Why Image Quality Doesn't Matter

 Imagine you’re forced to sit in a room for 16 hours straight. There’s nothing inside but four walls, and a chair. After 2 hours, the guard knocks on the door and offers you something to look at while you wait..

Guard: We don’t have magazines but i have two photo albums, you can look at them while you wait...
You: Ok, sure what kind of photos?
Guard: Umm.. one is 200 photos taken by a professional photographer, he’s using the highest quality and expensive equipment he has... He took all 200 photos in his hotel room alone...
You: Ok, what’s the other album?
Guard: It’s 200 photos taken by this guy in Iraq, says after his city finished a 12 hour firefight, he walked around rubble and took photos with his iphone... you can only pick one, so which is it buddy?

 Which album would you pick?

 Most people I’m sure would pick the I phone album. Surely these photos would be way more interesting to look at than a bunch of photos of a hotel room - right?

As trivial as this thought experiment is, it does reveal something about what matters to us when it comes to photography - quality content is more important to us than the quality of the photograph. If you don’t agree, which album did you pick in my example above?

 This is where most people cling to their ego, i mean expensive camera gear and proclaim: but..but..but, they’re not mutually exclusive! Who said you can’t have both?!

 This is of course true, but the question is what matters to us? Of course the “image quality” matters to a degree that we can see what the photo is of, but in the end what matters is what the photo is actually of. If it has meaning to us, or is something interesting that is what matters.

 Case and point is think of the most iconic and memorable photographs in history; most are either not in perfect focus, poor quality, or shot with cameras that by today’s standards fall below the most entry level camera. Does anyone care? Not really.

 Your “Image Quality” Obsession Is Hurting Your Photography

 Assuming that you've accepted my argument that “Quality of content” is of greater importance (in most cases) than “Image Quality.” I’d like to further argue that obsession with image quality can actually result in worse images. Again the question is now “What results in better ‘content quality” and not “image quality”

 

Spend a few hours watching camera reviews, or talk to a camera enthusiast at an electronic store - so much priority is put on image quality. This at first glance seems fine, I mean why the hell wouldn't it? What else matters when deciding what to buy?

 Many people think of photography gear in a kind of linear one dimensional way: A camera/lens with better image quality is a better camera/lens than one with slightly lesser image quality. Almost like a scale where image quality is the only consideration when judging a camera. I think this is a mistake.


If we’re to shift our priority to “content quality” over “image quality” then how we judge camera gear changes. 

The question is now: What allows you to better get "quality CONTENT"

For example, many of the “best” DSLR bodies are very large, heavy and expensive, i put “best” in quotes because this is assuming the “image quality/price” frame that i’m trying to reject.

 If our goal is “quality content” rather than “image quality” then suddenly size, price, and weight can actually make a “best” camera “worst”

 Examples: 

1.  If the size of the camera is so large that it deters you from taking it to more interesting places, and thus getting higher “content quality” images, then by my standards it would be a lesser camera than a smaller camera. 
2.  If the weight is so heavy that it deters you from carrying it longer, into more interesting places, and thus getting “content quality” images, then by my standards it would be a lesser camera than a lighter camera. 
3. If the price is so high it deters you from taking it into more interesting places/situations, thus getting higher “content quality” images, then by my standards it would be a lesser camera than a cheaper camera.
4. If the price is so high it prevents you from funding transportation or general ability to go to  interesting places/situations, thus getting higher “content quality” images, then by my standards it would be a lesser camera than a cheaper camera.

I've had various conversations with friends and acquaintances who have used their camera size, price, and weight as an excuse not to travel, for example. "I'd love to travel around the world and get amazing photos but...i don't have the money (said while holding a $2,000 lens)" or "I want to bring my camera but it's so heavy" or "I'm traveling to a exotic country but i'm scared my big camera might break, it was expensive, so i'll just use my iphone" - all excuses translate into "because i'm obsessed with image quality, i'll be taking less photos of quality content"

 The reality is in 2014 most entry level cameras have better image quality than most of the greatest photos taken from history. Nobody holds a photograph taken of WW2 and says “The image quality is poor, this is a bad picture” but instead go “Whoa, look at that moment, look at the guys face” or whatever. Obsession of image quality is a distraction from what really matters - content.

2SxQM#M6!8OCTEeFO&@v^HoxNXFYWvMX%fPyJbS2yjBXX70EtV