Defining Quality in Photography
Something that should be easy, right?
Have you ever taken a picture expected it to be a certified banger, but then when you see it you’re underwhelmed? I think we’ve all been there. Most people probably think “it’s because I had such high expectations for that image”, which could be true, but I think it’s actually much deeper than that. I think it’s because we can’t define what makes a Quality image. Not because we don’t know what we’re doing, but because Quality is inherently difficult to define!
Currently I’m reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I’m only about two thirds of the way through the book, but a running question throughout is how to define Quality? At first glance this seems like it should be simple, especially for me as I’ve made my career in Quality, but really dive into it and you’re stumped. Don’t believe me? Try defining Quality as it relates to photographic images. There are a million different directions you could go. Go ahead, write up a definition, I’ll wait. Even better, put your initial definition in a comment before we go any further!
Did you come up with a definition? Or at least try to?
Good, now that you’ve tried to come up with a definition, we can move on!
I came up with my own definition, which was indeed difficult, and it feels underwhelming and incomplete. I also reached out to some fellow photographers on Substack and Instagram to see what definition of Quality they could come up with:
(AKA me - IG @a.developing.photographer) - A Quality image is an image that contains the right amount of information to make it interesting, but not so much that it overwhelms the viewer. It should invoke feelings and/or tell a story, or otherwise cause the viewer to linger on or return to the image.
(IG @boundbybeauty) - A quality photograph gives you an emotion—it makes you feel something. It carries a clear intention, feels honest, and creates a connection with its viewer. It can spark curiosity, draw you in, and sometimes you can’t even explain why, only that it does—and often with purpose. A quality photograph is always subjective, but to me, it lives in that space where all these things come together.
Karl Diedrich (IG @dyinrich) - A triangulation of contrast, subject, and unfamiliarity
(IG @razlyn.co) - Initially when I thought about this, I wanted to say the photographers knowledge of light and shadow creates quality photography. But deeper than that, I think quality is defined by the photographers love for their subject. When you love what you shoot—all the technical aspects magically fall into place.
(IG @tolovelightandmore) - The top thing that I keep coming back to is that quality is defined by a photograph that demands to be looked at for an extended period of time. Something that breaks the time of how long we normally look at an image. I believe in some degree of objectiveness, though it's terribly difficult to parse out what that means. I think there is a shared sense of agreed upon quality, and photos that wider society wants to look at longer. This does get me into a bit of trouble with instagram, and other algorithms that measure such so succinctly. I do think they're onto something, but there are so many independent variables in viewing through apps that I think it is a reflection of something plus something, rather than mere quality in an image.
(IG @okayfoto) - To me, quality doesn’t come down to sharpness or megapixels, the gear used or the how much time was spent editing it. I just want to feel something from it.To me that’s the hardest thing to imbue photography with. You can have great composition, exposure on point, and an amazing subject, but for me - I just want to feel either the story of the subject cut through, or the intention of the photographer.
The intention could be as simple as “I was having stupid fun with my camera and here is a stupid photo”. Great! If that comes through, that’s a quality photo to me. It could be a gameboy camera photo and if that cuts through, in my opinion, yer good.
(IG @shotbyjallen) - Quality photographs are the ones that draw you in. If the photos makes you stop in your tracks, stop scrolling, or stare too long at the museum wall, it’s quality. Simple as that.
Jeffrey Sass (IG @jeffreysassartist) - To paraphrase Renoir, who said that good art begins with an emotion, I would expand that to good photography asks a question of the viewer. It has a narrative that shows the viewer something they didn’t see before or perhaps think before. However, the technical ability it takes is also important. This can be a rabbit hole that distracts from our definition of a quality photo. We can assume that the artist has mastered the technical skills, nothing like excessive dust or other mistakes are distracting us from seeing the image. From there we can judge its quality. Did it make you feel something? What did it show you? Did it compile you to stop and look? I would rather assume technical competence and judge a photo by these criteria instead because a photograph is an intentional work of art.
(IG @calebknueven | YouTube Bad Flashes) - Quality can be subjective - Depending on the story or emotion you are trying to evoke the quality can change - maybe resolution matters - maybe technical perfection - Quality is in the emotion.
(IG @jesskosphoto) - For me, quality is synonymous with longevity. Will the image still say something decades from now? Does the fact that it’s blurry have something to do with how much fun you were having when you took it? I think about photographic legacy a lot and the quality of an image is 100% about how it fits into the legacy of what I want to leave behind.
