Good, Better, Best (Or are we just chasing our tail)

Lucille, maybe you are misunderstanding the gist of what Paul is saying. The files from your RX1 ARE superior to the ones you were getting out of your RX100. But your RX100 photos are as great as your RX1 photos.

I have started looking at a lot more old photos lately, and the greatness of the photo rarely has anything to do with "image quality"

Yup.
 
Just my pennies...

I think its all what one shoots. I've been hampered many times with the DR limitations of my E-PL2. This means I have to stack jpegs sometimes to get what I want. Other times pull shadows up to show a grainy mess. Other times avoid taking those shots due to the limited DR. So, sometimes, at least for me, better equipment isn't about better pictures as it is more possibilities. I can still take rubbish with any camera, regardless of its capabilities or technical IQ superiority.
 
Nice discussion. Can't really add much. For me it is the design, technology, and craftsmanship that drives my interest in trying new camera gear. That has always been true for me. The images I make appeal to a different part of me. But they are intertwined in a way that I can never separate. So whether I am using a 36.3mp Nikon or a iPhone, I am still tapping into that creative urge to make photographs.
 
But what I am also interested in is looking at pictures, thinking about photography, and how images look, and whether they work as images. Yet the endless threads I see devoted to the latest, newest, betterest, superiorest cameras (not just at the moment, it's been going on since the dawn of photography, but recent developments in imaging have boosted it almost beyond my comprehension) go on and on repeatedly and without cease about the "features" and specifications, sensors, pixels, bit depths, post processing, "sharpness", "100% crops", menu systems, AF speed ... well, you know, you name it, it gets discussed.

It's much more difficult to talk about photography in a meaningful way, particularly online, than it is to talk about gear. We usually either say "nice image" if we like something or say nothing if we don't or very occasionally offer some very politely couched criticism that's hopefully both constructive and perceived that way by whoever it's intended for.

While gear discussions can get heated, discussion of images can get personal, in the sens of being hurtful. Gear is just stuff, a tool, extrinsic to us. We may be invested - financially or even emotionally - in our gear but disputes over gear tend to generate anger, annoyance, frustration etc when they get out of hand. Images are different. They are personal. There is something of us in every image we post. Criticisms of our images - those criticisms that go too far or are intended to be so - can be hurtful. They touch us in a different way and have a different effect. I think most of us know this instinctively and tend to shy away for fear of upsetting others, even if that was never the intent.

A related problem is that generally we don't know how to offer a critique of an image. We may respond instinctively but we don't have the language to express ourselves and so we don't know how to critique in away that minimises the possibility of misunderstanding. This aesthetic language (and even the formal elements of composition etc are aesthetic) is much harder to learn and deploy than the largely technical language we use to discuss gear.

Personally, I'm with Paul and Barrie. While I keep an eye on what's being released and what new technologies are appearing I'm not that interested in it and I have almost no interest in talking about it. I'd much rather talk about photography and photographs, but for the reason mentioned above that's not going to happen. At least, not on an online forum.

(Barrie''s experience with his camera club echoes mine with a number of groups I've been personally involved with: gear becomes much less important while the taking of and sharing of images becomes central and that becomes in turn a mutually constructive experience.)
 
A related problem is that generally we don't know how to offer a critique of an image. We may respond instinctively but we don't have the language to express ourselves and so we don't know how to critique in away that minimises the possibility of misunderstanding. This aesthetic language (and even the formal elements of composition etc are aesthetic) is much harder to learn and deploy than the largely technical language we use to discuss gear.

Whilst I would like to see more emphasis on the photographic image rather than the equipment used to take that image, I acknowledge that the views expressed by olli and quoted above are a potential stumbling block and that discussions could indeed get heated and be misunderstood. Until I joined a camera club recently I had this idea that photography judges had set themselves up as some sort of expert. That would appear not to be the case. There are guidelines laid down and training courses to be undertaken. Our chairman and photographic judge has expressed his intense interest in looking at photographs, all types and genres, although he does acknowledge that judges can by influenced by their own personal subject preferences.

As club members we vote on our own internal competitions and as such have been given guidelines as to what we should be looking for in a photograph. I have certainly refrained from much comment on others photographs on this forum for fear of giving offense, in our club competitions one's vote is given anonymously which of course would not apply to comments posted in a forum such as this. Our chairman passes comment on the photographs placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd in club competitions and indeed invites comment from club members following on from his thoughts. In the short time I've been a member I don't think he's upset anyone by his comments, my first competition entries will be shown next week, however I did put a couple into an evening held recently called "Members Critique" and found the comments to be constructive and encouraging. It's educational to see others photographs and to hear the comments passed, as well as get feedback from the actual photographer both with respect to technical aspects of the photograph and the motivation for taking the photograph. Being face to face it is of course possible for people to quickly explain or qualify any comments made and clear up any misunderstandings that might have arisen, again there is not that element of quick feedback to be had on a forum such as this. Facial expression, tone of voice and the like all aid comments made in such face to face situations which is lacking on the internet, witness humorous comments that are posted, to me they often don't work for the above reasons.

Barrie
 
Lucille, maybe you are misunderstanding the gist of what Paul is saying. The files from your RX1 ARE superior to the ones you were getting out of your RX100. But your RX100 photos are as great as your RX1 photos.

I have started looking at a lot more old photos lately, and the greatness of the photo rarely has anything to do with "image quality"



Shot from the Rx100:

1025-11.jpg



Shot from the Rx1:

chan-rx1-3.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)





Shot from the Rx100:


1025-8.jpg




Shot from the Rx1:


chan-rx1-4.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Back
Top