RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Community > Salon
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Salon Just hanging around...
(Social area, where non-retouching talk is encouraged)

Can the masses judge quality?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 03-02-2004, 09:50 PM
Ed_L's Avatar
Ed_L Ed_L is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: northwest Indiana, about 45 minutes from Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,824
Can the masses judge quality?

I'm reading an interesting book, "Forgotten Marriage - The painted tintype and the decorated frame 1860 - 1910" by Stanley B. Burns, M. D.. The book begins by examining how photographers used painters (you usually hear of this in reverse), and the effects early photography had on traditional portrait painters. It's quite interesting. There was one quote that made me wonder just how quality is perceived by the general public. The following quote seems to pertain to painted photographs:
"Were I to begin life again, I should not hesitate to follow this plan, that is, to paint portraits cheap and slight, for the mass of folks can't judge the merits of a well finished picture, I am more and more persuaded of this."
--John Vanderlyn (1775-1852)
a well known academic painter,
Kingston, New York

Should we be concerned with this same thing? The thread Vikki has on Wal-Mart (or is it Walgreen's?) photo restoration seems to fit right in here.

Ed
Reply With Quote top
  #2  
Old 03-03-2004, 12:21 AM
Vikki Vikki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 883
My theory is, the masses are not entirely to blame if they can't judge quality. They can only judge what they know or have seen. If they are only exposed to mediocrity, how can they know that anything more exists?
That's something that bothers me about Walgreens. They are promoting mediocrity.
Reply With Quote top
  #3  
Old 03-03-2004, 08:42 AM
Doug Nelson's Avatar
Doug Nelson Doug Nelson is offline
Janitor
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,068
Blog Entries: 21
The masses determine what mediocrity is. They are the "common denominator" in the term "lowest common denominator".
Reply With Quote top
  #4  
Old 03-03-2004, 04:45 PM
chris h's Avatar
chris h chris h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern UK
Posts: 991
I've always found people to be more interested in the content of a photograph than the quality or technical ability of the photographer. The bulk of processed and printed product from high street processors is technically crap but it still provides satisfaction to their customers if they are the originators of the image. This works in reverse at audio visual presentations, the audience is bored to tears after the 50th slide but all the presenter experiences is memories generated by the projected images.
Reply With Quote top
  #5  
Old 03-03-2004, 05:38 PM
Ed_L's Avatar
Ed_L Ed_L is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: northwest Indiana, about 45 minutes from Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,824
My personal opinion is that most people will settle for the lesser quality, unless the price is much the same. Probably the majority of people don't know the difference between different levels of quality, but if shown side by side samples, they can see the difference. Even when they do see it, the question is whether or not they will pay for the increased quality. I think some will, but many others won't. Just how important the photo is to them could also be a deciding factor.

Ed
Reply With Quote top
  #6  
Old 03-03-2004, 11:44 PM
mashny's Avatar
mashny mashny is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 36
Good, fast, or cheap, pick any two...

A friend of mine worked at a place that developed photos and did retouching/restoration. When his customers became annoying, claiming that some of his services were too expensive, he would tell them, "Look, we can do your job good, fast, or cheap. Pick which two you want, but you can't have all three." Most of the people chose fast and cheap, not caring much about the quality of their images.
Reply With Quote top
  #7  
Old 03-04-2004, 03:17 AM
chris h's Avatar
chris h chris h is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern UK
Posts: 991
I think most peoples personal photo's act as 'memory joggers' and quality is secondary.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Community > Salon


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Size and quality for Attached Images!! Flora Image Help 24 03-26-2010 04:38 PM
How to get high quality jewelry photos easy and spend less? usjol Classifieds 0 02-22-2007 03:38 PM
Need help on the eyes and quality of pic Jo-Jeff-1983 Photo Restoration 8 10-03-2005 07:20 PM
Need help with quality in irregular prints linoleum Image Help 12 07-02-2005 10:36 PM
Scanner Quality airubin Hardware 4 03-10-2003 06:27 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved