Defining quality

Defining quality

Content is king - but let's just agree to set that aside for just a moment. In terms of strictly photographic characteristics, how does one define photographic quality? I've always felt that there is no "right answer" to this question for the obvious reasons that it's a matter of opinion — an opinions vary wildly. Perhaps the more pertinent question is how do you define photographic quality — a question that is worth considering by each and every one of us.

For example, many photographers think that quality is related to size — the bigger the photograph, the better it is. I never have — although I suppose in truth I actually have within limits. For me an 8x10 image is better than a 1" by 2" one, so size does equate to quality for me to some degree. Even then, there are exceptions; I can recall seeing a few 35mm contact prints that were simply fabulous in spite of their tiny size. But, essentially in my scale of appreciation, larger prints are not "better" than smaller ones. In fact, they are often worse. Why? This became clear to me as I thought about it more deeply.

Years ago thinking through this thought experiment, I realized my definitions of quality work are closely associated with the revelation of details (related to, but subtly different than "sharpness") and smoothness of tonality (think the absence of film grain or digital sensor noise). Your answer likely will vary, but for me, this is the core of the issue. Consider of all the photographic qualities that are missing from my personal list that could easily be on yours: color fidelity, a magical quality of light, surface characteristics of the physical print, the choice of medium, the absence of lens distortions (pin cushion, barrel distortion, or converging lines in architecture), catch lights in the model's eye, size of the edition (!), etc. How do you define photographic quality?

The implications of our personal definitions of quality are profound. For example, the equipment we need/choose is determined by our definitions of quality; the photographers' work we admire, collect, or books we buy are determined by the definitions of quality we use to judge work; the work you see in LensWork or other magazines will appeal to you (or not) based on your definitions of quality. Elsewhere, I've talked about my difficulty in appreciating the work of Bill Brandt — because I struggle with his tonalities, film grain, and casual disregard of fine detail. Clearly, this is my loss and in no way a reflection of Bill Brandt's genius or contribution to the medium.

And this brings me exactly to the point. As a publisher, I've learned the dangers of my narrowly restricted definitions of image quality. Knowing them can/should become the foundation of my personal work, but they can also be a terrible and unjust barrier to my appreciation of the work of other photographers — especially those whose criteria are different than mine. It is a good idea, I believe, to develop the complimentary skills of knowing our own definitions while simultaneously suspending our personal prejudices when we look at the work of others. Without that, we might miss a lot.

Over twenty years of publishing LensWork, one of the most amusing aspects of the emails we receive is the consistency with which we receive polar-conflicting feedback. For every email "How could you publish such crap?" there follows on its heels another email "The best portfolio you've ever published!" It never fails. I've learned that both of these emails are a symptom of the writer's personal perspectives on photographic quality — both technical and aesthetic. Each is a statement more about the writer than about the work. By extension, when I react that "I like" or "I don't like," I've learned that this only says something about me, and may not have anything at all to do with the work itself. The work may indeed be crap, but I do need to guard against the unfair judgment just because it may not be consistent with my thought about what makes a quality photograph.

And in these comments, I've only been writing about photographic quality. Imagine how the discussion blurs when we circle back and start including content to this train of thought!

Brooks' books on photography and the creative process are available in print from Lulu.com, and as eBooks for Kindle or EPUB readers. As one of the membership benefits, these eBooks are available in their entirety to members of LensWork Online via download.

Comments

[Florian]

Hello,
I like how you emphasize the subjectivity of statements of taste or preference!
For my part, I have to admit, to my embarrassment, that I had first largely misunderstood your "photographic quality" and that I am probably quite ignorant of this criterion. For me, the composition and content of a photograph is of overriding importance and I am much more flexible with photographic quality than with compositional quality. I really cannot think of a "photographic quality" criterion that would be a no-go.

[Bryan]

Maybe this is the moment to reverse Ansel's quote, and I paraphrase, "there is nothing worse than a fuzzy picture of a sharp concept".

[Cemal Ekin]

This seems to be a meta quality question, or "the qualities of good quality photographs". It is by definition, I believe, is slippery and elusive. It is like asking "what makes good quality shoes?" Clearly, the first round of issues to consider will be "for what, is it gender or age specific, in what price range, etc." You can project this line of thinking to any product category, including photographs. Thinking only about the qualities of a print is too restrictive in my opinion.

I have successfully managed to avoid answering the question! Now, I will see how it progresses.

[Anna]

Thanks for the interesting tips, one of my goals this year is to improve the quality of my photos - so I really appreciate the many ideas on quality.

[Phil Harbord]

Something you might want to look at if you've not already done so is Martin Bogren's book Tractor Boys. Most of the images in his book are blurred, grainy and somewhat out of focus but it's some of the most emotive photography that I've seen recently. I absolutely love it and can't imagine taking images like it myself as much as I'd love to.

So for me, I think emotion, story and atmosphere are the most important attributes in a photograph.

[Brooks Jensen]

I agree completely, but in this post I was trying to focus everyone's attention on the strictly technological attributes of an image as regards how we think of photographic quality, not on content or emotive aspects. They can be thought of separately. I'll have more to say about this in a post next week focusing on the aesthetic and emotive ways we think about a photograph.

[Phil Harbord]

Sure, but I think that's an almost impossible task, to separate out the two. I'd agree with you that clarity, subtle tonality, detail and lack of digital artifacts are the technological attributes that I'd associate with quality. But Martin Bogren's photos are lacking in most if not all of those characteristics and yet I wouldn't say they lack quality because of that.

Ultimately it's about the image and different images can tolerate or even benefit from a lack of traditional measures of quality.