(IG @birgitbuchart) - The quality of a photograph is nearly impossible to define with a single set of rules, as it depends first and foremost on the image’s purpose. Fine art photography, for example follows a very different set of criteria than commercial or scientific work.In my own view, especially when looking at fine art, I value photographs that catch me by surprise and trigger an “emotional reaction”, for a lack of a better term. Beyond that—whether the reaction is positive or negative—it goes too far into subjective interpretation to be considered for this question. I believe we each have different sets of factors that can speak to us. Subject matter being the one that again, is entirely subjective, and therefore not really relevant here.
Other than that, I personally initially look at composition, color, light, and stylistics. By “stylistics” I mean both aesthetic and technical choices: exposure, grain, dynamic range, white balance, etc. — not to be technically “correct” but to serve the photographs overall impression. Those choices may follow traditional rules or break them entirely, and sometimes they arise by accident.
Ultimately, the interplay of these factors is what gives a photograph strength. A single element can make a “good” photo, but when many come together intentionally, the result can be truly powerful.
So rather than searching for a universal definition of quality, I believe it is more meaningful to ask what personally resonates with us in an image. These metrics will differ for everyone, and they should remain dynamic, constantly evolving. If photography were governed by a fixed rulebook, the art world would quickly become stagnant and boring.
Wow, what a great collection of definitions, and I want to say a huge thank you to everyone that responded when I reached! Even if someone did not provide a definition but responded along the lines of “oh this is interesting and/or hard” it felt very validating and is much appreciated.
The main branch that will divide definitions is technical (classical) v emotional (romantic), and I think a lot of the definitions fellow photographers came up with really tried to tie these two different aspects together as part of their definition.
For your own personal definition, did you describe specific rules that an image should follow? Talk about proper exposure? What is “proper exposure” anyway!? Maybe you mentioned layered compositions? Oh, but what about negative space and simplicity? etc. etc.
Or did you describe what an image should make you feel when you look at it? That it tells a story and/or invokes emotions upon viewing. That the rules don’t matter and a Quality photo has to have a certain vibe? Or maybe captures an interesting moment?
We can all identify a “Quality” image when we see one. But defining what makes up that Quality is difficult, not necessarily for individual photos, but overall. This is in part because images can be Quality for a variety of reasons, but also because Quality lives somewhere between the classical (technical) and romantic (emotional) understandings. It includes both, is influenced by both, but somehow is neither. A photo could break all of the rules and still be Quality, on the other hand a photo that has been created from a place of understanding and rule following can be lacking in Quality. While the opposite of both of the previous statements can also be true and any mix in between those two extremes. There is no single way for a Quality image to be captured or created.
And this is where I go back to that initial thought, taking an image and expecting it to be Quality because you think all the elements are there, only to be let down and realize you don’t actually know what Quality is, until you see it. That’s ok! It’s what drives us to create more and better work, always searching for that definition, hoping that we can define it in our heads when we see a scene and click that shutter button (or lever, I don’t know, maybe you’re shooting a Nikonos). That pursuit for the definition of Quality is what keeps us going, and it’s what gets us down. Frankly, it’s what this whole photography thing is all about.
And this lack of definition of Quality can be applied to so many different aspects of photography; what constitutes Quality gear? Basically anyone shooting a Leica will tell you that it’s better than anything else they’ve used or own, and it probably is, but nobody can explain it other than “it just feels better”. How about a Quality film stock? Unless otherwise noted, the images in this article were shot on Kodak Pro Image 100, some people would say a budget film stock can’t be considered a Quality film when Portra exists, but then again it’s Kodak so of course it’s Quality! Or take expired film, objectively the Quality of the film has eroded over time, but I think that actually adds more Quality to the final image because of the unique characteristics of the film!
I don’t have an actual answer or a solid definition for you here today on what Quality is other than “you know it when you see it”. Maybe I will have a better grasp on creating a definition once I’ve finished the book, or maybe we’ll come up with something through our collective definitions! Whatever that definition of Quality is, get out there and keep looking for it. And maybe it’s different for all of us, it likely is and probably should be!
PS - this topic has been on my mind for a bit. I was recently talking with
for an episode of the Negative Influence podcast and I felt like we danced around this topic, but didn’t specifically discuss it, so here we are!
I just completed Zen for i think the third or fourth time. This reading had me focus on the narrators quest for understanding Quality. In no closer to understanding it, but It's given me a framework to think about it. Not just in photography, but in our everyday pursuits. Lots to consider here in your listing of others' thoughts on quality. Thanks v
Such a great writing, Adam! Love to see other people’s definition as well!