A release from sharpness

Unsharp is teh lose :)

U1177I1165834638.SEQ.0.jpg
 
sitemistic said:
As I've said before, I find it amazing that photographers buy $5,000 cameras and $5,000 lenses, and then celebrate fuzzy, soft photos.
Click to expand...
As opposed to celebrating fuzzy, sharp photos? :)
 
sitemistic said:
Well, you know, if you want fuzzy photos, an early Zorki 1 with a mismatched Industar will give you that Noctilux look at a lot less money. :)
Click to expand...
Don't have either, but I take your word for it :)
 
Nah Alkis, it's spot on: no point taking photo if it's no bleeding sharp :angel:

U1177I1198279642.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Highly personal opinion:

Lack of sharpness/focus is OK if it is applied by someone who knows what they are doing - and WHY they are doing it, and WHEN to apply it. Those people are kind of rare. You should learn the rules if you want to break them.

This is not the same as saying a sharp brick is better than an out-of-focus portrait. A good photo cannot be reduced to sharpness. But I can't say that Capa's photos
would be worse if they were "sharper". I do however feel that Ansel Adams photos would be "worse" if they were fuzzy.
 
I think if you look at a lot of venerated work that lacks we would describe as critical focus, Capa's fallen Spanish civil war soldier being a case in point, you would have to say that they were not deliberately misfocussed to eschew the tyranny of the 8x10 camera, but rather they where as sharp as the photographer could make them at the time, given their equipment and the conditions they were working under. To somehow cite them as some kind of precursor to the current trend of shooting wide open in broad daylight is to deliberately misinterpret the photographer's intention. I know that HCB came out with all that stuff about sharpness being a bourgeois concept but if he shot in good light he tended to produce sharp pictures with good depth of field.
 
This took me back.
Way back into the 80's, when I was using my Dad's Pentax with the 135 telephoto, and 2415 with extended tonal range Petersen developer (blue looking stuff), shot with the whites at ASA 8 (pushed to ~25 on the gray card).

Got an ad-hoc portrait at a ski hill with the eyes in focus, but with the nose and ears out of focus. The eyes were razor sharp.

Then moved into 4x5.

Fine grain and sharp is addictive.

But motion, wind, etc are the bane of slow speed.
Low f# is the bane of DOF.
Film size is the bane of weight.
View camera goes against convenience.

I wish I could find that peterseon stuff - was from around Sun Valley (the Valley- So Cal)

There is no easy winner - you have to give up something.
 
I've enjoyed reading this thread as, for the past 33 years, mine has been the strive for perfect sharpness. However, since I bought an M6 just before Christmas last year (and got a jolt of reality by having to focus my own images again) I've started to see a subtle change in my own output.

For me, a shot only needs to be sharp where it matters. For portraits, that's usually the eyes and for landscapes, that could be everywhere. However, if I get it wrong (or right - whichever way you look at it) and end up with an out of focus shot that I like, then I'll have no problem using it.

I suppose I'm saying that I don't believe there's a universal 'right and wrong'. Ultimately, I wouldn't want to feel released from the tyrrany of sharpness only to be captured by the tyrrany of blur.
 
RdEoSg said:
Are we talking about sharpness like resolving ability of a lens or sharpness like no camera motion?
Click to expand...

When I posted this thread I was referring to camera motion induced by very slow shutters speeds. Nothing to do with any inherent characteristics of the lens.

I carry the Leica with me everywhere from the time I get up until I go to bed. Or at least it is within reach. And much of the day the light is low and I have the choice to either use a flash, a tripod, or shoot at whatever speed is indicated handheld.

It is the last piece ---handheld at slow speeds---that I was referring to. There was a time I would not shoot a picture if I knew from the outset was going to be soft. Now I make the exposure and wrestle with the softness later. A mental wrestling for me.

As someone indicated earlier in the thread this softness can be judged as laziness on the part of the photographer. A lack of committment, an introduction of a formal quality for it's own sake rather than an important part of the image. It was those factors that kept my finger off the shutter release button.

