hans voralberg
Veteran
As long as I can see what's going on, or make and educated guess on an A4 print then well it's sharp enough. I agree that composition and tonality is more important
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Avotius
Some guy
varjag said:
yes, im a photography major
StuartR said:
No he did not, and thats a pity.
Gabriel M.A. said:
You would, he is a great guy, I introduced him to tequila one night in a bar on a class trip, we both stumbled home that night after discussing the finner points of art vs journalistic photography and the equipment involved in both.
varjag said:
No, my bad, different teacher.
M. Valdemar said:
Now THAT is very funny. At our school we have a place called the Tank Loft which is like a huge studio area for teachers made from the old tank storage facilities by our school from back during the japanese war. Parked out in front is this awkward looking tank that just doesnt seems perportioned quite right....
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I think one should start from his own motivation and orientations. It all depends on one’s goals.
Otherwise it all discussions become messy.
I am a hobbyst but the mentality is the same of my profession, in which it is usual to state in advance one’s purposes.
Consider Art. Would one say that the late Gaugin work is ugly because he painted very little detail? It depends. If you like that form of art, and hence accept his approach you won’t mind his poetic simplification .
Actually my motivation and goal is image, whatever the technique to produce it, that has esthetic values, and achieves beauty, while taking constant aim at our visual world or, more precisely, at our visual perception, to which technology lags far behind and which has still some mysterious facets, that are the topic of extensive research.
Now, it is a fact that our visual system has an extremely high resolution.
So I declare shamelessly not only that I am sharpness maniac, but also that I consider dreadful defocused areas. Because if I look out of my windows I can see some brick less than a meter away some trees a few meters away and then a landscape that reaches almost one hundred kilometers, all in sharp focus. In practice our visual system never defocuses. Defocused areas are an artifact: one has to faint to experience an out of focus vision. Also shallow DOF give me a dreadful look of “emerging from water”. I remember in Popphoto in one of the many “pros teach you how” a proudly posted portrait with one eye in focus but other eye nose cheek ears all heavily out of focus.
Does that means that I criticize bokeh maniacs? Does that means that a sharp image is per se beautiful?
No and no. On the first count we have different aims. I respect theirs, but I think the (hard) quest of sharpness deserves respect as well. On the second count sharpness is only one of many components of image quality. These components can be only defined in connection to our visual perception and are necessary condition to start talking of esthetic values, from my peculiar and specific point of view.
What I like are beautiful images that, at the same time, make our visual system resonate. I like Gaugin, but I am aware that he followed quite a different path to art, compared to classicism, for example. One cannot judge in absolute terms. First we have to put the question in point in proper context. Decide what is the gauge to measure quality.
I would like to add a few more observation to the first post (but we have here matter for a long essay and I want to make here a long story short), and also express my appreciation to this whole thread.
It is not true that sharpness will improve forever. There are, fortunately, physical limits, like diffraction limits for lenses (congratulation to the photo teacher, if he did not mention that). So eventually technology will more or less plateau in this respect, and they will have to invent some new marketing buzzwords (recognition of dangerous faces maybe?).
Frankly I hope to see that plateau as soon as possible, since sticking to film, is increasingly becoming a nightmare, albeit the plateau is already her in this case. Film rarefies and so are serious processing labs. Film scanner are a bet, my own (a Minolta) is the product of a company that has quitted.
Companies that still produce film cameras should understand that one cannot sell a jewel to his customer and leave him/her stranded in using the camera.
And similarly today’s digital is a nightmare. How can one invest huge money on cameras that have the performance of amateur cameras of tomorrow?
Regards
Paul
Otherwise it all discussions become messy.
I am a hobbyst but the mentality is the same of my profession, in which it is usual to state in advance one’s purposes.
Consider Art. Would one say that the late Gaugin work is ugly because he painted very little detail? It depends. If you like that form of art, and hence accept his approach you won’t mind his poetic simplification .
Actually my motivation and goal is image, whatever the technique to produce it, that has esthetic values, and achieves beauty, while taking constant aim at our visual world or, more precisely, at our visual perception, to which technology lags far behind and which has still some mysterious facets, that are the topic of extensive research.
Now, it is a fact that our visual system has an extremely high resolution.
So I declare shamelessly not only that I am sharpness maniac, but also that I consider dreadful defocused areas. Because if I look out of my windows I can see some brick less than a meter away some trees a few meters away and then a landscape that reaches almost one hundred kilometers, all in sharp focus. In practice our visual system never defocuses. Defocused areas are an artifact: one has to faint to experience an out of focus vision. Also shallow DOF give me a dreadful look of “emerging from water”. I remember in Popphoto in one of the many “pros teach you how” a proudly posted portrait with one eye in focus but other eye nose cheek ears all heavily out of focus.
Does that means that I criticize bokeh maniacs? Does that means that a sharp image is per se beautiful?
No and no. On the first count we have different aims. I respect theirs, but I think the (hard) quest of sharpness deserves respect as well. On the second count sharpness is only one of many components of image quality. These components can be only defined in connection to our visual perception and are necessary condition to start talking of esthetic values, from my peculiar and specific point of view.
What I like are beautiful images that, at the same time, make our visual system resonate. I like Gaugin, but I am aware that he followed quite a different path to art, compared to classicism, for example. One cannot judge in absolute terms. First we have to put the question in point in proper context. Decide what is the gauge to measure quality.
I would like to add a few more observation to the first post (but we have here matter for a long essay and I want to make here a long story short), and also express my appreciation to this whole thread.
It is not true that sharpness will improve forever. There are, fortunately, physical limits, like diffraction limits for lenses (congratulation to the photo teacher, if he did not mention that). So eventually technology will more or less plateau in this respect, and they will have to invent some new marketing buzzwords (recognition of dangerous faces maybe?).
Frankly I hope to see that plateau as soon as possible, since sticking to film, is increasingly becoming a nightmare, albeit the plateau is already her in this case. Film rarefies and so are serious processing labs. Film scanner are a bet, my own (a Minolta) is the product of a company that has quitted.
Companies that still produce film cameras should understand that one cannot sell a jewel to his customer and leave him/her stranded in using the camera.
And similarly today’s digital is a nightmare. How can one invest huge money on cameras that have the performance of amateur cameras of tomorrow?
Regards
Paul
R
RML
Guest
That same mentality you talk about, Aviotus, is what killed me at the photo club I tried to be part of. Sharp, sharper, sharpest. Or big, bigger biggest. Or film, filmer, filmest. Or digital, digitaller, digitallest. I didn't give a crap and never bothered to return there. My dinky, digital R-D1 with Carl Zeiss Planar T* (one of the best lenses available, IMO) wasn't quite what they had in mind for a "worthy" member.
And the (Chinese, Indian, wherevertheyarefrom) nouveau riche don't know jack sh*t about what makes a person respectful and respectable.
And the (Chinese, Indian, wherevertheyarefrom) nouveau riche don't know jack sh*t about what makes a person respectful and respectable.
lushd
Donald
"Sharp" is attainable through mastery of craft skills and spending money on high quality gear. The road to achieving beautiful, moving or imaginative images is less obvious.
The two ideas are often seen as separate roads and one is certainly making a great mistake in confusing one with the other. Technical excellence alone is not enough to make a picture great and great pictures are not necessarily technically excellent.
But the two often depend on each other and the Leica 35mm rangefinder seems to me to express a wonderful example of the benefits of recognising this. It contains enough of the obsession with technical perfection and also the passion for making pictures to be the camera of choice for many great creative photographers and an object of love for those who admire engineering and optical achievements.
The two ideas are often seen as separate roads and one is certainly making a great mistake in confusing one with the other. Technical excellence alone is not enough to make a picture great and great pictures are not necessarily technically excellent.
But the two often depend on each other and the Leica 35mm rangefinder seems to me to express a wonderful example of the benefits of recognising this. It contains enough of the obsession with technical perfection and also the passion for making pictures to be the camera of choice for many great creative photographers and an object of love for those who admire engineering and optical achievements.
R
ruben
Guest
sirius
Well-known
I think it is all relative. Both sharpness or softness can ruin a picture. For example, my mom doesn't like it when I use the "sharp" lenses...Now I'm working on learning how to use sharp/soft to the best creative end. I know that I want the best tool for the job I want to do and if a photo needs to be sharp, a soft lens just won't cut it.
Alec Soth (magnum) uses medium to large format for his street projects and it works great. Have a look at his inspiring work.
Alec Soth (magnum) uses medium to large format for his street projects and it works great. Have a look at his inspiring work.
keithwms
Established
Perhaps there was something lost in translation. If I understand correctly, the photographer with the p25 was implying that he needed to use the pricier gear to get more detail. The nuance may not translate well, because I have heard similar comments before when I was in Asia, and it turned out to be an issue of ultimate detail, not of sharpness alone.
By "detail," I mean sharpness + resolution + tonality etc., or in other words, total information recorded. Some people think "sharpness" is all there is. They are wrong.
As I recall, the P25 has 16 bit per colour depth or 48 bit overall; the Canon 1dsmk3 is 14/42 and, for comparison, the Rebel XT is 12/36... So there is difference in tonal range that has nothing to do with "sharpness" per se.
Maybe the dude with the p25 knew this and maybe he didn't. Of course, there are plenty of people who do use very expensive camera systems and don't really know why. Actually, this phenomenon existed long before digitals, but I think I'll leave that subject alone. I'll just say that people who drive lamborghinis on city streets don't make sense to me either.
Of course, successful photographs do not need to be sharp in the sense of focus or blur, but any photographer worth mentioning knows that already- it's a trivial fact. And any of Weston's "fuzzies" will sell for more than any of my "sharpies."
By "detail," I mean sharpness + resolution + tonality etc., or in other words, total information recorded. Some people think "sharpness" is all there is. They are wrong.
As I recall, the P25 has 16 bit per colour depth or 48 bit overall; the Canon 1dsmk3 is 14/42 and, for comparison, the Rebel XT is 12/36... So there is difference in tonal range that has nothing to do with "sharpness" per se.
Maybe the dude with the p25 knew this and maybe he didn't. Of course, there are plenty of people who do use very expensive camera systems and don't really know why. Actually, this phenomenon existed long before digitals, but I think I'll leave that subject alone. I'll just say that people who drive lamborghinis on city streets don't make sense to me either.
Of course, successful photographs do not need to be sharp in the sense of focus or blur, but any photographer worth mentioning knows that already- it's a trivial fact. And any of Weston's "fuzzies" will sell for more than any of my "sharpies."
Last edited:
otaku
Established
I had some wonderfully sharp photos out of my minilux this week and some wonderfully blurred ones all great photos though in their own right.
Personally sharpness isn't just over rated but generally I find it less appealing in most cases such as with digital to me it just seems less life like
Personally sharpness isn't just over rated but generally I find it less appealing in most cases such as with digital to me it just seems less life like
Rhoyle
Well-known
Actually, I think I like the idea of making 80 inch prints of my buddies drunk at a birthday party. They should then be sent to their wives, posted up at work, church, etc.
BH
BH
Uncle Bill
Well-known
Michael P.
Bronica RF
Donald, I know what you mean. I used to work at a camera store whose manager valued sharpness above all else. In her mind only the most expensive lenses and finest grain film were worth using at all, and ISO 50 was always better than 100, etc. How people get that idea in their heads is beyond me.
sjw617
Panoramist
otaku said:
Could you explain this a bit more for me? I do not understand this at all. How can sharpness be over rated? For me blurry out of focus shots generally (95%+) get tossed immediately.
Steve
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
sjw617 said:
This has "out of focus" "blurry":
And everything is sharp here:
Does the "sharpness" make it wonderful? Does the first photo need to be "tossed immediately" because it has "blurry out of focus"?
amateriat
We're all light!
Does "sharpness" in an image always mean the absence of "blurry?" (At least in a halfway-decent image?)
(Yes, this is a wholly rhetorical question to you guys.)
Thanks for the think-piece, Avotius...and, like the new avatar!
- Barrett
(Yes, this is a wholly rhetorical question to you guys.)
Thanks for the think-piece, Avotius...and, like the new avatar!
- Barrett
sjw617
Panoramist
Gabriel,
I am guessing that you meant to take the first picture - chose the f stop and figured that it would turn out at least somewhat like it dd. If I put film on the light box and saw that image first, I would be very nervous. I would assume I screwed up and would be worried about the rest of the roll. Since I shoot mainly f22, I assume tack sharp images will appear on the light box. Yes, I would have thrown out that image.
I still do not understand how sharpness is " less appealing in most cases such as with digital to me it just seems less life like ". Sharpness is less lifelike? less appealing? I find short depth of field that isolates an object generally very distracting. As an effect it can be usefull but as a shooting style I do not understand it.
I am guessing that you meant to take the first picture - chose the f stop and figured that it would turn out at least somewhat like it dd. If I put film on the light box and saw that image first, I would be very nervous. I would assume I screwed up and would be worried about the rest of the roll. Since I shoot mainly f22, I assume tack sharp images will appear on the light box. Yes, I would have thrown out that image.
I still do not understand how sharpness is " less appealing in most cases such as with digital to me it just seems less life like ". Sharpness is less lifelike? less appealing? I find short depth of field that isolates an object generally very distracting. As an effect it can be usefull but as a shooting style I do not understand it.
Graham Line
Well-known
Michael P. said:
Camera club syndrome, where the quantifiable always trumps the concept.
My dad's cousin used to do wonderful, lush, up-close flower photos -- really warm, emotional photos. This is back in the late '50s and '60s and she was routinely criticized for their "lack of depth of field . . . " Being one of the few women in the club probably didn't help.
Sharpness is one of the possibilities, certainly not the only one, though Tillamook Extra Sharp Cheddar is pretty good cheese.
S
StuartR
Guest
sjw617 said:
At f/22, I hope you are using a large format camera, otherwise you are LOSING a lot of sharpness that you seem to like. Most Leica and most rangefinder lenses are at their sharpest from f/4 to f/8.
Anyway, I think Gabriel's image is great, and certainly better than the second one. I think that life like does not have to mean pin sharp. I understand the idea that softer images can feel more authentic and more life-like at times. Memory and feelings and emotions soften the images we recall. Thinking of a place we know or person we remember does not always mean recalling the cigarette butt on the ground 20 meters away or the pores on the person's face. The good photo is the one that brings about an emotion, thought or feeling. The problem with super sharp photos is that often the only thought they bring up is, "Yep, that's _____ alright". In other words they are a completely literal representation with no input from the photographer. Through intentional softness, manipulation of depth of field and composition, a photographer can more easily convey an idea. By having only one part be sharp draws attention to it, softness can give the image as timeless character and so on. Sharp is just another technique...as Joe just said!
Last edited by a moderator:
hans voralberg
Veteran
sjw617 said:
Matter of taste, but to be very honest, out of hundreds of people Ive met, you're the first one to shoot mainly f22 ? I though diffraction(??) would make f22 less sharp than f16, for example ? and for most case that would include every single bloody thing in the frame, which frankly is rather distracting, unless you shoot landscape