{"id":137946,"date":"2019-04-06T15:40:12","date_gmt":"2019-04-06T22:40:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/erickimphotography.com\/blog\/?p=137946"},"modified":"2019-04-06T17:57:45","modified_gmt":"2019-04-07T00:57:45","slug":"what-is-image-quality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/erickimphotography.com\/blog\/2019\/04\/06\/what-is-image-quality\/","title":{"rendered":"What is “Image Quality”?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A thought while shooting on a phone today:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is “Image Quality” when we talk about it in photography? Are there objective measures 9r “image quality”? And when we say “image quality”, what do we *really* mean to say?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Image quality as subjective <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Samsung Galaxy S7 Processed with VSCO with a6 preset<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I think most people think of image quality as a combination of:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Sharpness <\/li>
  2. Clarity of image <\/li>
  3. Depth of field effects (“bokeh”) <\/li>
  4. Saturation and vibrancy of colors in the photo <\/li>
  5. Dynamic range: Ability to discern between the dark and bright parts in a photo (for example no “blown white highlights”. For example a digital medium format camera can capture more information when photographing a landscape sunset picture at the beach (detail in sand, water, and sky) when compared to a smartphone camera photo. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Why does image quality matter? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    But ultimately, why does image quality matter? We will all define image quality differently, but I think what we will all agree on is this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Different cameras, films, and sensors evoke different emotional and aesthetic responses from an image. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    So perhaps instead of asking ourselves, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Which camera has the best image quality? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    We should be asking ourselves,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What kind of emotional or aesthetic response do I want from my images? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    What I want from my photos <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure>
    \"\"<\/figure>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
    \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    Personally speaking I want these things from my photos:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. To shock and surprise myself: To be amazed how interesting and visually impactful my photos are. <\/li>
    2. To look at my photos which spark lovely memories from the past. <\/li>
    3. Visual stimulus from my photos in terms of colors, tones, and aesthetic qualities. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      What device or screen are you using to experience your images? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Another practical question:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      When you’re viewing or experiencing your photos, what device are you using to view your images? And how big are you experiencing your images? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      For example if you’re just uploading your photos to social media, your photos will look tiny, and thus the image quality isn’t as apparent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      For myself, I derive maximum enjoyment of my photos when viewing my images on my iPad Pro 10.5 inch; enjoying them for my full pleasure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Or another more recent development: sharing my photos on this blog in a “full width” mode (new WordPress feature). 1000x better viewing experience than looking at photos in crappy limited Instagram constraints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

      Aesthetic qualities <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      This is what I learned:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Perhaps we shouldn’t be calling it “image quality”, but rather “aesthetic quality”. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      For example I love film, because there is a different aesthetic quality to the images (grain, grit, different colors, and different “look”).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      For example Kodak Portra 400 film:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"Downtown<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Downtown<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"Manila,<\/figure><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      Or Kodak Trix 400 monochrome film pushed to 1600 with yellow filter:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      I love the film look of my photos, but I’m hesitant to say that they look “better” than my digital photos. For example, I derive great pleasure from the RICOH GR II<\/a> photos I’ve been able to produce in monochrome (RAW x ERIC KIM MONOCHROME 1600 preset<\/a>):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      Or even my RICOH GR II JPEG (positive film preset) images \u00e2\u20ac\u201d they look fantastic and beautiful in my eyes!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"Berkeley,<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"RICOH<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"Denver,<\/figure><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      I love the way the RICOH GR II photos look. Seriously some of the most epic image quality (benefit of not having an anti-aliasing filter). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Digital medium format <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      This is where things get very interesting\u00e2\u20ac\u201d looking at the pinnacle of modern photography image quality; digital medium format:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      For example these photos on the Fujifilm GFX50R<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Processed<\/figure>
      \"Processed<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"Processed<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Little<\/figure>
      \"Little<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"Little<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Little<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Rolex<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"flowers\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Huntington<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Fujifilm<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Selfie.<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      Photos on digital medium format look and feel different \u00e2\u20ac\u201d reality looks enhanced, and the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153DMF<\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u009d photos look \u00e2\u20ac\u0153more real than real life\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, which isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t necessarily \u00e2\u20ac\u0153better\u00e2\u20ac\u009d nor \u00e2\u20ac\u0153worse\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d it is just different. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Or examine these Pentax 645Z<\/a> photos \u00e2\u20ac\u201d the photos certainly feel more three-dimensional than any other camera format:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"Washington<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"Blue<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Eric<\/figure>
      \"Ceiling<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"Two<\/figure>
      \"Cindy<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Cindy<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"Woman<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"Kid<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"Cindy<\/figure><\/div>
      \"Blue<\/figure>
      \"Blue<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      It all comes down to personal taste <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"tetris<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure>
      \"Tokyo<\/figure>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"Selfie<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div>
      \"\"<\/figure><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

      Honestly at this point, this is what I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve determined for myself:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      1. All photos which make me smile are good. As long as the photos give me aesthetic joy, they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re good photos. <\/li>
      2. In terms of image resolution and dynamic range, I think the Pentax 645Z<\/a> is the clear winner for the most epic \u00e2\u20ac\u0153image quality\u00e2\u20ac\u009d photos produced. <\/li>
      3. For the best \u00e2\u20ac\u0153bang for the buck\u00e2\u20ac\u009d image quality (and ease of everyday use), RICOH GR II<\/a> is the winner (ability to use flash<\/a> is a huge plus). <\/li>
      4. The screen which you look at your photos on is essential. iPad Pro<\/a> as the optimal digital screen to view images. <\/li>
      5. Full frame is overrated<\/a>: If you want the best image quality, just go for medium format digital<\/a>. For convenient everyday photos, use RICOH GR instead of your phone. The RICOH GR III isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t much bigger than a phone, but image quality seems to be at least 10x good.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        More turbo thoughts to come!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        ERIC<\/p>\n\n\n