Is "Image Quality" technobabble?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From wikipedia "[those] who wish to convey a feeling of technical sophistication may write or talk in technobabble. They may use jargon without considering what it actually means to give an impression that they know things that their readers or listeners do not. However, if the jargon is decoded, it becomes apparent that the originator does not really understand what has been said or is deliberately being unclear."

 

Thinking about my previously started topic (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/276656-image-quality-vs-usability.html) I now wonder if the term "image quality" is in fact an ill-defined, catch-all phrase which is all too often used without any caveats which indicate its meaning? The ensuing chat all too often descends into highly technical discussions which rarely, if ever, actually attempt to link their details into the effect on the final images being taken. Comparisons of different camera and lens brands seem to concentrate on their technical abilities (and "image quality") at the expense of usability. Perhaps we need more threads on the reality and enjoyment of using Leica rangefinders.....

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bill]

Haleluja brother!

 

Problem is, the pixel-proud tech-heads don't "get" the "journey" and regard those who do with the same uncomprehending and uncomfortable suspicion as the IT support geek who finds himself in conversation at the Christmas party with the prettiest girl in the office.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Sent from another Galaxy

[wda]

Paul, you raise an interesting issue. I am often frustrated by endless and often pointless discussions which lead nowhere and reach no meaningful conclusions about equipment performance in practice. I think I understand why. Analysing 'image quality' is a highly subjective act. It simply does not lend itself to expression in tangible terms. While there might be some convergence of view on what appears to be good image quality, there will always be detractors who do not agree and will never agree. I fear the question is irresolvable to any universal degree.

[stunsworth]

"Prettiest girl in the office" is in just as much need of qualification and definition as "Image quality". I speak as someone employed in IT support!

 

Are we really saying that 'image quality' never enters our heads when choosing, or using, a camera or lens? It may mean different things to different people, but I suspect most of us know what it is when we see it, according to our personal definition at least.

[honcho]

.....Analysing 'image quality' is a highly subjective act......

 

No it isn't. It exists as an oasis of scientific and mathematical appraisal lost in a desert of fetishism.

[stunsworth]

I think we need to separate 'image quality' from 'technical quality'. An image taken with a technically flawed lens may satisfy the first criteria - if it has the look the photographer is searching for - but fail the second. Image quality is subjective, technical quality isn't - it can be measured.

 

Quite often, probably most of the time, the two go hand in hand - I assume that's why most of us use Leica lenses, but it's not necessarily always the case.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Look at all the threads about use of filters and 'image quality' - they are many and often, yet there are never any direct comparisons.

 

I'm interested in photographs. As long as the choice of equipment enables the photographer to produce the images he/she wants, and to a standard of quality that meets the requirements, then surely that's enough?

[honcho]

If your definition of image quality is a reference to aesthetic appeal of output, then it is subjective and unlikely to lead anywhere interesting.

 

In such context, I either like an image or I don't. No amount of technobabble will convince me one way or the other and I'll happily avoid those who try it.

 

'Image quality' by my definition is not subjective and is significant in my choice of equipment for a given purpose.

[hepcat]

"Measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, and cut with an axe."

 

MIPS... "Meaningless indicator of performance speed."

 

"Image quality does NOT make for a quality image."

 

I think that generally the pursuit of high image quality has come to mean the pursuit for a completely noiseless (or grainless), yet fully toned image of a black cat in a coalbin at night in 256,000 shades of gray. Technologically masterful while being absolutely... well.. technologically masterful in a technological way.

 

Frankly, there are Holga and early cell camera images I like very much. The quest for improved technology is good and necessary, but improved technology is not photography.

[thighslapper]

As there is no definition it is a meaningless term that can convey much ... or nothing, depending on your view. .....

 

..... and that's before asking what we are using to assess it...... facts and figures... graphs..... monitor images ..... printed photos...... ????

 

.... however being a vague and nebulous concept it keeps a selection of reviewers in work and provides some limited, if irritating, entertainment.....

[JDFlood]

Dp has a set of measurements they use to determine IQ:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3135549652/lens-reviews-explained/7

 

I think most guys would be able to pretty closely identify top prettiest girl or girls in the office pretty close to the same ( and over the HR guys dead body ). Pierre :-)

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I agree Paul. "Image Quality" can mean so many things the term is nearly useless. I have my own personal definition but that is about the image and its contents, rather than just about the sensor. "Sensor quality" is a fair way down my personal list of important purchasing decisions. In fact I find myself, lately, giving up better sensors in favour of better cameras.

 

The one hesitation I have about the M240, for example, is that I feel like I'm just getting to know my M9's, after two years together and I know there's more to get. If I change cameras, do I have to start that journey again? I think, there's a lot to gain in "image quality" from using a camera that you know intimately. Instinctively. I just don't need to be fighting my gear or constantly wondering whether I got the most from the camera because I don't know it well enough.

