[RioRico]

One cannot have quality photography without quality gear.

Tell that to the Holga-heads. Heh heh. Why, there are even some preverts who glue a Holga-type "Optical Lens" onto a PK mount and put it on a fancy dSLR, just to get that soft artsy look. (Who, me? Well...) But I digress.

Photography is (just) a medium for capturing and displaying images, an extension of other graphic arts like drawing, painting, printing. Some graphic artists seek photo-realistic renderings, some don't. It depends on WHAT YOU WISH TO CONVEY.

Cameras and lenses and lights and processing gear etc, and the techniques of using them, are (just) tools for grabbing and producing images. Decide what images you want to produce, to convey your ideas, and choose appropriate tools. These might be pinhole cameras, webcams, Hasselblads, whatever. "It's a poor work(wo)man who blames their tools."

Yes, we focus on tech-talk and hardware here. We don't talk much about art, wild experimentation, even composition (although lighting gets a nod). IMHO many who buy dSLRs and other 'advanced' gear want to achieve a certain level of (technical) image quality, what I'll call Magazine Quality. A couple years ago the Brooklyn Museum had a program where anybody could upload a photo to the BM website, then viewers voted on favorites. NONE of the winners were in any way 'experimental' or cutting-edge artsy; they all could have come from mass-market magazine pages. There's nothing wrong with that; I just find it less than exciting.

Anyone aspiring to magazine work should go to the Arizona Highways website and see their requirements for submissions. Snapshooters need not apply.

"Image quality" (IQ) can be irrelevant, depending on presentation. Pre-digital cinema was often of indifferent quality, but when moving images are blown-up to a theatre screen, it doesn't matter - we just don't notice. There are 'normal' viewing distance ranges for various-sized images, and at the far end of those ranges, IQ doesn't matter. Got an imperfect image? Place it where it can't be closely inspected. Or keep it small. I can contact-print from a 6x9cm negative, and print a 1mpx digicam image to the same size, and seen from over a foot away, especially behind glass, they are indistinguishable.

Of the zillions of digital images shot every day worldwide, how many are printed? How many are ever seen by anyone but the shooter? How many could be closely examined? How many will ever exist as tangible objects, worthy of attention?

We can expect more technical revolutions, more super-duper equipment that will make today's high-end tech-toys look as primitive as an Etch-a-Sketch. Think of giga-pixel 3D-holos with adaptive-array lenses, etc. (But it'll still be awhile before anything matches the dazzling beauty of a Daguerreotype.) The hardware wars will continue, and street-shooting ethical arguments, etc -- but will we talk art?

[Ash]

Good insights there RioRico.

The Holga heads may believe cheap, low quality gear is fine, but given a better quality camera & lens the same people will simply capture better images. Today, the soft results some are after is readily attainable with software. But it's good not to always get soft results.

It's quite clear though that MOST consumers in the photography world have cameras/lenses that have capabilities far beyond what the consumer uses in the gear. What's considered important to the consumer is the belief that he/she can garner satisfaction beyond expectation in the vocation with what gear is in their hands. Too easily the bar of expectation is raised too high too soon, and the consumer winds up being disgruntled or disappointed over things seldom needed in real world photography.

Nothing wrong with talking shop about gear, even pixel peeping and other such obsessive activities. Though an exaggerated attention of detail soon leads to a loss of the big picture, and a spiral down the law of diminishing returns...

[justinr]

AND who decides and by what standard is "good" photography/photographer defined?

Quite, and no doubt this has been argued many times before and none of us are probably any the wiser. But what does annoy me though is the assumption that if a certain person took a picture then it must automatically be good. That way we risk the promotion of mediocrity on the assumption of value. But then what is mediocre photography....?

And much the same may be asked about equipment. How do we define 'quality' in cameras? It easier to do so when we are using them for commercial or record work but the same criteria may not apply when used in artistic endeavours.

Justin.

[RioRico]

Good insights there RioRico.

Thank yew, thank yew very much. (polishes knuckles)

The Holga heads may believe cheap, low quality gear is fine, but given a better quality camera & lens the same people will simply capture better images.

I've been looking for an affordable way to get into 645 photography. Hey, Holgas have 645 masks! But I'm not so desperate, not even for the glass lens on some of their newer models.

It's quite clear though that MOST consumers in the photography world have cameras/lenses that have capabilities far beyond what the consumer uses in the gear.

And many of those capabilities are hidden away behind an impenetrable menu system. I recall a book, I think titled DESIGN AS IF IT MATTERS, that excoriates this practice of hiding functions. Each function should have its own button -- but there ain't enought room on the camera body. And users like simplicity, so modern dSLRs are designed as point-and-shoots with advanced functions stashed in the background. Ya can't work that K20D? Just set it into Green mode and fire away, don't fret about the rest of it. Yada yada yada.

[Ash]

I recall a book, I think titled DESIGN AS IF IT MATTERS, that excoriates this practice of hiding functions. Each function should have its own button -- but there ain't enought room on the camera body. And users like simplicity, so modern dSLRs are designed as point-and-shoots with advanced functions stashed in the background. Ya can't work that K20D? Just set it into Green mode and fire away, don't fret about the rest of it. Yada yada yada.

Quite accurate, given the uninspiring expectations of most users... and since they make up the majority of the market what is a camera manufacturer to do?

Yet still Pentax has done well dealing with this phenomenon. The most common and important settings are a button and/or an e-dial away, which is great for the discerning photog - and the dSLR owners with P&S mentalities can still go ahead with their Auto Pict modes, getting the camera to try and think the way the operator should be thinking...

[Barnster]

Let me start by saying that I understand everyone wants to have the best quality possible of their pictures taken.

You buy a camera and lens. You want the shot to be the best that it can.

But it seems to me like most of the people who post on this site are way too focused with technology instead of taking pictures.

They're too worried about noise and viewfinders and autofocus speed and HDR and full frame vs cropped censors. I'm not saying those aren't legitimate concerns but how about actually taking pictures to capture a moment? Sometimes it doesn't matter that your shot isn't perfectly sharp or that it has less-than-stellar lighting.

Sometimes you just need to capture a moment or emotion. I think a lot of people are forgetting the point.

Amazing pictures have been taken over the years with cameras and lenses of less quality than what we have access to today.

Get out and shoot.
Thanks

Well bloody said!!!

[RioRico]

Maybe it's just as well that we DO concentrate on technology, and not art or motivation or intent or response, else we'd likely sound like bloody unintelligible MLA pomo 'theorists' spewing litcrit like leaky septic tanks. Mixing Freudian, Markist and deconstructivist analyses... ugh. No, let's stick to the lens wars.

[Lowell Goudge]

Let me start by saying that I understand everyone wants to have the best quality possible of their pictures taken.

You buy a camera and lens. You want the shot to be the best that it can.

But it seems to me like most of the people who post on this site are way too focused with technology instead of taking pictures.

They're too worried about noise and viewfinders and autofocus speed and HDR and full frame vs cropped censors. I'm not saying those aren't legitimate concerns but how about actually taking pictures to capture a moment? Sometimes it doesn't matter that your shot isn't perfectly sharp or that it has less-than-stellar lighting.

Sometimes you just need to capture a moment or emotion. I think a lot of people are forgetting the point.

Amazing pictures have been taken over the years with cameras and lenses of less quality than what we have access to today.

Get out and shoot.
Thanks

The only point I'll make here is as you suggest "amazing photos been taken on lesser gear than we have access to today"

I still maintain a good photographer can take a great image on any camera, providing he spends the time to learn what it can do and it's limits.

many of the technical threads started here do go a little over the top, but they in some ways address the limits of the equipment. Knowing what your equipment is capable of determines what you do with it,

that knowledge, along with the understanding of light and composition produce the shots.

[wildman]

"Get out and shoot."

What's the difference between a $200 and $800 dollar lens? -

- With the $800 dollar lens the mediocre photographer can now take sharper mediocre pictures.

[newarts]

"Get out and shoot."

What's the difference between a $200 and $800 dollar lens? -

- With the $800 dollar lens the mediocre photographer can now take sharper mediocre pictures.

Yes but without your hypothetical sharper lens even the best photographer cannot take sharper pictures.

This discussion has be largely painted as either/or; the truth is more subtle.

The tools must simply be sufficient to the task. If the task is create a soft image with huge depth of field, a pinhole lens will do.

I have a pinhole lens, and sometimes use it - but I don't think the fact that I sometimes use a sharper lens and talk about sharpness somehow excludes me from possibly being a good photographer.

[dylansalt]

The only other dslr manufacturer which has focussed on "simplicity in design & operation" ethos is Sony with their FF's.