Lance Ulanoff, writer for PC Magazine, has posted an interesting op-ed piece on the PC Magazine website. Basically, he suggests that the average consumer doesn't care about image quality.
I have to agree with him; why else would the talk around here-- and the actual demonstration of higher quality that so often occurs by LF enthusiasts, among others-- be met with so little genuine concern?
What do you think-- is Ulanoff right?
I think the guy is mighty full of it.
I don't understand this statement you made:
"I have to agree with him; why else would the talk around here-- and the actual demonstration of higher quality that so often occurs by LF enthusiasts, among others-- be met with so little genuine concern?"
Sounds about right to me. With instamatic cameras, 110, disc cameras, disposables, consumer negative film, drugstore processing, etc., convenience has long been more of an issue in the mass market than image quality.
But that doesn't really have any effect on what I do.
Why make that observation image-specific? It would be better stated in the general case:
"The average consumer doesn't care about quality."
Let's face it, we live in an instant gratification society. The vast majority of people are concerned with getting things quick and cheap, at the expence of quality. Large format photography is about inconvenience- it takes years to master the equipment and techniques, large sums of money for equipment, dragging around 40 lbs. of gear, getting up two hours before sunrise, etc. Although mastery of the medium is in reach of almost anyone, very few indeed have the persistence and dedication to pursue it, especially when it comes at a cost of missing the latest reality show or football game on TV. Another factor is that most people don't notice the difference in quality becaouse they look at photographs and other artistic works with the same passive disregard as they watch TV or movies. In other words, just a casual glance without really thinking about what they're seeing. Of course, a major cause of this is that relatively few people have ever probably seen a large format photograph, and really don't have any idea of the difference.
Brian Vuillemenot
Let’s not forget that the consumer photo world is a very different world. Of course he is right, perhaps even more right than he knows. In his article he states “This is not to say that if they were shown images (moving or still, in side-by-side tests) or played audio in stereo and then in 6.1 surround sound, they couldn't tell the difference.” When it comes to Walmart/Ritz Camera/Drug Store photos I am not sure they could tell the difference. For starters they are looking at very small prints, 3.5x5 or 4x6 usually. At that size it is even difficult (not impossible but difficult) to tell the difference between some properly exposed and printed LF images v. similarly handled 35mm or high quality digital images.
In fact, the issue may not even be “telling the difference” but more does the image adequately capture the moment? I, like many of us, carry around a shirt pocket 3.2 megapixel digital camera (it replaced the Olympus XA which I carried for years and which in turn replaced a Minox). They are for snapshots, to record a moment, to take a picture of the box that DHL destroyed or a precious family moment, etc. They have little to do with my professional work. Granted, when I was still carrying the XA used better film than the average consumer and most of the time processed it myself. I say most of the time because my wife and family used to bitch about looking at contact sheets and I didn’t want to bother to print each and every frame ..... so, yes, I admit it, sometimes I would drop those rolls off at the local drugstore or super market for the cheapo processing and prints, just like any consumer. I saw the difference sure but that wasn’t what was important as the writer points out.
Final note, there are times when you can tell the difference, even in small prints, and when consumers will notice. This past winter I was selling my notecards at a Christmas Fair, which I often do. Only difference here was that there was another photographer selling notecards on the other side of the hall. I could see everything that was going on at her table and watched closely for a couple of hours. Best I could tell she sold one 8x10 print and no cards at all. I sold 20 + boxes of cards, 5 8x10’s and took several more orders of additional larger prints. I have known this photographer for years; she has an eye,she has ‘soul’ but she shoots in 35mm and digital exclusively and doesn’t go to the trouble to make sure her images are as sharp as possible. My cards are almost all from 4x5 and 5x7 with a few from 6x9 so I am printing reduced images and I make very sure each one is a little gem. Since it wasn’t the difference in subject matter and the pricing was about the same (although again I marked smarter, presenting cards in boxes with envelopes and she did not) I have to assume the quality difference was bringing the consumers my way, or at least some of them.
"there are times when you can tell the difference, even in small prints, and when consumers will notice"
There's a big leap between noticing the difference and caring so much that you're willing to make great sacrifices for it.
Anyone who isn't deaf can hear that a great stereo sounds better than a cheap one. But most people would still rather have their ipods. And of the ones who do actually covet the fancy system, only a small number will consider it important enough to actually shell out the $$$, even if they're able.
I fully sympathize. It's obvious to me that a giant plasma t.v. looks better than my cheap tv that I bought over 10 years ago. Do I want one? Maybe if one fell off a truck outside my house i'd take it. But I wouldn't pay much money at all for the difference. It just doesn't matter to me.
The sacrifices in money, time, and frustration I've made for image quality makes sense only because i'm a photographer. Photography is one of the few things that i've chosen to focus on. Why would i expect everyone else to share the same concerns?
paulr -- as usual we agree completely! In fact I am smiling at yoru analogy cause I feel the same way about th emonster plasma tv's. In fact, while far from a luddite, I don't even own an iPod.
The critical point IMo is that "only a small number will consider it important enough to actually shell out the $$$, even if they're able." When we are talking the small consumer prints v. what we sell (oro print or purchase froma commercial lab) we are talking not jsut incremental differences in price but differences in (usually) several orders of magnitude in price.
Sal,
You're right on the mark. For the average consumer, a 3MP or 4MP point and shoot is all they need for their 4x6 or 5x7 prints. Remember, these are people who think 8x10 is huge. The average consumer does not need the higher 11, 12, 17, or 22MP sensors as of late, nor do they need MF or LF scanned on an Imacon or drum scanner.
I remember printing a 16x24 from my first DSLR, a Canon D30. It ended up being a 72 DPI file and people who saw it were "amazed at how sharp & detailed" it was. I remember thinking that they need their eyes checked. Now prints at 16x24 from my 1DS look reasonable....and my customers are thrilled. Being that the customers are basically paying for my lights and the mortgage payment, I now shoot digitally for all my portrait, wedding and location/commercial work. My personal "landscape/fine art" work is done on MF & LF because I care about the quality. For everyone else, the 11MP sensor has proven "good enough."
It's the same when people compare their drug stores prints to silver or high end inkjet. They don't realize what they are missing until they are shown.
Regards,
The camera is but a tool. It can be used by a some to make beautiful images that clearly qualify as fine art; it can be used as a tool of journalism, and of politics as well. Many of my friends are not at all interested in any of the above. They want to have memorable images of their travels, their family, their children. That defines their quest for "quality."
One's choice of tool, eg large format vs point and shoot digital (I have and enjoy using both), depends on the results desired. Woodworking tools can be used to build a home, a brick and board bookcase or to fashion a carving that also qualifies as fine art.
All that matters is that the tool does the desired job. While some of us enjoy photographic tools for their own sake, (and I'm one of these), I do not feel the same way about woodworking tools. To me a hammer is just something with which I often hit my finger, while my 4x5 camera...
Eric
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks