« Open Mike: Easter and the Egg of Happiness | Main | Know Thyself »

Monday, 28 March 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Qualität of Foto, maybe?


^ what I would see when I look up QoF in the dictionary.

Urg. The 'ole Fuji X-trans file bugaboo again. Any folks who have QoF "issues" with Fuji X-Trans files, are, IMHO, either uninterested in, or unwilling to, make a 30-second "round trip" from Lightroom or Photoshop to Iridient Developer and back. Or, use Capture One. Personally, any "selects" that are of any value to me as an X-photographer is worth 30 seconds of my time. Folks spend more time than that putting fancy borders or taglines in their photos.

But the QoF is a good attribute for a digital photograph. One of the key qualities that really drew me to Fuji X was that the QoF reminds me of the original Canon 5D.

Good morning from Latvia. I saw this today in the Guardian and thought you might be interested. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/mar/28/daniel-mayrit-you-havent-seen-their-faces-bankers-photography Rogues gallery: how photographers are targeting the 1%. I love your site and visit almost every day.

Referring to photographs in terms of data makes a lot of sense, but still troubles me after all those years in digital. Maybe it's the dissonance between the quantitative nature of physics and the qualitative nature of the psyche. I'm a scientist by education and occupation. Photography offers me a detachment from numbers.

I'm more interested in the "Quality of Photo" department.
The "quality of file" in the shots I submitted 2 years ago to a local annual exposition was low. The photos were grainy, under (or over) exposed, some even with blurry elements or subjects.
The judging panel, on other hand, found the "quality of photo" high enough to award me the first prize in the Photojournalism and Overall cathegories. So different people value different things regarding photography.

That would explain why, despite its horribly irritating bugs and defects aka "quirks," I continued to use the the Fuji x100 occasionally---because I liked the quality of its pre X-trans files. Alas, I finally gave it up completely as the slowness and fussiness of the thing overcame any real or imagined QoF.

A friend of mine has a Df, and yes, I'd say from what I have seen, those files are something special.

Hi Mike...Seems like "file quality" is elegant in its simplicity and is self explanatory. Best, Chico

The trouble is, the file is only the raw material fed into the process of making an image.

Good raw material is not necessarily the best looking - it's the most flexible and malleable. The rest is up to the photographer.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007