I hate fuzzy pics

[hlockwood]

Although it was dark in this room at Boston's MFA, I couldn't resist this shot. Unfortunately, either inaccurate focus at large aperture or slight hand shake at slow shutter speed resulted in some blur.

Still,...I like the image. Aren't kids great!

M7, 50mm Elmar-M, XP2.

Harry

Edit: BW400CN, not XP2.

 

[Davidin10003]

Blur or no blur, that's a great shot.

 

[hans voralberg]

Looks pretty sharp to me?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

My eyesight is pretty good, if I may say so, and I don't see this shot as being "fuzzy" nor suffering with serious "hand shake". Yes, it's not clinically-"sharp", but certainly not "blurry".

 

[RanceEric]

I agree with every.. Looks great to me.. Nice shot

 

[oftheherd]

We can see it is a gallery/museum, nothing else really competes with the girl, and we can see her complete engagement and wonder with what she is looking at. What else is needed? Actually, I think if it were tack sharp, it wouldn't be as good. Other things might compete.

 

[maddoc]

Spot-on, works well for me

 

[uhligfd]

What a misleading headline here. I thought this would be about another fuzzy waterfall time exposure picture etc.

Clearly - at least to me - cameras do not see as the eye does (mine). I see no DOF issues with my eyes, I see no motion fuzzyness ever. These are artifacts of the medium. Period.

And I like and can live with them.

The emotion, expression of a picture is more important than the absolute eye-like clarity, focus etc. Else I could not admire paintings, could I?

Emotion, feeling, art, not "the sharpest lens for ..." question and quest, that is what photography is about - to me.

 

[ironhorse]

Picture looks great as is. Sharpness is over-rated.

 

[Pastor Chris]

I agree that sharpness is overrated for so many things; I like sharpness in most architectural shots, perhaps nature shots as well, having at least the subject sharp. I hope that this thread keep going, with a discussion of when sharpness matters and when it doesn't. Here is one of my favorite "fuzzy" images from Kibweze, Kenya:

 

[Pastor Chris]

 

[benlees]

I would be happy with that shot. Looks good!

 

[shadowfox]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the above picture.
Don't be too hung up on sharpness.

 

[hlockwood]

Thanks to all for the helpful remarks. Indeed, I may be obsessed with sharpness and contrast. I'll have to think about this after reading these posts.

I'd like to add a somewhat OT comment: I had been having my C41 film processed at a local camera shop, until I got fed up with scratches, either from poor handling or from machine abuse.
Then I discovered a nearby truly pro processing shop, Color Services, in Needham MA (colorservicesllc.com). They assured me that nothing would touch the (face of) the film during processing. They delivered.

Another difference I noted was the quality of the grain structure. It seems that the squiggly pattern that I often see (at 100% view) is much finer. I wonder if this is due to the greater care to chemistry that one can expect from a lab that caters to the professional photographer. I'll be tracking this in the future.

Harry

 

[Paul Luscher]

Hey, a lot of the great pics weren't anywhere near sharp or technically perfect. Robert Capa's D-day shots come to mind, for example...

 

[MikeL]

I'd consider it too fuzzy if I couldn't see the girls expression or understand the context.

Even then, you could repurpose it post facto as an abstract and it could still be an interesting photo.

 

[Sparrow]

By chance I was looking at Henri's Puddle Jumper earlier today, I don't think you have too much to worry about, but I know what you mean, I too get hung-up on blur

 

[nikon_sam]

Anyone who knows just what it took to get this shot will say it's well done...Well done...

 

[j j]

Like it. Is that a very small child or a very large iPad?

 

[kipkeston]

Lack of sharpness simply can't distract the observer from the image and it doesn't here.