On the perception of image quality and the 'Shot on Iphone 6' campaign

Paul Verizzo · Jun 2, 2015

Oh, yeah. I am of the school that all images are evaluated subjectively, not objectively. Presuming well made, no gross errors. All this A/B comparison crap that I bought into for years, this film/that film, this inkjet printer/that inkjet printer, is almost meaningless. Someone sees a photograph on the wall, and few, especially the public at large, would say, "You know this would have been better shot on KC-64 than Agfachrome.

michr · Jun 2, 2015

A couple of years ago I saw some of Steve McCurry's work in a gallery. Most of the images were 16x20 format or thereabouts. Having never seen any of his work in person aside from the famous magazine covers and on a computer screen, I was expecting to be impressed. Up close, most of the images just fell apart, some were quite grainy, I assume having been push-developed. Others weren't quite in focus where they should be, or had visible camera shake. And yet, a step back, at proper viewing distance, with my nose out of the pixels, they were clearly good photographs. His skills as a photographer were evident, the scenes were well-envisioned, the humanity of the participants was on display and I felt drawn in.

Talent matters, and moreso the skills and the years of striving that round it out. I get tired of all the breath wasted on trying to quantify image quality as if it were an intrinsic property of the medium and tools of photography. Shakespeare in a tattered, moldy old paperback will always contain Shakespeare's genius, and is not diminished by the presentation. In the discussion of Edward Weston's darkroom the other day, much was said on the subject of its simplicity, of the sparseness of his darkroom, and the basic nature of the tools he used. His vision as an artist was the deciding factor and he molded his tools to accomodate that vision to the best of his means.

We discuss the quantifiable aspects of image making because they are seem objective, repeatable, and expressible. The technical aspects are necessary but not sufficient for photography, as an art. Will future photographers look at today's digital work in astonishment that today's photographers only had 16 or 25 or 50 megapixels to work with? Or is this era one where technical limitations were virtually stripped away, leaving only each photographer's ability to see as a distinguishing factor?

I would never argue that the latest generation of phone cameras, or digital cameras in general, offer everything than a film-based process does, but any camera ever made has been sufficient to make photographs with and that remains the case, iPhone 6 included (and aside from Apple's marketing the device as something special).

Image quality lies in the cultural sphere, between human beings, in the minds, perceptions, etc, not in a camera, in a negative, not in the transformative power of light on silver halid crystals or on the tabula rasa of a CCD.

blansky · Jun 2, 2015

I sort of treat all this stuff as vive la difference.

I love symphony music. I love a street musician with a beat up guitar. Why do I have to choose which I like better when both can bring happiness and a tear to my eye.

I love the craftsmanship of magnificent prints and even more if the subject moves me, but I will always feel the print that moves me is more pleasing than the one with the best process.

Some here will try to be divisive and always to find arguments that one way of photography is better and have wonderful theories to back up their claims. Longevity, or theories on archivability or love of process, or time spend making it, and that's all well and good. Great if something lasts 1000 years. Does that make a sand painting bad. Something magical that may last one hour.

With this short time we have on this planet and with the relatively few people who care about serious photography and art, we should find ways to celebrate the impact of the image and not worry excessively about who, or how, or why it was created.

I know there are people here that have been beat up by digital people for a few years, but I always wonder why they care. Different is always a curious thing. And analog now happens to be different. So what. It's like people who walk around with a T-shirt with writing on it, and when people stare at them trying to read it, they say, what the hell are you staring at.

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 2, 2015

michr said:
A couple of years ago I saw...

I cannot find a single sentence in this to disagree with. My only point, in this discussion and others preceding it, is that the various photographic imaging processes are different. That means not the same. Literally. Some of these differences manifest as meaningful in use, some as meaningless. And which side of that dichotomy any given difference falls will vary with each individual perceiving and using it.

Let's just not get into the habit of referring to simulations as real, and real as simulations. That's both intellectually lazy, and a loss of grip on reality. If one chooses to create in a mediumany mediumit behooves the creator to at least understand what is the nature of the medium that he or she is creating with and from in the first place.

Ignorance of such differences is not artistic creativity by a different name. Although it can sometimes be projected as arrogance, and perceived as a tool with which to beat down others who know better.

Things are what they are in reality for sound and very fundamental reasons. And because tools generally dictate what can be done with them, the use of different photographic tools can and does often generate different photographic results. The key is to select the correct tool for the desired result. This is just as true for carpenters as it is for artists.

Ken

michr · Jun 3, 2015

Agreed on the use of the appropriate tool and medium for the job. It's not always relevant, but its the mark of the crafts-person to choose the proper materials.

However I still think the differences between the physical properties of an electric capacitor and the physical quantities of silver molecules are more philosophical than actual. The argument that one is somehow a simulation and the other is not is a "god of the gaps" argument. Is there some qualia that is lost, some essence, in one type of medium that is retained in the other? I don't think that there is.

Any method of recording the action of light are themselves removed from reality by their nature, to revive the famous Hockney quote, " I mean, photography is all right if you dont mind looking at the world from the point of view of a paralyzed cyclopsfor a split second. But that's not what its like to live in the world, or to convey the experience of living in the world." I don't see how one is a simulation and one is not. Digital imaging isn't just numbers made up in a computer with no reference to the world. There is the same correlation with the photons that hit a detector and those that hit a molecule. A 2D projection from 3D model of the scene, or a painting, those are simulations.

Does the gist of your argument only rest on the fact that 2.4V becomes 10001001, that the quantities are no longer analogous to the input, but become just a number, like those that insist that a CD can never sound as good as an LP? We can take the analog to digital conversion out of this discussion. Does recording an image as a series of voltages on tape make it a simulation? Where in the process of capturing the image do the photons lose their soul?

removed account4 · Jun 3, 2015

from my experience, not many people care about the minute differences between film and digital
or if they do, the convenience of using a digital camera outweighs the differences.
in the end it really doesn't matter they are pretty much the same thing, ...
use film, or use a cellphone .. im not really sure why people care so much.

michr · Jun 3, 2015

I agree, they're pretty much the same thing for the purposes of photography, and the differences are often a matter of hair-splitting. That's not to say that they're identical, that there aren't differences, or that these differences aren't sometimes important.

The fact is, photography has been through this exact sort of revolution at least once with the transition from dry plates to film, where there was some sentiment that photography was being destroyed by the masses and it would no longer be the art that it was. And they were right, in a way, the printing press changed publishing forever, the typewriter changed literature. Photography will never be the same because of digital, and like the illuminated manuscript, there will be something lost, but Shakespeare, the KJV, and TGOT, or whatever high-point of civilization or pop-culture you want to point to, came afterward.

Remember Sturgeon's law. Now that photos from the shoeboxes of the world are open for everyone to peer into, we also have the tools to filter out much of the junk. I think when this revolution is settled, we'll see just what a watershed era this was. In reference to my Steve McCurry comment earlier, I do have a stack of National Geographic magazines from early to recent, and its true, there's a lot of very high-quality work in the magazine, and its also true, especially for the color work, that given today's technical standards would never have appeared, or appeared simply because that photographer was present, and that is the only record. I hate the garden of eden, good-old-days, mythologies. It's just not appropriate to compare the best of an era with the commonplace of our time, same goes with music, or literature. Pick up an old magazine and see if it meets your standards.

Theo Sulphate · Jun 3, 2015

michr said:
...

However I still think the differences between the physical properties of an electric capacitor and the physical quantities of silver molecules are more philosophical than actual. The argument that one is somehow a simulation and the other is not is a "god of the gaps" argument. Is there some qualia that is lost, some essence, in one type of medium that is retained in the other? I don't think that there is.

...

Does the gist of your argument only rest on the fact that 2.4V becomes 10001001, that the quantities are no longer analogous to the input, but become just a number, like those that insist that a CD can never sound as good as an LP? We can take the analog to digital conversion out of this discussion. Does recording an image as a series of voltages on tape make it a simulation? Where in the process of capturing the image do the photons lose their soul?

As Tamara pointed out above, the film (emulsion) is forever changed by the event. For the capacitor, the charge will decay over time. But that's not the critical issue. The soul of the image is lost as soon as it's captured electronically, because the motion and charge of electricity is ephemeral and non-unique.