 

Also, to me, image quality isn't about technical perfection, it's about character. I'm prefering less "perfect" lenses and don't need the latest sensor because that can be, well.... , boring. Image quality to me is probably more about the qualities of an image. How the pieces of the puzzle fit together to make a whole. A sensor is just one peice as is noise, lens, light etc.

 

Gordon

[250swb]

If your definition of image quality is a reference to aesthetic appeal of output, then it is subjective and unlikely to lead anywhere interesting.

 

Image quality is a relatively new phrase when linked to equipment, a phrase hi-jacked by sloppy use. Thirty years ago image quality was predominantly a description of the many and varied aspects of the image, and in those days it could only be the print. It would primarily be about the input of the photographer, the composition etc., then perhaps the printing technique and the finesse used to reveal the subject matter. So far nobody would have mentioned the camera, it would be taken as read that a 35mm image could be assesed using the same aesthetic language as an 8x10 image. Photography and the arts in general has its democratic side, a short piece of music is not marked down against a symphony, and likewise a grainy documentary image was not marked down against a pin sharp landscape. The quality of the image was unique to itself.

 

And then came along an explosion in photography caused by digital capture. And photographers without any knowledge of art or how to express themselves started to appropriate terms because a vacuum needed filling. What do you call a lens, lets call it 'glass', a new term to reduce a complex mechanical relationship into imbecilic drivel. Likewise 'image quality' was kidnapped and any form of higher thought stripped away to describe a moronic way to count pixels or the relative sharpness of 'glass'. So in this new usage the quality of the image is not unique to itself, but relatively better or worse than contemporary images, or better or worse compared to older or newer images.

 

Which leads me to the really sad thing about seeing 'image quality' as a purely technical description, not a wider aesthetic understanding of the power of the image. It is this, how do photographers with this mindset think of their old picture's, those done, say, with a year 2000 Nikon Coolpix 900? I know people who can't look at their old pictures anymore, dismissing them for their lack of image quality. But equally I know photographers confident in being able to talk about aesthetic qualities happily still displaying photographs from such cameras. Image quality as a purely technical term is self defeating, people who use it are doomed to have their photographs downgraded each time a new camera is released, unless they spend the rest of their lives excusing themselves in the most boring way that 'this was the technology of the day'.

 

Steve

Edited April 19, 2013 by 250swb

[Peter H]

That's why camera clubs are called Camera Clubs. They're largely for people who prefer cameras to photography.

 

 

That's why so many photographers haven't got the slightest interest in art unless there are some mechanics and/or electronics involved, and some "glass", preferably "fast".

 

 

That's why the this forum doesn't like photos taken with non-Leica cameras, as if it matters which box produced the photo that we're looking at. Its not about photography, and neither is the term Image Quality.

[stunsworth]

That's why the this forum doesn't like photos taken with non-Leica cameras, as if it matters which box produced the photo that we're looking at. Its not about photography, and neither is the term Image Quality.

 

I suggested years ago that I thought the photo forums should be open to all brands, or at least have a sub-forum for cameras other than Leica. However the forum was owned at that time by Leica, so I understand why they may have been reluctant to open it up.

 

I've tried camera clubs - my local one is actually a "photographic society" - but didn't get on with them.

[azzo]

...

 

.. - but didn't get on with them.

 

 

Why am I not surprised. ... :D:D

[pgk]

That's why camera clubs are called Camera Clubs. They're largely for people who prefer cameras to photography.

I gave two talks to a 'camera club' recently. One was about the underwater life around the UK. The second was about 'creative' photography (shot with Leicas). Both went down well (according to the thank you email) but the main comment about the creative images (which attracted a lot of attention) was that, whilst some of the audience actually said that they would like some of these images on their walls, judges in competitions would dismiss them out of hand. Clubs seem to be highly competition minded, so they do not appear to be the sort of images that would be shown at a club by club members. Perhaps this is why clubs are as interested in equipment as anything else - being prescriptive over the sort of images taken for club viewing is a very good way to stifle creativity and will feed other aspects of photography such as gear discussions.

[stunsworth]

Camera club competitions. I admit I entered a few - maybe from a desire to be liked - but even as I was entering them I couldn't see the point. Most photographs were very 'safe'.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stephen.w]

I've tried camera clubs - my local one is actually a "photographic society" - but didn't get on with them.

Guardian Camera Club also isn't a camera club, properly so called -- the focus being on the pictures, whatever you may think of their standard.

 

Camera club | Art and design | The Guardian

[pico]

[...]

 

Without a doubt, to me the above is the penultimate explanation. If there were a FAQ on How to Think, it would be the lead article.

 

You made my day, Steve. Thank you.

 

Responding to your last paragraph, I do have moments where I see my old 35mm photos as lacking certain hard-metric qualities because for some time I used crappy old lenses. Anyone who wishes to criticize them for that is welcome to do so. (There are some in my album. See the flare, soft focus, aberrations.) However, they are in the album for other reasons.

 

A political associate said, "Capitalize the hard metrics. Socialize the soft."