"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"

I did not have time to focus.

OldNkM8-59-X2.jpg
 
Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but it seems like there are two broad categories of lack of sharpness: intentional and unintentional, and within those two broad categories two separate types: lack of sharpness resulting from an image (or part thereof) being out of focus, and lack of sharpness resulting from motion blur (camera shake).

I would dismiss any unintentional lack of sharpness as simply poor technique, and to try to justify it by claiming "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" as a bull**** excuse. That's not to say you couldn't have redeeming images having unintentional lack of sharpness being what Minor White referred to as "happy accidents", but you should acknowledge them as such.

As far as intentional lack of sharpness caused by selective focus or motion blur, what does the concept of "bourgeois" have to do with those techniques?

I suppose you could have a third category, that being lack of sharpness resulting from a poor lens, but honestly, lenses have been plenty sharp for over a hundred years, and it really doesn't seem all that bourgeois owning a camera that isn't a hundred years old.

Looking back over the seven pages of posts, a lot of the photographs exhibit poor technique. Whether they are redeeming as happy accidents is a subjective call. I'd say a few are.
 
Last edited:
lawrence said:
The term "bourgeois" is maybe a bit tongue in cheek and everything is a subjective call...
Click to expand...

Everything is not a subjective call. Do you really think every image on the rolls of film you shoot or on your memory cards are worthy of sharing, and once shared are worthy of accolades?

I do think most people invoke "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" tongue in cheek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom