For last week’s Question of the week, we asked DPReview readers what ‘image quality’ meant to them. We knew that talking about the subject was going to lead to a wide range of results, but we were still impressed by how image quality is both emotionally perceived and scientifically analyzed in the same breadth. In describing their own meanings of image quality, we also got an important glimpse into why photographers do what they do.

Early on in our conversation, LakeSuperior 1 summarized it in a great way:

“I think there are two types of image quality. The technical type (sharpness, contrast, noise, etc.), and then there is the story within the photo. Some of the most famous photos ever taken didn’t have good technical quality, but the image and story told made the whole photo great. I’m happy with either depending on the shot.”

And Leonp put it nicely when talking about the point of a photo at the end of the day:

“For me, the summary of what image quality means is that the viewer sees what the photographer wanted to show.”

Many of our readers felt there are two aspects to image quality. Keep reading to see which camp was chosen most, and why.

The Technicals

Nikon Z50 Photo: Howard V

jhwalker: I like my photographs to be an exact capture of what I see; i.e., accurate colors, clean and crisp details, balanced shadows and highlights, etc. The biggest concern I have is accurate colors. I’m so sick of hypersaturated greens and blown-out or too orange reds.

Impulses: Color rendition is the only thing on camera bodies that seems up for debate. As much as some swear you can’t reproduce certain manufacturer combinations, with enough work (and a RAW file), I think you can. Don’t quote me on it, though.

Klaus dk: I’m more in the camp for IQ, meaning measurables like resolution, sharpness, color, dynamic range, noise, bokeh, (lack of) geometric distortion, etc. This is different from the qualities that impact us and make us say, “This is a good photograph” when we see what the photographer wants us to see. Sometimes we can also recognize how they used the tools at their disposal, and learn from it. My personal opinion is that if genius should suddenly strike when I’m shooting, I’d hate to have gear fail me on what would have been the shot of a lifetime, but instead it was ruined with mediocre or even bad IQ.

The Feeling

Photo: Martinhb

AJF1934: For me, image quality means an image that I want to do something with. Perhaps that’s by sharing it, printing it for display or putting it in an album. It has little to do with technical attributes and much more to do with the context, content and composition.

Satyaa: When it comes to color photos, the color accuracy, within a reasonable margin, fits the bill. I don’t need to measure colors with charts. A white lily should look white, and a crow should look black. If the colors of a tiger (not a white one), a lion, a golden retriever, etc., look reasonably life-like, I am happy. I believe small differences are due to white balance algorithms (or the color filters used) by brand or model. They can simply be adjusted in post-processing.

Krummj: The longer I photograph, the more I’m interested in the story, composition and general impact of the photo, and the less I care about what we call “image quality”. I also care about the memory. When I go through old files, I’m way more concerned about why the photo is interesting and what is in it than I am about its actual image quality.

Gloomy1: For me, a quality image is one where the image conveys what I was feeling at the time of capturing it. It is all about emotional impact. The technical aspects only come in if they are so poor that they get in the way of “enjoying” the image.

The Mix

Photo: Bruce Trailer Hiker

Schrammel: Generally, I’m more than satisfied with what modern cameras and lenses can deliver in terms of image quality. Sometimes, though, I take photos simply to capture spontaneous moments. In those situations, I’m often not really happy with the image quality – not because it’s too poor, but because it’s too good. Photos often don’t quite work because they feel too perfect: too neutral, clean and sharp. This includes too little noise and colors that are too accurate.
As much as I appreciate the technical image quality of modern cameras, I sometimes feel that something has been lost along the way – something you might call character, or maybe even soul.

gpwitteveen: Like so much else in life, the answer depends on your frame of reference. Image quality can have quantifiable gradations for the purpose of reviews or benchmarking, but for client work, it could be something else entirely, perhaps based on satisfying that audience of one.

Like so much else in life, the answer depends on your frame of reference.

For example, something crisp versus something with a “lo-fi” look, say. For color, there is the degree of immersiveness produced in a combination of viewing size, viewing (ambient) lighting, and the image elements themselves to lead the viewer in the frame and into the frozen moment. Meanwhile, for black-and-white, there is an inherent abstraction that separates a viewer from the source. Once the viewer acclimates to monochrome emotional responses, then some immersiveness is possible as well; but always different to the color.

Things like resolution and light values similar to unaided human vision can be a good standard of comparison for any image. But to express something beyond human vision, there is more than lines per millimeter or dynamic range to consider.

Photo: Gloomy1

There were many other great responses shared in the forums. Thanks to everyone who took the time to explain what image quality means to you.

Keep watch for the next Question of the week every other Wednesday to participate in this series. New questions are posted here on the homepage and in the forums. We can’t wait to read and share your stories!

Share what ‘image quality’ means to you!

Source link