Spyderman
Well-known
Almost half of my last film was out of focus. It was my fault - I tinkered with the lens and didn't check collimation before using it. But regardless of the softness I got one very nice picture. And I think if it wasn't so soft, I wouldn't even notice it...
So what do you think? Does sharpness matter? What is all the lens sharpness talk about?
So what do you think? Does sharpness matter? What is all the lens sharpness talk about?
Attachments
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Look at some paintings by Turner, Monet and Van Gogh and decide if sharpness is important.
Perhaps some people like to photograph their cat and be able to count every hair. I don't.
Do it your own way. If people like your photos that's great. If they don't like your photos that shouldn't ever worry you.
Perhaps some people like to photograph their cat and be able to count every hair. I don't.
Do it your own way. If people like your photos that's great. If they don't like your photos that shouldn't ever worry you.
venchka
Veteran
Much ado about nothing
Much ado about nothing
I think. Unless a lens is seriously flawed, and I own one that is, ANY lens is plenty good enough. Market pressures have weeded out the inferior lenses. They're all good to my eye. It's the using that matters most.
Your photograph is quite nice.
Much ado about nothing
Spyderman said:
I think. Unless a lens is seriously flawed, and I own one that is, ANY lens is plenty good enough. Market pressures have weeded out the inferior lenses. They're all good to my eye. It's the using that matters most.
Your photograph is quite nice.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
I think how sharp an image is or if it's focused well enough is dependent on what the subject matter is. Your portrait above doesn't have to be sharp or well focused to work. A picture of a wall with peeling paint or a similarly textured subject matter is different, IMHO.
Todd
Todd
back alley
IMAGES
sharpness is one aspect of a photo that makes it what it is.
sometimes sharpness makes the photo, you look at it and immediately think 'man, that's sharp' and wonder what lens/film was used.
it's not a bad thing or a good thing, just part of the process.
sometimes sharpness makes the photo, you look at it and immediately think 'man, that's sharp' and wonder what lens/film was used.
it's not a bad thing or a good thing, just part of the process.
FrankS
Registered User
The way I've got it figured, an image can be evaluated along 4 aspects:
1) compelling/interesting subject matter
2) composition (arrangement of visual elements, presence/absence of distracting visual elements)
3) lighting (interesting/appropriate for subject)
4) technical (focus, contrast, dust, etc.)
These are listed in relative order of importance.
This is just my personal paradigm. I'm not saying it is universally correct.
If all that's off is focus, that's still okay since the other aspects are good.
edit added: As Todd said, it sometimes depends on the subject matter as well. If your intent is to depict detail and texture, and focus is off, the image fails to fulfill its intended purpose.
1) compelling/interesting subject matter
2) composition (arrangement of visual elements, presence/absence of distracting visual elements)
3) lighting (interesting/appropriate for subject)
4) technical (focus, contrast, dust, etc.)
These are listed in relative order of importance.
This is just my personal paradigm. I'm not saying it is universally correct.
If all that's off is focus, that's still okay since the other aspects are good.
edit added: As Todd said, it sometimes depends on the subject matter as well. If your intent is to depict detail and texture, and focus is off, the image fails to fulfill its intended purpose.
Last edited:
S
StuartR
Guest
I agree with Todd. Sharpness is totally dependent on the subject. Two examples.
This photo does not need to be sharp:
But this one does:
Even though there are soft figures in the frame, the sharpness of the rest of the background is necessary. If it were handheld and the buildings were blurry, there would be no photo.
This photo does not need to be sharp:
But this one does:
Even though there are soft figures in the frame, the sharpness of the rest of the background is necessary. If it were handheld and the buildings were blurry, there would be no photo.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
[SIZE=-1]“If it sounds good and feels good, then it IS good!” -Duke Ellington
Similarly, it it looks good, it IS good.
I have plenty of examples of my own photos wherein something went horribly wrong, yet it resulted in a good image.
