low noise, etc. aspects of his photos and not because they compose a photo that's truly artistic and amazing.

 

 

 

 

 

[.spider.]

I think @ALwin didn't get that this thread is about "image quality" and not about "what is a good image".

But actually I am not surprised.

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

On 7/9/2016 at 5:57 PM, ALwin said:

snip

 

This is what I mean.  I see many people thinking that the camera technology has to be the best to make beautiful photos when i see many people who have made great photos with outdated cameras.  i think peopel are focused on the wrong thing when they say they want to buy a camera so they can become a photographer

 

those photos you posted are beautiful, i wish i could make stuff like those one day.  the photo i posted, with the little girl smilling, that was shot with a nikon D70 which is very old.  my aunt shoots so many good photos with her camera i feel like a noob, even though i took courses and she traind herself.

[ALwin]

36 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

snip

"A portrait is not made in the camera but on either side of it."

- Edward Steichen

 

One of my favourite fashion photographers.

 

36 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

i wish i could make stuff like those one day

Keep being passionate about photography and you will be able to.

 

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

32 minutes ago, ALwin said:

"A portrait is not made in the camera but on either side of it."

- Edward Steichen

 

One of my favourite fashion photographers.

 

Keep being passionate about photography and you will be able to.

 

thanks ALwin Im going to keep on trying and improving.

[ALwin]

12 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

snip

Sadly some people only know how to press the shutter button on the camera to take a photo.

 

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."

- Robert Capa

 

Shame, it looks like a nice place to take some documentary photos for environmental protection campaigns. If it were me, I would've gone and met with the people who run this operation and asked if I could take some close ups photos and walk around various parts of the site, like I did in South Africa last year.

 

The UN agency website where the photos were published seems to be having issues right now, will post a few when I can connect to it.

[ALwin]

Well seems the server at the agency crashed and in Geneva the IT department doesn't work on the weekends at the UN.  And the photos haven't been uploaded to the the agency's official Flickr account.

 

You can use this photo as an example where it may contain so many distracting elements, but the viewers' eyes are naturally drawn towards what the photographer intends them to focus on.

 

 

[ALwin]

Even my own photos, like this as an example where there is also an interesting element in the background the eyes are naturally drawn back towards the snarling tiger in the front which is in focus.

 

 

or this one where you might think that the sun setting in the background is more important but your eyes get drawn to the girl who is paying more attention to her phone than to beauty of nature

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

10 minutes ago, ALwin said:

LMAO.  His photo is focused on the warning signpost, when the viewers' eyes tend to be drawn immediately towards the landscape and machinery in the background.  The signpost is also barely legible.  The composition is forcibly drawing the viewers' attention to the boring part of the photo.  That's not how photo composition is supposed to work.  If the photo has to force the viewer to see something, the photographer sucks.

 

Well seems the server at the agency crashed and in Geneva the IT department doesn't work on the weekends at the UN.  And the photos haven't been uploaded to the the agency's official Flickr account.

 

You can use this photo as an example where it may contain so many distracting elements, but the viewers' eyes are naturally drawn towards what the photographer intends them to focus on.

 

 

this is why i love photography, and talking with people who are passionate about it.  they know their stuff

[ALwin]

5 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

this is why i love photography, and talking with people who are passionate about it.  they know their stuff

 

“Photography for me is not looking, it’s feeling. If you can’t feel what you’re looking at, then you’re never going to get others to feel anything when they look at your pictures.”

- Don McCullin

 

I just finished some editing this morning, so today I have some free time and am happy to discuss photography with people like you.

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

7 minutes ago, ALwin said:

Even my own photos, like this as an example where there is also an interesting element in the background the eyes are naturally drawn back towards the snarling tiger in the front which is in focus.

 

 

man did you get into the cage with the tigers?

[ALwin]

4 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

man did you get into the cage with the tigers?

No, I wish I could've.  I had arranged things with the people who manage that farm and was supposed to.  But the handler had suffered an accident and couldn't be there on the day I went.

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

4 minutes ago, ALwin said:

No, I wish I could've.  I had arranged things with the people who manage that farm and was supposed to.  But the handler had suffered an accident and couldn't be there on the day I went.

were the front of the cages a glass panel?

[ALwin]

2 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

were the front of the cages a glass panel?

No, it was metal bars all around.  But you don't see them getting in the way of the shot because I was using a technique that minimizes their impact.  And before you ask, no I did not shove my lens in between. The spacing is too narrow to shove it through.

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

2 minutes ago, ALwin said:

No, it was metal bars all around.  But you don't see them getting in the way of the shot because I was using a technique that minimizes their impact.  And before you ask, no I did not shove my lens in between. The spacing is too narrow to shove it through.

ok its a trade secret i guess.  fantastic photo!  do you sell prints or enter competitions?

[ALwin]

9 minutes ago, Lincoln_Rhyme said:

ok its a trade secret i guess.  fantastic photo!  do you sell prints or enter competitions?

No it's not a trade secret.  It just depends on the focal length you use, the distance the camera is away from the bars and the distance the tigers are away from the bars too.  If you focus correctly and the bars are thin enough they will become so out of focus and blurry that in post processing you just need to work on the image a bit and they are completely gone.  You don't even need to use a cloning tool or Photoshop's new content aware manipulating tool.

 

NG paid me $100 to use the photo in an article, which they ended up not using because they changed the article and a conservation agency paid me 1000 CHF for a large print to hang on their wall.  Why, do you want to buy a print?

[Lincoln_Rhyme]

5 minutes ago, ALwin said:

No it's not a trade secret.  It just depends on the focal length you use, the distance the camera is away from the bars and the distance the tigers are away from the bars too.  If you focus correctly and the bars are thin enough they will become so out of focus and blurry that in post processing you just need to work on the image a bit and they are completely gone.  You don't even need to use a cloning tool or Photoshop's new content aware manipulating tool.

 

NG paid me $100 to use the photo in an article, which they ended up not using because they changed the article and a conservation agency paid me 1000 CHF for a large print to hang on their wall.  Why, do you want to buy a print?

cool, i'll have to try it to see how it works. how much do you charge for a print, depends on the size i guess?