Quality... Objective or Subjective?

[ChrisAdval]

This is tough, but its not sort of and some of photography is pure technical and some of it is not and when I see the technical part just bad I see it as bad or low quality photography.

What do you guys think when you compare a brand new armature photographer's work to a polished established model photographer that is published in many issues of FHM, Maxim, etc... Is it objective or subjective when you compare both photographer's work. Is there a certain criteria like technique used by seeing the EXIF data, composition, lighting, model posing, facial expression, use of the environment (if not studio)....

[SwissJon]

You missed the only option that I would want to apply.. Photographic quality is both objective, as in you can measure noise, CA, focus etc, and also subjective.. You cannot measure composition etc. And depending on the subject, one becomes more promenant than the other.. Even you said that, but you didn't give us the option to vote for that?

Therefore I can't vote.. Not even "none of the above" is applicable because the answer is "all of the above"

[Nicole]

I don't know, I lean towards purely subjective. I think there are photographs out there that have been bought for way more than I could probably ever hope to sell something for that I just don't like. But obviously someone liked it enough to spend that much money.

Given the example of comparing an amateur photographer's picture to that of an established photographer, I still think it's subjective because there is a chance that I will see something good in the amateur's, just as I may see something I don't like in the pro's.

That said, I think even to a large extent the technical aspects can be seen as being subjective. For example, noise doesn't necessarily bother me in a photo unless it is really distracting. There are others out there who consider any amount of noise to ruin a photo. So even something like that, to me, is subjective.

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by Nicole

I don't know, I lean towards purely subjective. I think there are photographs out there that have been bought for way more than I could probably ever hope to sell something for that I just don't like. But obviously someone liked it enough to spend that much money.

Given the example of comparing an amateur photographer's picture to that of an established photographer, I still think it's subjective because there is a chance that I will see something good in the amateur's, just as I may see something I don't like in the pro's.

That said, I think even to a large extent the technical aspects can be seen as being subjective. For example, noise doesn't necessarily bother me in a photo unless it is really distracting. There are others out there who consider any amount of noise to ruin a photo. So even something like that, to me, is subjective.

Make sense, but what if you compare two established photographers one having clipping/cropping and composing issues (that photographer is unaware or is in denial of) vs. another photographer that has his current work without those issues, which of the two would have better quality photos in this situation?

[Nicole]

I still think it depends because the photos won't be exactly the same. Maybe the rest of the photo overcomes those technical issues and I connect to it better.

I think you pose a very interesting question though.

[SwissJon]

You say that noise doesn't neccesarily bother you, and in some cases I'd argue that it enhances the photograph, but it is a measurable quantity, making it an object.. Take for example architectural photographs, where noise, CA etc. are definitely a problem.. You can measure the quality of the photo based on whether you can see and do what you intended with the photograph..

Alternatively, some more "arty" photos, some of the abstracts, like the one below that I took below that's had a lot of post processing work dones to it, are highly subjective.. They're highly dependant on the viewers interpretation of the photo, the composition etc, and not so much the quality of the camera.

I stand by my argument that it's a mixture of both, to a greater or lesser extent.

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by Nicole

I still think it depends because the photos won't be exactly the same. Maybe the rest of the photo overcomes those technical issues and I connect to it better.

I think you pose a very interesting question though.

yes, but would a publication person who is reviewing submissions or portfolios would look at the photos with the technical criteria as the priority vs. the subjective artistic side? Same goes for other certain clientele that has similar techniques in hiring like publications.

[Bruce A]

Originally Posted by ChrisAdval

yes, but would a publication person who is reviewing submissions or portfolios would look at the photos with the technical criteria as the priority vs. the subjective artistic side? Same goes for other certain clientele that has similar techniques in hiring like publications.

If the publication person knows his market then he/she would most likely base decisions on what that market dictates which takes us back full circle: could be one, the other, or both.

My decisions are based on what pleases my eye and not necessarilly if it ticks all the technical boxes. If it was just the latter I could be making myself open to viewing boredom.

[ravncat]

It seems very much a range to me.

concerning the magazine photographer - there's alot of technical stuff going on there - from lighting, to makeup, to the people doing the post processing - it's not one person going from the beginning to the end. So it's hard to make a direct comparison to the amateur / enthusiast who is doing all the work. one person's skill is not like to ever match a team of professionals with many skills optimized in each area.

of course, taste often trumps technical. It's subjective to the viewer, and always will be. There are cues that can set off issues - that don't hit what we see as normal - someone could see an image with odd lighting - without realizing that the lighting is odd, and dislike a picture because it's not what their image system tells them to expect.

I would argue, that a quality photo is both subjective and objective. All the technical ducks should be lined in a row. Imagine three photographs.

One that is technically very good, objectively it's a well made photograph, good exposure, well selected depth of field, sharp, contrasty, perfect color balance, but it's bland, plain, safe, cliche.

The second is technically bad, it's underexposed, it's noisy, it's not got a quite straight horizon it's main subject is slightly out of focus, a little bit of a color cast to it, but the image is unique, something you've never seen before, something very interesting, something with a narrative, message or purpose.

The third is technically very good and has very strong content.

In a competition i'd expect the third to win every time. I'd expect that 2 will almost always trump 1. Many people would like to be in the position of 2, because alot of people think it's easier to learn the technical side of photography over the artistry. Quality photographs tend to be strong or very good on the objective technical side and show great vision, talent and subject matter which are entirely subjective.

So when it comes to me - a quality photograph is subjectively good with good technique. I think subject matter and personal style are the hardest struggles to be had.

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by ravncat

It seems very much a range to me.

concerning the magazine photographer - there's alot of technical stuff going on there - from lighting, to makeup, to the people doing the post processing - it's not one person going from the beginning to the end. So it's hard to make a direct comparison to the amateur / enthusiast who is doing all the work. one person's skill is not like to ever match a team of professionals with many skills optimized in each area.

of course, taste often trumps technical. It's subjective to the viewer, and always will be. There are cues that can set off issues - that don't hit what we see as normal - someone could see an image with odd lighting - without realizing that the lighting is odd, and dislike a picture because it's not what their image system tells them to expect.

I would argue, that a quality photo is both subjective and objective. All the technical ducks should be lined in a row. Imagine three photographs.

One that is technically very good, objectively it's a well made photograph, good exposure, well selected depth of field, sharp, contrasty, perfect color balance, but it's bland, plain, safe, cliche.

The second is technically bad, it's underexposed, it's noisy, it's not got a quite straight horizon it's main subject is slightly out of focus, a little bit of a color cast to it, but the image is unique, something you've never seen before, something very interesting, something with a narrative, message or purpose.

The third is technically very good and has very strong content.

In a competition i'd expect the third to win every time. I'd expect that 2 will almost always trump 1. Many people would like to be in the position of 2, because alot of people think it's easier to learn the technical side of photography over the artistry. Quality photographs tend to be strong or very good on the objective technical side and show great vision, talent and subject matter which are entirely subjective.

So when it comes to me - a quality photograph is subjectively good with good technique. I think subject matter and personal style are the hardest struggles to be had.

I totally agree. But let's say if you wanted to new consumers who never hired a photographer and wanted to display on what's the better choice for them. I'm trying to write up an article for my potential clients to read on my site and give them more reasons to choose me instead of my competition in my regional area where they may have less quality than I have to offer. And educate them on how to measure quality photos as easy and simple as possible for them within an article. I was thinking of using my own older photos of when I started out photos (from Oct 2010) where I have a lot less quality in all aspects compared to my work I started to create back in May 2011 to today to help the potential consumer reading learn what is the differences cause we all should know most consumers doesn’t know much about quality photography compared to photographers who sees tons of photos and have a much more developed eye than today's consumers. Don't you guys agree? Any tips of suggestions just shout them out would be very helpful.