The photons striking the sensor and creating an overall electronic state in that sensor is analogous to the latent image in an emulsion. I would say that the soul of the image is present in both cases at that moment. However, the image in the sensor is there only for an instant, it can't reside there forever. In fact, the electronic state representing the image is transferred (shifted) out of the sensor and into buffers and memory almost immediately. That's where the soul is lost. The electronic representation of the image as an array of charges or voltages exists only for as long as they can be held in that state, like plates spinning on poles. The representation is ephemeral. The electronic state is not a unique substantive thing like the emulsion, with a direct bond to the event. What's more, and this is where the simulation comes in, in order to see that image you are going to need a device which can read the media and an application which can interpret the format of the bits constituting the image. Without those, you can't view it.

There is also the non-unique nature of the electronic image. If I have a glass plate photo of a Civil War battle, I know that plate was actually at the scene and its image was formed directly by the scene. Same is true of a Polaroid or a negative or a transparency. An electronic image can be duplicated bit for bit, exactly. There is nothing to identify the original image.

RobC · Jun 3, 2015

I think a lot of people are disappearing up their own orrifices in this topic.

The film vs digital debate was over a long time ago. Use whatever you like and don't worry about it. Me I use film. If I thought digital was better for purpose I would use digital.

Question is, what is purpose? Well that's a very individual thing, maybe dictated by the requirements of a client. It doesn't matter.

Use whatever hype you like about your chosen medium. But be warned, deluding yourself is the mark of a fool and you'll be seen as such.

Theo Sulphate · Jun 3, 2015

For me, this has nothing to do with film "versus" digital. Actually, I do shoot a lot of digital.

My comments above are not to try to prove some superiority of one over the other. My point is about the uniqueness of a formed image. I first had these thoughts when I began shooting Polaroid photos and realized how unique they were. This happened long before digital.

Others had discovered this as well, in print, before internet discussion forums, but it seemed that only a very few people thought this "uniqueness" worth mentioning.

RobC · Jun 3, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
For me, this has nothing to do with film "versus" digital. Actually, I do shoot a lot of digital.

My comments above are not to try to prove some superiority of one over the other. My point is about the uniqueness of a formed image. I first had these thoughts when I began shooting Polaroid photos and realized how unique they were. This happened long before digital.

Others had discovered this as well, in print, before internet discussion forums, but it seemed that only a very few people thought this "uniqueness" worth mentioning.

I think the police used polaroid for photographing crime scenes because polaroid could be used as evidence in court. The thinking being that polaroid could not be altered like film and digital can be. i.e. It is/was the only form of photo that more or less proved that what was in the print is actually what was infront of the camera.

DREW WILEY · Jun 3, 2015

Polaroid also provided instant proofing, so you knew you got the shot. The problem with digital photography in a legal context is that it can so easily be manipulated into outright falsehood. People had enough trouble around here with rigged red-light cameras, where the "evidence" was third party manipulated out of state under the pretense of making it web friendly. The whole scheme was illegal all along, and one by one, the courts have demanded they be removed. Kinda like that old Boss Hogg trick with the portable fire hydrant set in front of parked cars. On a far more serious scale, I do know that the NSA kept a strictly analog facility for true aerial film survelliance and true optical enlargement only, as a cross-check to satellite imagery. As I heard it, nothing computerish was even allowed in that building. Pretty important, since one of the key pieces of alleged "evidence" for the second Iraq war was nothing but a xerox paper. Just think of all the wars Photoshop could start. But true aerial photos all have the advantage of being easier to "read" by non-specialists. After that, someone
can home in with a satellite if needed. Whether the facility is still in use, I have no idea.

Prof_Pixel · Jun 3, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
The problem with digital photography in a legal context is that it can so easily be manipulated into outright falsehood.

Don't kid yourself - image manipulation went on LONG before Photoshop and goes back to the earliest days of photography. Photos have NEVER been a guarantee of the 'truth'.

RobC · Jun 3, 2015

what is a latent image in film if not an electrically charged particle. Seems no different to me than a bit on a hard drive or in the cloud.

what is developed film if not silver crystals which are formed by atomic forces between atoms which in turn are sub atomic particles bonded by atomic forces, all of which can and will be changed over time via entropy and/or the sun dying and swallowing the earth.

resistance is futile...

