photography quality Quotes

Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy-the tone range isn't right and things like that-but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention.

If the guy behind the camera is not good, the pictures are bad. It's still you, and it's the same lines and everything, but it doesn't work.

The meaning of quality in photography's best pictures lies written in the language of vision. That language is learned by chance, not system.

I know that if I were to take ugly photographs, no one would be interested in looking at them.

I know the importance of highly trained awareness of the “moment” and the immediate and intuitive response of the photographer. It should be obvious to all that photographers whose images possess character and quality have attained them only by continued practice and total dedication to the medium.

The picture is good or not from the moment it was caught in the camera.

There are good photographers who might elevate themselves to the ranks of the great simply by burning most of their work.

For me, the brand of the camera is not the most important thing. I think you can take good pictures with the camera on your phone.

Digital photography and Photoshop have made it very easy for people to take pictures. It's a medium that allows a lot of mediocre stuff to get through.

It's not as if ten years ago, we were like, 'I wish I could take low quality photos of my dessert.'

Somehow Photoshop and the ease with which one can produce an image has degraded the quality of photography in general.

But I always liked the fact that you get these totally unacceptable images, but they're taken by a really expensive photographer, with great light, and in terms of the quality of the photograph it's a great photograph, but in terms of imagery it's unacceptable, and I like that contradiction.

Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs.

You can tell a good ruined lens, right from the get-go.... That’s the kind of lens I'm looking for.