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?"