One thing that confounds all of this is the intended use of the picture. If it is going to be the dim background to poster that has writing and pictures in the foreground, then what is needed/wanted is much different.

So the purpose it will be used for can have a huge impact on the decision of "is it good enough"?

studio460 said:
Mere overexposure is often the cause of severe "purple fringing" and "softness" in my experience.

Well now... he was using C@non gear.....

That explains it all!

NSXType-R said:
I would say either anything that satisfies yourself (if that's who you're shooting for) or your client.

It is a very subjective topic.

+1
Sometimes people want what I would term a bad photo from a technical standpoint. So if what you produce is what the client wants, it's a good photo.

bjrichus said:
. . . the horrible purple fringing and the overall softness (or was it focus error?) . . .

Mere overexposure is often the cause of severe "purple fringing" and "softness" in my experience.

tcole1983 said:
Lol if someone will pay for it then it is usually of good quality ;)

although, I don't like this approach I support it 100% - if someone is paying for Your photo it means it's good (regardless of IQ).

@bjrichus - I'm not going to assume what a photographer's intention was or what it should have been while creating a photo. For me to do so, would be inconsiderate of their artistic talent and intent. I thought all the photos were very good.

The only info question you brought up, was the purple fringing. Shooting wide open on Sub F2.0 lenses and even on some wide angle 2.8-4s does create fringing and it has very little to do with build or optical quality but with the physics of light. This chromatic abrasion is normal and exists on every sub f2.0 lens from every manufacture. It is just one of those "gives" when you "Take" the wide apertures.

The sharpness you referred to and after looking at the images is just DOF. A 85mm f1.2 wide open at 5 feet, the DOF is a little over 3/4" (inch). Most people's noses are longer than that.

Most photogs I know (including me) who shoot sub F2.0s do so for "The look". Pixel peeping these lenses is just a fools errand in my opinion. If I want super sharp portraits, I use one of my macros. Perfect Sharpness means absolutely nothing to me when I'm shooting in this style. After all, I'm trying to produce images, not scalpels.

kanuck: Right! We all too often become overly obsessed about the technical details and miss the art.

Yes these questions are tough because everyone's a critic for sure. I'd just like to say that I hate pixel peepers like the image is fantastic but there is a bit of a problem in "the corners" I hate that. I still think its all about the subject matter! And the talent to be in be in the moment and the skill to pull off the exposure.

donaldejose said:
I constantly struggle with this myself.... I have to put my eye 6 inches away from the print and scan it for detail.

I have done that at exhibitions of some of the best photographers work where 99.99% of people would be swooning in awe ... As the English would say: "Sad!" LOL!!!

donaldejose said:
Then I get unhappy with my image quality and vow to use a tripod next time or plan to get a "super" lens or the D3x 24 megapixel body to improve my photos.

Recently, I was looking at photos in Sports Illustrated and was shocked to see all sorts of flaws I would criticize in my own work. Yet, they certainly were "good enough" for publication. Many of us may well be too hard on ourselves but it looks like you found a guy who isn't hard enough on himself.

1. I beat myself up about flaws in my own work far too much.

2. As for magazine shots, there are agendas that a picture editor has to follow that don't make sense "artistically" and they often have to include a shot that supports a story, which can be arbitrary at best....

3. I'm not going to comment any more about those shots from this morning... Far too tempting - and it's not HIS fault he posted them without fixing the fixable, or preventing the preventable at shoot time?

Lol if someone will pay for it then it is usually of good quality ;)

I would say either anything that satisfies yourself (if that's who you're shooting for) or your client.

It is a very subjective topic.

To me sufficiently good image quality is when the viewer sees the photo you intended to present to them and is not distracted by any flaws in that photo (such as lack of sharpness in the corners, too shallow depth of field, improper focus, color fringing, etc.). If the flaws show so the viewer is noticing the flaws rather than your image you have insufficient image quality. If the viewer sees what you intended them to see you have sufficient image quality for your purpose. The size of the photo and the medium (like a computer monitor which can only display about 1 megapixel so it must downgrade all images with more pixels to size them to fit on your screen) will all make a difference in how many flaws are obviously visible to the viewer.

I constantly struggle with this myself. I carefully take a photo with what I think is good technique, then I view it on my 23 inch monitor which downsizes it so that it is presented only about 14% of it's full size and it seems ok and then I enlarge one tiny segment to 100% and look for flaws. When I find them I am disappointed that I didn't achieve sufficient image quality. When I print at 8 x 10 or 16 x 20 and view them at normal viewing distance they seem fine. But I simply cannot stop there. I have to put my eye 6 inches away from the print and scan it for detail. Then I get unhappy with my image quality and vow to use a tripod next time or plan to get a "super" lens or the D3x 24 megapixel body to improve my photos.

Recently, I was looking at photos in Sports Illustrated and was shocked to see all sorts of flaws I would criticize in my own work. Yet, they certainly were "good enough" for publication. Many of us may well be too hard on ourselves but it looks like you found a guy who isn't hard enough on himself.

bjrichus said:
I guess it all comes down to this: "What do *WE* assume is good Image Quality?"

I agree with NikoDoby that this has a lot of corners to be covered.

Do you mean from the "technical" point of view or from the "photographic" point of view?
(these points of view may contradict each other).

LOL, I better go put on my beekeeper's suit :^)

NikoDoby said:
Oh no, not another endless subjective debate. Too many factors to consider really. Remember too that viewing images online is far from ideal. JPEG compression when uploading to the web can sometimes make a sharp image seem very soft. There is no "right" way to judge sharpness online.

I'm sorry Niko... I don't really mean to kick the hornets nest every time.

Oh no, not another endless subjective debate. Too many factors to consider really. Remember too that viewing images online is far from ideal. JPEG compression when uploading to the web can sometimes make a sharp image seem very soft. There is no "right" way to judge sharpness online.

Perhaps this thread would be easier to "debate" if you actually posted a photo (that you took) that has "great" image quality or "bad" image quality.

I am categorizing this in the "Weird & Fun" Forum because we don't really have a 'right' place for it.

Today on Fred Miranda, someone in the C@non SLR discussion area posted a bunch of street pictures he took at SXSW (a festival in Austin, Texas), as he was trying to plug the use of that brands 85L lens. For those that want to see it, the topic is called "85L Street Photography".

I was more struck - not by the pics themselves or of the skill of the photographer - but by the horrible purple fringing and the overall softness (or was it focus error?) of that particular series and about how he didn't appear to recognize those 'flaws' in the shots he put up *AND* about how about 50% of comments (so far anyway), were about those faults.

A good example: There is one where he shot some glass panels hanging against a strong light streaming in through a window. The picture is nice in concept, but the 100% crop shows very clearly, that the DOF was wrong and/or it was focused on the window behind, not on the glass panels themselves (THEY are the subject after all), and at least one of those panels was obviously blurred.

Now... I don't want to get into a Nikon is better than C@non flame war and I know that purple fringing is almost inevitable in certain situations (been there - done that too), but that series of pics he posted got me thinking... Would I be happy about presenting those kind of results to a gallery for exhibition or to a client for publication?

I am prompted to ask this because earlier today, I posted that I was being held to the same standard as two others in getting my work published at my employer and am looking for some input ... Oh OK, looking for some sympathy! :)

I guess it all comes down to this: "What do *WE* assume is good Image Quality?"