Is image quality really that important if content is mostly for the web?
Here’s a question: As more and more content finds its home on the web or the i-phone or the i-pad, how much does image quality really matter?
I have always felt that a medium format camera back was overpriced, now I have a very strong feeling that unless your work requires the extra file size or specific lenses, it is a waste of money. Can any really see the difference between a Hasselblad H-3 and a Canon 5DMKII on a web page?
4 Responses to “Is image quality really that important if content is mostly for the web?”
Chris New says:
February 23, 2010 at 8:36 pm
No.
<fb:name linked="false" useyou="false" uid="39604786">Chris McCorkle</fb:name> says:
February 26, 2010 at 1:36 pm
That’s like asking if sound quality is important if the songs are only going on an iPod.
If I have bad ear buds, then really ‘no,’ it doesn’t… but what if I’m plugging my iPod into some great speakers?
This argument carries over into the image compression for web
Chris New says:
February 27, 2010 at 11:16 am
We’re not talking about jpeg compression, though. We’re talking about the difference between a 21MP file reduced for web and a 39MP file reduced for web.
There is virtually no difference.
Chris Schultz says:
March 5, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Would a true poet write his words onto a non-permanent piece of paper?
Would an true artist create his works of art with paint that faded back to a the original blank canvas?
Of course quality matters.