Is quality of image relevant.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), May 05, 2002

Answers

Very good question. I definitly think that we put too much emphasis on the technical quality of an image to the detriment of its message. The question I am asking to myself before taking the picture is: do I have something to say, to communicate? On the other hand, I am the first one to critisise the use of digital cameras for poor definition quality!! I contradict myself I guess. HCB in the last few years has used a point and shoot camera. I have seen also in the book published by Magnum on the September 11 event some pictures taken with a point and shoot...incredible pictures.

Arie

-- Arie Haziza (nhaziza@northrock.bm), May 05, 2002.

I will paraphrase Ansel: A fuzzy image of a sharp concept is superior to a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 05, 2002.

There are many reasons to use a Leica rangefinder other than for the incredible lenses. I was drawn to the M-system by its small size, quiet shutter and short shutter lag. I've grown to love the quality of the lenses, but that's not why I spent the big $$$ to get my first Leica a few years ago.

I'm of course not claiming to know what HCB was thinking, but from what I've read, he enjoyed the camera's fast response and unobtrusive nature. Seeing outside of the image area can also be a benefit for street photography, since you can see what's about to come into the frame.

I have only seen a few original prints of HCB's work, but I do think that some have the "leica glow" I've read about on this forum.

Is image quality relevant? There are many artists who use pinhole cameras, holgas, or some other method of making deliberately unsharp photographs. I believe that if a photograph can communicate something; an emotion, a mood, etc., then it is successful no matter if it is tack sharp or a blur.

-- Noah Addis (naddis@mindspring.com), May 05, 2002.

HC-B's approach to the 'technique' of photography is - ummm - casual at best.

Back in the '70's "camera35" (sic) magazine ran an interview with a New York printmaker who did a lot of prints for Magnum and HC-B in particular. He said that some of HCB's negatives were so over-exposed that he (the printmaker) would often start the print exposure, and then go out for a 20-minute coffee break - it took that long to push enough light through the bulletproof film.

Don't confuse "image quality" with "quality image" - they're two mostly unrelated concepts.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 06, 2002.

Is it a good question Allen?

Though it has been discussed a thousand times and even more… is it relevant itself ?

I think, as long we are unable to answer this question: “what does trigger our emotions in a photograph ?” your interrogation is totally irrelevant. By the way, I think the answer to this question is extremely complex not only will it depend on the individual but also on the subject itself (and this leads us once again to a debate you introduced on the forum sometimes ago: what are the limits of photography proper?) and of the relationship between the viewer and the subject by the way…

As far as HCB is concerned, I think the way he sees his work was the way an “engaged” witness sees the world around and more specifically the mankind. So he tried to convey his emotions, his feelings and his engagements in his pictures. So I think the subject and the treatment of the subject are equally important. At least for me… But imagine someone who is totally misanthrope… As the subject doesn’t particularly appeals to him (or her) only the formal aspect will eventually trigger his (her) emotions…

Now let’s consider a famous picture, the one of this Chief Police in Saigon, back during the Viet-Nam war just on the verge to kill a prisoner with his S&W Body Guard snub nose revolver. It has no particular aesthetical qualities but the subject itself does trigger emotion. If this picture had been blurred or badly exposed as to be almost unreadable would it be so powerful ? I don’t think so.

On the contrary, the less than technically perfect picture of this Spanish republican militia man being killed had an extraordinary impact and is still a “classic”. But here the context should have also played (and is to a certain extent still playing) a decisive role. First widely published image of a combatant being killed (a technical exploit in those days, despite the poor result), taken in a very emotional context and nowadays still a very emotional period…

Opposite to this kind of pictures, you can find many images where for the vision of the photograph to carry anything emotional the perfection of the technique is of prime importance, probably determining… For example the “natures- mortes”.

Finally, some images that would seem dull to the extreme for the general public may carry emotions to a particular individual: the picture of a late beloved one for example. And here the quality is totally indifferent…

I don’t want to argument on those artists using on purpose tools producing less than sharp images on purpose. May be it is because I’m myopic and a blurred world is all too familiar when I quit my glasses, but I was never able to find something interesting in this kind of research :)).

So finally, the real question might be: does it matters to you, as a photographer, to have the highest possible technical quality?

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 06, 2002.

Highest resolution, greatest accutance, finest grain, greatest tonal range, greatest color fidelity, saturation.. these are goals of photographic lens and film, not necessarily of photography

High fidelity image is not identical to good image.

To paraphrase Qi Bai Shi (Famous Chinese painter) : "Art resides between high fidelity and lack of fidelity"

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 06, 2002.

So if HCB shot all his work with Yashica, everyone who liked his work will use Yashica now?

To me, if you like a tool and it suits you, just use it. No point imitationg other's tools.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 06, 2002.

Violin is not cello, not flute, not guitar, not piano, not er hu.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 06, 2002.

Depends on the type of image and what it's used for. A soft image that imparts a sense of feeling or evokes a strong emotion is a successful image. A soft landscape probably won't cut it, nor will an out of focus product shot in advertising (most of the time). At the same time, starting good quality equipment gives you peace of mind that you have a good foundation to start with. As well, would you want to risk your life photographing a war zone (for example) with something with the reliabily of a Fed, for example?

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 06, 2002.

Telling a photographer: "That's a great photo, you must have a really good camera", is like telling a cook: "That was a great meal, you must have a really good stove!"

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), May 06, 2002.

i don't need the 400 hp of the ferrari but i'd sure like to try.

-- steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

I don't think Ben is really right - the more accurate analogy is, "that was a really good meal - I bet you used good ingredients." If he was a good cook he most probably did.

I think that modern AF SLRs can take really good shots much easier than in HCB with his Leica IIIs and I think we are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. This does not invalidate HCBs vision and so on - but it does make it easier and for some great shots being easy means you get the shot.

Yes, the quality of the image is relevant for street shooting. The difficulty one has is which part of the "quality" is more important - the technical side or the composition side - getting overall balance (or imbalance)right is what makes the shot work or not.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

If you asked HCB the same question, the answer would have been "yes" - he used mainly a 50mm Zeiss Sonnar which was sharper than the Leitz equivalent.

BUT the difference in quality among more current lenses are much less and technique (shooting, developing and printing) is now the deciding (no pun) factor, IMHO.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), May 07, 2002.

I don't think Ben is really right - the more accurate analogy is, "that was a really good meal - I bet you used good ingredients." If he was a good cook he most probably did.

I don't think so. The ingredients correspond to what's being photographed.

Having cooked on restaurant stoves and beat-up electric stoves, I can tell you that it is possible to make good food on both. It takes some time on the electric stove to figure it out, but after a while, it's not that difficult. Similarly, I can shoot with pretty much any camera, but it may take more time with some to learn the ins and outs. But, as with food, the raw material has to be something worth working with.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 07, 2002.