The fact that I will now make a 2 second exposure handheld is at least the beginning of the release from the sharpness god. But I remained haunted at times by the old whisperings of what may not matter...
 
In general I prefer sharp images - landscapes, cityscapes, etc. For portraits though a small amount of softness works very well - there is a reason after all, that they introduced soft focus lenses:)

There are also situations where the mood of the picture comes out better (warmer) when the picture is not tack sharp and then of course there is the concept of movements and chaos that one wants to convey to the observer.

I took the attached picture at Cibola NWR - there were hundreds, if not thousand blackbirds in these huge flocks and we spent a couple of hours together. Nothing is really sharp in that picture and yet it is one of my favorites from that series.
 

Attachments

  • Blackbird-Cloud.jpg
    Blackbird-Cloud.jpg
    60.4 KB · Views: 0
Paul Jenkin said:
I suppose I'm saying that I don't believe there's a universal 'right and wrong'. Ultimately, I wouldn't want to feel released from the tyrrany of sharpness only to be captured by the tyrrany of blur.
Click to expand...

Paul -- I think you have summed up my fear. What I wish is that I can remain aware of what I am doing and that blur becomes the result of a conscious decision just as focus, depth of field, and exposure are.

It seems like a simple thing but it strikes at the foundation of my work both personally and professionally.
 
Not sharp, I like this picture anyway.

Canon 50/1.2 on the Bessa R2, wide-open at 1/15th, hand-held.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
One of my fav shots was this one taken with an XA in light rainshower. The light was dim and I thought I was shooting with a Stylus Epic and forgot to focus:

324205650_77a1613901_o.jpg


Gene
 
sitemistic said:
Paul's statement that he started not worrying about unsharp photos only after he started using an M6 is interesting. Again, why buy a quality camera like the M6 and quality lenses only to abandon an interest in sharpness?
Click to expand...
Except it's not what Paul have written:
I wouldn't want to feel released from the tyrrany of sharpness only to be captured by the tyrrany of blur.
Click to expand...

You are intelligent person Sitemistic but seem to have strange satisfaction in twisting other's point with broken propositional logic. If one has unsharp/misfocused photos he likes it doesn't mean he "abandons interest in sharpness" and never takes sharp photos he likes. If Socrates is human and is dead, it doesn't mean all humans are dead.
 
Softness is another word for bokey, softness is a continuation of bokey. In a portrait the amount of bokey equals the amount of soul or putting that way it is the deformation of the world through the soul. If softness encourages picturaly the revelation of the spirit that is present in the scene, then it's good! Otherwise if you want something to be sharp for any reason, softness is really only an error in the process. Eugene your photo of the angel is gorgeous!
 
sitemistic said:
"For me, a shot only needs to be sharp where it matters. For portraits, that's usually the eyes and for landscapes, that could be everywhere. However, if I get it wrong (or right - whichever way you look at it) and end up with an out of focus shot that I like, then I'll have no problem using it."

varjag, what does if I get it wrong I'll have no problem using it mean to you?
Click to expand...
Exactly what it says: if he got it unsharp but it works he'll use it. Not that he'll try get it "wrong" all the time just for sake of it.

Charles - thanks.. must take a lot of work to earn halo of that size :)
 
Perhaps because the M6 is capable of taking sharp photos if the need arises, but a cheaper alternative (e.g., Holga) may not? Or perhaps because the M6 has other advantages (interchangeable lenses, faster lenses, better build quality, etc.)?

sitemistic said:
Paul's statement that he started not worrying about unsharp photos only after he started using an M6 is interesting. Again, why buy a quality camera like the M6 and quality lenses only to abandon an interest in sharpness? There are a lot cheaper alternatives if ultimate sharpness isn't your goal.
Click to expand...
 
Not sharp, I like this picture anyway.

Canon 50/1.2 on the Bessa R2, wide-open at 1/15th, hand-held.
Click to expand...

It works. Looks painterly.

I took the liberty of working on it a bit, I hope you don't mind. :)

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • jamestown.jpg
    jamestown.jpg
    247.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom