We all love our photography, and we constantly upgrade and strive to the best at what we do. For many of us, both professionally and as amateurs, image quality is paramount, and we expect the best with the money we pay for our equipment. However, although you and I may want the best, the reality of the matter is that probably most of your audience will not notice, or even care about your equipment, and they certainly won’t see the image quality that you’ve strived to achieve.
Reasons (Part One)
We spend time in front of our high quality monitors on our PCs and laptops. These are nice large displays, usually tailored towards getting the most from the image quality provided by your camera. Often we calibrate our screens, edit the images in certain light conditions, and we have time and patience to look at every detail of our image.
Now take your audience into consideration, regardless if you’re posting on social media or they are visiting your website.
* The vast majority of your audience will be viewing on their mobile phone screen. A screen around 6″, where your image will take up a small part, especially if you’re showing an image taken in landscape orientation.
* They will usually be flicking through the media, so your image will be seen for a second or so. If it really stands out, they may take a couple more seconds to view it, but that is it.
* They won’t be in optimal conditions, often viewing your images in bad light while out and about, or in direct sunlight, or the screen is too light or too dark.
* Every screen is different, with people using LCD, OLED and other screens, all with different saturations, hues, contrast etc.
As you can see, and now you’ve thought about it, these people have no chance in hell of knowing if you used a 20 year old CCD camera or the latest 61MP high tech beast with all those variables on such a small screen.
Also take into consideration that the largest part of your audience have little to no interest in actual photography and just enjoy seeing photos! That makes your camera even less relevant to your audience.
Reasons (Part Two)
We have talked about a typical audience in 2024 who will view your images, however, there is another audience that is significantly less, but usually more appreciative of your images.
Images printed on photo paper (6×4, 7×5 etc) or as prints hanging on your wall or images in a book tend, buy their nature, to get a much higher viewing time than digital images for a number of reasons.
There is a number of reasons why these images are viewed longer.
* Firstly for images that are not on the wall, you have to handle those images, by picking up a photograph, or turning the page. Your eyes wander more, as you can touch, move and “smell” the images in a way that digital photography just doesn’t offer.
* When an image is hanging on the wall, it asks for you to come near it and study it. By the nature, hung photos are usually much larger than a digital screen, so your eyes wander and discover more
* Printed images just feel more authentic, with a much more analogue look to them.
Of course, with printed images, you’ll be looking at them whenever you want, for many years to come. Unlike your digital library which will probably disappear long before even you do!
Why your camera could be any camera to anyone who sees your images
Based on what we’ve learned through recapping this blog, or the fact that you already know this, there is no way that anyone will know what camera you use when they see your images online, and have the same chance of knowing what you used when viewed in print.
In this day and age, even for weddings and events, chances are your clients will want digital images and will be looking at them on devices mentioned in Reasons (Part One).
You buy and use your camera for YOU and no-one else. You have that image quality for YOU and no-one else. The chances of anyone knowing what camera your are using, is absolutely tiny, and the chances are, they’ll know what camera you are using through deduction more than anything else.
We are generally gullible idiots in the photography world when we think we’re buying our equipment to impress others with better image quality. We’re buying it for ourselves, and we need to remind ourselves that.
Your composition, your subject, and most importantly your lighting are what others see and notice. It doesn’t matter what it’s captured on, once your image has been shrunk to appease the digital audience, nothing else matters. No the sharpness of the lens, not the megapixels, not the fact you edited a raw file or jpeg file… nothing.
Conclusion
In the decades of photography that I’ve done, both paid and unpaid work, it’s only really in these recent times that cameras now are so good, that it really doesn’t matter what camera you have. But in the face of that technological leap, photographs are in people’s lives much more because of the digital age we live. There are not many people who sit and take notice of your images, and certainly not to a degree where they will study and look at your image for the things that you, as a photographer, one your editing screen, will look for.
By all means, buy the best camera you want. By all means buy the sharpest lenses you can. But, most importantly remember that in most situations, for most people, even owning all this, no-one will be able to tell if you shot an image on a 20 year old camera or the most modern camera. The majority of the people won’t even know the difference between a mobile phone camera and a modern mirrorless camera.
So just enjoy your camera for you. Make beautiful images by following the light, finding the subject and creating a composition. That will give you an amazing starting point to decide if you’re going to edit your image and then share in the knowledge that your equipment has served you well.

Well Mark, I couldn’t have written it better myself, and you’ve really hit on something that’s hard for many photographers to hear. But it’s true—most people simply can’t see the difference in camera quality anymore, and in many cases, they don’t even know to look. I fully agree: feeling good with your own gear is what counts most, and if you want your photos to stand out, it’s all about the subject, composition, and light. Funny enough, your text actually reinforced a decision I’d made recently to hold off on buying the Lumix S5. I’m satisfied with what I’ve got, for just the reasons you’ve outlined. Thanks for the timely reminder !
All the best !
Marc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Marc. It’s hard trying to explain to people who spend so much money that their work, as good as it can be, just isn’t seen in the same visual quality as they perceive it to be viewed by others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with much of what is said. However, computers and other devices will show Landscape mode quite easily. Default on a computer is Landscape. Being retired, I still like to have good quality cameras as well as good quality lenses. Currently my equipment is Fuji X T5 with 16-80 mm and 70-300 mm lenses by Fuji and a Viltrox 27 mm f1.2 lens. Editing is done using the PhotoScape X freeware program. Not as sophisticated as my Luminar NEO but nice to use. Attached is an image of an auto (Lexus sportscar) using the 16-80mm. ISO 320 F5 1/125 sec. handheld — no noise reduction. For some reason the whites in the far buildings of the far R image have gone blue but otherwise the color rendition of the leaves, trees, vehicles, architecture etc. are very accurate as what the human eye would see at that time of day. The images are all sharp over the full range and thus I am most happy with the camera and lenses from Fuji. Here is the image which will be Landscape mode but I have a Portrait mode also created with a simple click of either Vertical or Horizontal once the program is set to Combine. In order to send via email, I have used an online freeware resize program ImgFlip.com/imageresizer bringing the original 40 mgb file down to about 12 mbg. Vertical:
Horizontal:
I like to use Faststone Image Viewer and when mousing over, click on the image that is in full screen and either hold down the L mouse key and scroll around the image or click on the image and then if you let go of the key, just hold it once more and scroll around the image to see everything at a very large increase of size. I just liked this image because there are a lot of colors including white and black which show what something simple can be made to show a camera’s capabilities. Feel free to use the comments and images if you feel that they are worthy of trying to pass on a bit of info to other photographers. MW
LikeLiked by 1 person
The trouble is, as noted. The vast majority of your images will be viewed on a tiny screen and for less than a second or so.
There are people who use computers, but the general computer screen of someone who is not a photographer (or gamer) is far less superior than ours.
I know a lot of photographers like to think otherwise, but the only person who can actually see the quality of your images is you for the most part. That’s a cold hard fact
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree with this email/statement made.Photographers are too hang up on equipment and quality. We spend too much time worried about the pixels. When the average person doesn't care, they just want a good selection of photos, whatever the subject is. Because of this I am now torn between shooting RAW photos or JPEG photos.I have been shooting RAW photos for years (I am a wedding photographer). I have spent many hours/days/weeks editing photos. During that time, I have met other wedding photographers whom have shot all the weddings only in JPEG. Looking and comparing the JPEG to my JPEG (from RAW files) without pixel peeping, and not being judgemental, they are exactly the same picture. Which now leads me to believe that I am wasting my time in editing photos and that I should shoot JPEG, do the minimal of editing and stop being lazy and actually get the exposure correct first time in the camera. At the end of the day, all the photos I take are printed in a photo book where the maximum image size is around 6×4/7×5 tops.Selwyn –Sent with mail.com Mail app
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup, I would still shoot raw and jpeg for weddings though (as I do), just in case you need to edit an important file and you miss exposure or have a large white balance shift.
Thank you for commenting.
LikeLike