I even started a group in Flickr wherwe members were invited to submit just such photos. I've been lax, however, and everyday photos started drifting in.... http://www.flickr.com/groups/90094493@N00/
[/SIZE]
Similarly, it it looks good, it IS good.
I have plenty of examples of my own photos wherein something went horribly wrong, yet it resulted in a good image.
I even started a group in Flickr wherwe members were invited to submit just such photos. I've been lax, however, and everyday photos started drifting in.... http://www.flickr.com/groups/90094493@N00/
[/SIZE]
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
This is a repeat of another thread here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33430
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33430
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Above and beyond all it is the moment that matters most.
thafred
silver addict
I found a photographer on Flickr who is using unsharpness and camera shake to a wonderful effect! I highly admire his/her work....look at the link and get the shapness bug out of your system ;-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73607408@N00/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73607408@N00/
willie_901
Veteran
All that matters is a photograph's impact on the mind of the viewer.
When sharpness is required to create an impact, it is important. When sharpness is not required, it is not.
willie
When sharpness is required to create an impact, it is important. When sharpness is not required, it is not.
willie
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
The sharpness of the lens is really important. You need to know your photo will be in focus.
That said 'soft focus' lenses are VERY expensive because you have correct focus *and* the ability to soften edges.
Slightly out of focus can make an image look more interesting, however.
That said 'soft focus' lenses are VERY expensive because you have correct focus *and* the ability to soften edges.
Slightly out of focus can make an image look more interesting, however.
S
StuartR
Guest
thafred said:
That cat's good! I love "vnutrennii gorod", which betrays their knowledge of Russian (it means the center of the city), so that's at least a clue to their identity.
VinceC
Veteran
StuartR,
I think your photo of the feet walking succeeds so well because there IS sharpness ... the foot taking a step forward is reasonably sharp compared to the rest of the image, and it is the central point of action. The foot taking the next step is sharp and is the subject of the image.
The eye is drawn to sharpness. The eye expects sharpness. If there isn't any sharpness, then the eye moves all around the image lookng for it and expects a reason for this absence. Implied motion usually works as an acceptable reason for lack of sharpness, within subjective boundaries.
For many impressionist masters, when you see their work in person, you see very sharp, powerful brush strokes. These bursts of underlying sharpness capture the eye and keep it moving around different elements of the painting.
I think your photo of the feet walking succeeds so well because there IS sharpness ... the foot taking a step forward is reasonably sharp compared to the rest of the image, and it is the central point of action. The foot taking the next step is sharp and is the subject of the image.
The eye is drawn to sharpness. The eye expects sharpness. If there isn't any sharpness, then the eye moves all around the image lookng for it and expects a reason for this absence. Implied motion usually works as an acceptable reason for lack of sharpness, within subjective boundaries.
For many impressionist masters, when you see their work in person, you see very sharp, powerful brush strokes. These bursts of underlying sharpness capture the eye and keep it moving around different elements of the painting.
gb hill
Veteran
thafred said:
Nice shots but it looks like da's using a Holga where sharpness is an impossability, because of the charictaritics of the lens.
As far as sharpness goes, I agree, that it depends on the subject matter for most part. But I think you can get so caught up in all the technicallity of what makes a print that you can lose the joy of making a photograph, because you can never seem to please yourself. There has to be a balance somewhere.
Last edited:
kestas
Member
VinceC
Veteran
I suspect that one reason Henri Cartier-Bresson dropped photography is that he felt his popularity had transformed his own photographs into a bourgeois concept.
R
ray_g
Guest
kestas said:Ondrej, H. Cartier-Bresson once said: Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
and here, on attached picture my 5 cents about sharpness
This is often misquoted. HCB meant that as a joke, when his photos started to get blurry as his hands became less steady with age.
S
StuartR
Guest
Well, let's just put this another way. There is no good excuse for bad technique. If your lack of sharpness is from poor technique alone, then it is not a good thing. But if your unsharpness is an aesthetic tool to make your photo, then it is fine.