What is most important..?

[lahnet]

Shooting analog using 135mm film what is most important for picture quality?

My guess:

1: lens
2: film
3: body

Same with digital:

1: body
2: lens

I know there are lots of others issues but play along

[alex]

[Seele]

lahnet,

Many years ago I wrote an article on how the Linn Theory, originally for sound reproduction, applied to photography, and found a parallel.

Before the 1970s, people believed that in an audio system, the loudspeakers are the most important, then the amplifier, and the signal source - as in the turntable - is the least. However, the Scottish company Linn turned it around: when data is passed through a system, every subsequent stage imparts its imperfection to the data, and no subsequent unit can make up for the data loss. So, the turntable is the most important, and the speakers the least. Even in a turntable, the turntable unit is the most important, followed by the tonearm, then then cartridge.

I found an uncanny parallel in the enlarger. The negative carrier and light source would be the most important, as it generates the original signal: if the negative is not held flat and not evenly lit, the print would never be satisfactory. Next comes the accuracy of the enlarger's structure and alignment; if it is not accurate, such as the optical axis of the enlarging lens is not perpendicular to both negative stage and easel, then the finest enlarging lens would not give satisfactory results.

However, I did not seem to find a clear-cut parallel in the picture-taking phase, perhaps you can think of something?

[lahnet]

Well I am thinking hardware, if we begin to include lightning we have to include motive etc.

I just sometimes think it´s funny/stange we discuss how this lens have a beautiful bokeh, or that film have nice colors.

We almost never tack about how a camera (film) influent IQ.

[hexi]

[Excalibur]

[Attila]

I think next:

#1 film

#2 perfect lighting

#3 accurate light measure

#4 lens

#5 process.

#6 body is doesn't matter.

[F16SUNSHINE]

1. Subject

everything else is just everything else without it

[Attila]

[greg]

ditto on subject, then luck

[LucisPictor]

[bob955i]

Your eye...

[Nesster]

Personally, I'm over-sensitive to the third and fourth quint of pixels from the top right corner in a sensor. As far as I'm concerned, if these aren't right the whole photo is crap. And this extends to the lens - it must have the 3-d and contrast curves just so in that location, not to mention peaking with its resolution at f/2.8-3.5. For I only shoot at f/2.8-3.5, occasionally at f/4. Incredibly, the 2MP Minolta Dimage X managed this feat to near perfection, I loved that camera even though it got 2.5 photos per battery charge. The worst camera in this respect is a tie between the full frame Canons and Nikons... you'd think these manufacturers could get one simple thing right, but no.

With film, my sensitivity to this quadrant is far less with a) 120 film b) uncoated lenses 3) single coated German lenses made in odd numbered years.

[Mist]

I think, for digital, body and lens are equal.

[F16SUNSHINE]

[trifox]

[Nesster]

My Linn turntable's lost its mojo, as I haven't used it for a couple of years (and our dove loves to sit on it).

So I jest.

[trifox]

I really had some doubt about something by reading your words



tf

[F16SUNSHINE]

Glad I did not say anything.
Could not tell if you were having a piss or .......... your marbles rolled under the couch.

[spiralcity]

Camera
Film
Lens
?

It's EXPOSURE, and understanding it...

Be it film or digital.

[Nesster]

Ok, the Linn surprise is behind me now, I'll have to find my spare belt before worrying it's the electronics or the motor.

However, the Linn model points out 'garbage in garbage out' is operative in hi-fi. For photography - leaving aside the 'real world' I'd argue the lens is most important... whatever you lose in the lens you don't really get back in the rest of the chain. If Linn made cameras they might argue that the body/lens/film plane is the most critical to get right As Linn makes digital players, they'd further argue the sensor + software are also important.

In practice, every system has its weak point... if the lens is fantastic, and the film's awesome, then perhaps there are mechanical weaknesses, and so on.

Linn also pointed out that measurements alone could not tell whether the system was good or not. You had to listen, and see if your toes started tapping (the system plays tunes and doesn't mess with rhythmic integrity... this at a time when tone and frequency response was king).

Photographically, this means to me: does the camera/lens/film make photographs that involve one's emotions easily? Is there life and a sense of roundness to the image?

Given a basic competency of camera bodies, I'd say lens first, then film or sensor.

[Spotmatic]

Even the most exclusive and exquisite lenses and cameras are just expensive paperweights without a good photographer to use them. It's like cooking: if you invited a friend to come over for a good meal (cooked carefully by you with fresh ingredients from several sources), wouldn't you feel insulted if he tells you that the food was very tasty and that he wants to know what brand of pans and spoons you are using?

Likewise: if someone likes my photos, I feel insulted when he/she tells me that I surely must use a good camera because I constantly get great results. As if my camera and lens is responsible for the photos and not I, the photographer.

Remember: equipment is nothing without someone to master it

[Attila]

[poilu]

[Spotmatic]