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 3, 2015

RobC said:
I think a lot of people are disappearing up their own orrifices in this topic.

The film vs digital debate was over a long time ago. Use whatever you like and don't worry about it. Me I use film. If I thought digital was better for purpose I would use digital.

Question is, what is purpose? Well that's a very individual thing, maybe dictated by the requirements of a client. It doesn't matter.

Use whatever hype you like about your chosen medium. But be warned, deluding yourself is the mark of a fool and you'll be seen as such.

You could not have positioned yourself further from the core issue. Perhaps those sunglasses weren't such a good idea after all?

Ken

removed account4 · Jun 3, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
As Tamara pointed out above, the film (emulsion) is forever changed by the event. For the capacitor, the charge will decay over time. But that's not the critical issue. The soul of the image is lost as soon as it's captured electronically, because the motion and charge of electricity is ephemeral and non-unique.

sorry i don't buy what makes no sense to me .

it doesn't matter to me that the emulsion is changed, it means nothing to me
capcitors change, great ! shutters go out of tune, developer weakens after every print
the enlarger bulb too .. and with regards to digital imagery having no soul? not sure how film based imagery has soul.
last i checked film and photographs were inanimate objects, not sure how a non living thing can have a soul or not ,,

while i understand why people like to use film or digital their decisions to use it have no bearing on me, and most people i know who make photographs
whether they are with film or digital or a combination of the 2 don't really worry about "soul" they worry about the images and if they are good or not.

RobC said:
I think a lot of people are disappearing up their own orrifices in this topic.

The film vs digital debate was over a long time ago. Use whatever you like and don't worry about it. Me I use film. If I thought digital was better for purpose I would use digital.

Question is, what is purpose? Well that's a very individual thing, maybe dictated by the requirements of a client. It doesn't matter.

Use whatever hype you like about your chosen medium. But be warned, deluding yourself is the mark of a fool and you'll be seen as such.

+1

blansky · Jun 3, 2015

It's just basic tribalism.

Wars have been fought over less.

Pick your tribe. Defend it to your death.

Rinse and repeat.

moose10101 · Jun 3, 2015

blansky said:
It's just basic tribalism.

Wars have been fought over less.

Pick your tribe. Defend it to your death.

Rinse and repeat.

And the talk of an image on a negative having a soul sounds like religious tribalism. Does the soul transfer to the paper when you make a print?

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 3, 2015

blansky said:
It's just basic tribalism.

Wars have been fought over less.

Pick your tribe. Defend it to your death.

Rinse and repeat.

<sigh...>

Aye, blansky...

On this I completely concur, albeit probably not within the context you originally offered it.

All I can say when these discussions inevitably reach this point is that thankfully not all of our ancestors spent their entire lives in the dark chanting "nothing matters, nothing matters" or else we'd all still be living in dank caves right along with them, and making photographs on the stone walls by hand drawing them with bat shit.

Thank god for those few who randomly fell a little bit higher on the bell curve...

Ken

Paul Verizzo · Jun 3, 2015

blansky said:
It's just basic tribalism.

Wars have been fought over less.

Pick your tribe. Defend it to your death.

Rinse and repeat.

Or maybe just sit down at the campfire and sing "Kumbyya." However spelled.

I am bi-tribal. I was very seduced with digital staring in 1999, and it's still good. But now, as a tool. Images to shoot to use on email, eBay, craigslist, etc. Love it for that.

For fun, challenge, and touching my light soul, back to film. Both are good.

Theo Sulphate · Jun 3, 2015

moose10101 said:
And the talk of an image on a negative having a soul sounds like religious tribalism. Does the soul transfer to the paper when you make a print?

Well, I didn't introduce the word "soul" into the discussion even though I referenced it later in my response. I would never have thought of using that word myself - especially as I'm not religious.

To me, the heart of the matter is that with an emulsion based image, the permanent change in the emulsion is due to the very light reflected off the subject at that instant. That seems obvious, but it is a direct bond between the subject, the light reflected off it, and the the fixed state of the image in the emulsion. The form (image) in the emulsion is a consequence that can never be created again. The print is created at a later date and can be created at will. The image in the emulsion is created just once. Likewise, the electronic image is recreated at will and has no direct bond with the subject.

I think I'm doing a very poor job explaining this, and maybe it's significant only to me, so I should probably just quit in the hope some day someone understands my point and can explain it more eloquently.

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 3, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Well, I didn't introduce the word "soul" into the discussion even though I referenced it later in my response. I would never have thought of using that word myself - especially as I'm not religious.

To me, the heart of the matter is that with an emulsion based image, the permanent change in the emulsion is due to the very light reflected off the subject at that instant. That seems obvious, but it is a direct bond between the subject, the light reflected off it, and the the fixed state of the image in the emulsion. The form (image) in the emulsion is a consequence that can never be created again. The print is created at a later date and can be created at will. The image in the emulsion is created just once. Likewise, the electronic image is recreated at will and has no direct bond with the subject.

I think I'm doing a very poor job explaining this, and maybe it's significant only to me, so I should probably just quit in the hope some day someone understands my point and can explain it more eloquently.

On the contrary, Theo...

You explain it very well. And your explanation is understood fully and completely.

While the concept is somewhat subtle, it's not excessively so. It's not savant-level. Anyone who has ever playfully uttered the phrase "pics or it didn't happen" invokes the same principle. So how hard can it be?

Take heart, there are others who understand. As well as those who will fight to their deaths to not understand, because that's their nature with everything. Where is Maris when we need him?

You give me hope for humanity.

Ken

removed account4 · Jun 4, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Well, I didn't introduce the word "soul" into the discussion even though I referenced it later in my response. I would never have thought of using that word myself - especially as I'm not religious.

To me, the heart of the matter is that with an emulsion based image, the permanent change in the emulsion is due to the very light reflected off the subject at that instant. That seems obvious, but it is a direct bond between the subject, the light reflected off it, and the the fixed state of the image in the emulsion. The form (image) in the emulsion is a consequence that can never be created again. The print is created at a later date and can be created at will. The image in the emulsion is created just once. Likewise, the electronic image is recreated at will and has no direct bond with the subject.

I think I'm doing a very poor job explaining this, and maybe it's significant only to me, so I should probably just quit in the hope some day someone understands my point and can explain it more eloquently.

i understand completely what you have said i just don't agree with you ...
12 years ago i might have agreed with you ..

Paul Verizzo · Jun 4, 2015

"I know many people with smartphones that incorporate digital cameras. But I can't recall a single instance of one of them ever claiming they purchased it primarily as a camera, and only use the telephone part as an afterthought."

If you happen to spend any time on cellular forums, you would find intense discussions about the camera capabilities of the various phones out there. Of course, the vast majority of those weighing in can't much get beyond the megapixel criteria, but some do.

To me, it's like comparing the Kodak box camera to the Ansco one. Granted even the cheap plastic lenses in phone cameras are better than those old guys. A huge amount of the young, high tech crowd have never even held even a digital camera, let alone film. "Camera" and "phone" are synonymous. I recall a blog item where the poster pulled out his small digital camera and his know it all teenage daughter said, "I didn't know they still made those!"

I love having an "image collecting device" in my phone, but to think of it replacing dedicated hardware is a laugh.

moose10101 · Jun 4, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Well, I didn't introduce the word "soul" into the discussion even though I referenced it later in my response. I would never have thought of using that word myself - especially as I'm not religious.

To me, the heart of the matter is that with an emulsion based image, the permanent change in the emulsion is due to the very light reflected off the subject at that instant. That seems obvious, but it is a direct bond between the subject, the light reflected off it, and the the fixed state of the image in the emulsion. The form (image) in the emulsion is a consequence that can never be created again. The print is created at a later date and can be created at will. The image in the emulsion is created just once. Likewise, the electronic image is recreated at will and has no direct bond with the subject.

I think I'm doing a very poor job explaining this, and maybe it's significant only to me, so I should probably just quit in the hope some day someone understands my point and can explain it more eloquently.

Your explanation of the direct bond, and its importance to you, is quite clear. I don't think many photographers, even those who use film, feel that way. But you do, and that's what matters.

On the perception of image quality and the 'Shot on Iphone 6' campaign

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency