Will a New Camera Make Your Photos Better?

This photo has both technical and aesthetic merit, 

but most importantly, I like it a lot.

Modern digital cameras are image-producing marvels. Technical hurdles such as calculating exposure, accurate focus and what combination of shutter speed and aperture to use can all be decided by the camera. Even things which used to depend on the film, such as color rendition and contrast range can be changed by simply choosing the right picture mode or adjusting a slider. Smart phones and digital cameras- especially DSLRs and mirrorless cameras - allow almost anyone to pick one up and take photos of a quality that was once limited to those with professional or enthusiast level ability and high end gear.

The result of this is that all that is needed to take “great photos” is to slip in a memory card, charge up the battery and select the right mode. In a dazzling variety of situations, almost any currently available camera can produce technically excellent photos that would have been a challenge to capture a generation ago. Some even have the ability to detect not only a person's face, but his smile. Depending on the control setting, the camera may not even let you take a photo if the subject isn't smiling. Some smart phones will even select the best composition out of a series of photos. (This technology hasn't quite made it into DSLRs or MILCs yet, but it probably will soon.)

Many people buy entry- or even mid - level DSLRs and MILCs, often based on the recommendation of an “enthusiast” friend or an “expert” sales person. Or, they read online forums and blogs and decide that to get the best possible photos, they need a given camera with lots of megapixels and interchangeable lenses. Camera buyers can be confronted with a mind-boggling assortment of lab tests and specifications which all supposedly support that cameras with the most up to date features are going to give the best photos.

So you buy the camera your enthusiast friend recommends and start taking photos. Are they really better than what you were producing with your smart phone? Are they even good?

Enthusiasts will often declare that yes, your photos will be “better” if you buy a current technology camera with, say, a 24 megapixel sensor and other cutting edge features than if you stick with your iPhone or Android phone, buy a lower end “bridge camera” or an older, less expensive DSLR or MILC. More pixels, more powerful and sophisticated metering and focusing ability, better quality lenses all ensure better photos, right?

Taken with my Samsung Galaxy S3. I could pick apart the technical 

flaws, but why?

One problem with this thinking, however, is that for many enthusiasts, “better” refers to the technical aspects of the photo. I've seen plenty of dreadfully uninspired, even boring, photos that were declared “good” because of technical quality. Sure, they were sharp, colorful and well-exposed, but I wouldn't post one online or hang a print on my wall. The reason for this is some enthusiasts have unique criteria for determining whether a photo is good or not.

Ever hear the term “pixel peeping”? It's an exercise in which you zoom into a photo to examine how it looks at the pixel level. You would never view a photo that closely under normal circumstances on Facebook, Flickr or some other online gallery. If a photograph was hanging on a wall, you probably would not press your nose against it to examine it. Essentially, that is what pixel peeping is.

Two of the things that pixel peeping seek to reveal are sharpness and the presence of the Dread Nemesis of many an “enthusiast”, digital noise (the presence of pixel sized light or off color areas within a photo. We called it “grain” during the film era). For some, utmost sharpness is important even if it reveals every wrinkle and flaw of their wives' faces when they take a portrait. Noise is to be suppressed even if it makes the subject of the photo look like a mannequin or made of plastic. No matter how endearing the portrait, no matter how spectacular the landscape, some will deem the photo inferior if standards of sharpness and noise levels are not met.

A pixel-peep test sample of one of the sharpest, lowest noise DSLRs

available. Exciting, isn't it?

My advice is: don't worry about such things. As I stated at the outset, modern digital cameras can make probably 90% of the photos you take as technically good as any professional could produce during the film era applying all his skill and know how. Such technical aspects can matter, but are really only noticed when they are obviously not met. Even then, the aesthetic value of an image can be such that any technical flaws are set aside.

In my opinion, there are two other criteria in assessing photos that are of much greater value than technical quality*. One is aesthetic quality. The other is personal value.

Aesthetic quality involves a lot of elements of composition, lighting, color and subject matter that can be very subjective. Discussing it would also take several articles. I've written in the past about some composition techniques that you can review here if you would like. To sum it up for this article, aesthetic quality is addressed by the question “Do I like the way this photo looks?”

The first thing that grabs your attention in a photo (assuming your are not a pixel peeping enthusiast type) is the “eye candy” quality. The colors, light and shadow, subject matter, overall composition all get, or lose, your attention within the first 3 to 5 seconds of viewing a photograph. Most of the time, you probably won't go deeper into analyzing a photo than whether you like how it looks or not.

This photo of John McCutcheon combines aesthetics and

technical merit. It was taken with a 5 year old, low MP 

count camera that has prominent high ISO noise. 

Who cares? It works, and I like it.

That's perfectly acceptable, despite what some enthusiasts will insist is the necessity to determine a photo's worth via close scrutiny for things like sharpness and noise levels. I can tell you from professional experience that paying clients are usually just like you when it comes to assessing photos: the aesthetic quality almost always overrides any technical shortcomings. Granted, part of what I do when editing photos for clients is to eliminate technical flaws, but unless you are offering photos to paying clients you may not have to be nearly as concerned with that aspect as some would say.

The other criteria is personal value. That's exactly what you think it is. A photo of a loved one or that captures a moment in time during a special event or vacation is indeed priceless. Any other criteria is secondary to the personal worth of your photos. Some may dismiss a slightly blurry, noisy photo of your partner standing in front of the Eiffel Tower as a bad photo, but pay them no mind. You caught that moment when his or her smile was just right, that instant in time that will enrich the rest of your life every time you look at that image.

There are all sorts of things wrong with this photo,

if I wanted to get picky. I don't care: it's a photo

that captures my daughter in a way that I like.

I'll let you in on a secret: nearly every iconic photograph taken by any master of photography meets that personal value criteria more than any other criteria in the mind of the photographer. That's why those masters became photographers, and worked to master the craft. They did so in order to capture special moments in time, valued subjects and scenes, in ways that met their personal goals and values. Granted, when producing photos for someone else, the client's values are imposed upon the photographer. However, much of the time, the photographer is hired because of his or her personal style, which in turn reflects what he or she values when making photographs. Even something as staid as product photography can still involve both personal style and personal satisfaction with the final image.

The bottom line is that unless you are entering contests or working for clients, whether you like a photo you make is more important than whether someone else thinks it's good technically or aesthetically. To that end a given camera may or may not make for better photos. If you want your photos to be sharper, better exposed and with certain image aspects best offered by a DSLR or MILC, by all means buy one. Never forget, however, that what matters most is whether you are enjoying making photos with your camera, and do you like the images that result. Another person's opinion should be given far less weight than your own. It's your photograph, and you will probably look at it far more than anyone else, so you are the final judge.

Technically, this is a disaster, and a number of people have reminded

me of that. Aesthetically, it does exactly what I want it to do, and 

people have pointed that out as well. Plus, I like it.

There's an old saying that the best camera is the camera you have with you. A similar one would be that the best photographs you take are the ones you enjoy looking at time after time.


*This is relating to personal use photos. For those of us producing photos for professional use, technical merit is of equal importance to aesthetics.