clarence
ダメ
I don't navel gaze publicly, as a rule, but spending 8 hours in the darkroom yesterday gave me much to think about.
I looked through the hundreds of 35mm negatives I've shot and most of them were street shots, taken at a moment's notice with shutter speeds that often rendered the subjects slightly blurred. Putting them in the enlarger, I realised that even on 8x10 prints, the lack of sharpness annoyed me so much that I would not consider printing them.
Sharpness is not the main point of photography, but this crisis bothers me because the photographic process for me is incomplete if the image does not get printed sharply on an 8x10 sheet at least. I may as well take pictures with a digital point and shoot if the quality didn't matter.
I remember looking through books of photographs from Bresson et al, but the pictures are seldom at 8x10 enlargements, so I have no idea if the masters were able to consistently shoot sharp pictures. One day I shall go to a gallery.
I get hot under the collar when people like Stephanie say they get acceptable results shooting at 1/15s with an 85mm lens. I have shaky hands, and nearly failed my marksmanship tests when I was in the army. As a result I seldom shoot at less than twice the reciprocal of the focal length of the lenses I use. This is a personal bugbear, of course, but I want to know whether other photographers are facing similar philosophical crises.
Clarence
I looked through the hundreds of 35mm negatives I've shot and most of them were street shots, taken at a moment's notice with shutter speeds that often rendered the subjects slightly blurred. Putting them in the enlarger, I realised that even on 8x10 prints, the lack of sharpness annoyed me so much that I would not consider printing them.
Sharpness is not the main point of photography, but this crisis bothers me because the photographic process for me is incomplete if the image does not get printed sharply on an 8x10 sheet at least. I may as well take pictures with a digital point and shoot if the quality didn't matter.
I remember looking through books of photographs from Bresson et al, but the pictures are seldom at 8x10 enlargements, so I have no idea if the masters were able to consistently shoot sharp pictures. One day I shall go to a gallery.
I get hot under the collar when people like Stephanie say they get acceptable results shooting at 1/15s with an 85mm lens. I have shaky hands, and nearly failed my marksmanship tests when I was in the army. As a result I seldom shoot at less than twice the reciprocal of the focal length of the lenses I use. This is a personal bugbear, of course, but I want to know whether other photographers are facing similar philosophical crises.
Clarence
Last edited:
aad
Not so new now.
I guess I'm with you-amazing what a shot can look like when you enlarge it and you understand "camera shake".
peter_n
Veteran
Nope. And HCB had a master printer who performed miracles with his negs.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
http://mentalexperimental.org/pictures/Lucasduo.jpg
Sometimes sharpness doesn't matter due to the unbearable cuteness of the subject.
Edit: Click the link...forgot how wide that was.
Sometimes sharpness doesn't matter due to the unbearable cuteness of the subject.
Edit: Click the link...forgot how wide that was.
clarence
ダメ
Sorry Peter. Nope to what? How do you work miracles with an unsharp print? I already use a condenser enlarger.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Used to be a sharpness freak, but looking at (my own) "sharp" photos with no soul, cured me ... esp. after making (perhaps luckily) some unsharp but emotive photos.
FrankS
Registered User
No one, not even the masters, is able to consistently get critically sharp results. One of the big differences between good photographers and so-so photographers is that the good ones take more photos and don't show all their images.
Additionally, if the subject matter/content of the image is compelling enough, sharpness is not an issue. I'm thinking specifically of that Spanish soldier being shot shot.
Photographers who never experience failure in their results, are not taking any chances by trying something new and tricky.
That being said, you may consider switching to a faster film so as to be able to use faster shutter speeds.
Additionally, if the subject matter/content of the image is compelling enough, sharpness is not an issue. I'm thinking specifically of that Spanish soldier being shot shot.
Photographers who never experience failure in their results, are not taking any chances by trying something new and tricky.
That being said, you may consider switching to a faster film so as to be able to use faster shutter speeds.
Last edited:
MadMan2k
Well-known
Use faster film? Shoot digital? Use a monopod? Give up coffee? Lie down and shoot from ground level, sniper style?
Björn Ylinenpää
сту

Don't scrutinise your negatives too harshly. Sometimes it helps to have a distance between the capture and the printing. Make contact sheets and let the negatives rest for a couple of weeks, maybe months. When i look through old contact sheets, or browse through old images on the computer i often find qualities i missed before.
If the subject, composition and feeling is otherwise right, a little blur can be forgotten.
If the subject, composition and feeling is otherwise right, a little blur can be forgotten.
clarence
ダメ
Thanks for the swift replies, lady and gentlemen. I can't use any form of camera support because I'm street shooting. Shooting from a prone position did get me better results when I used a rifle! I have used HP5 rated at ISO 1600 and developed in DDX but the lack of shadow detail in the prints disappoint me sometimes. I might have to try a new film, but at the moment I've got loads of bulk loaded HP5 to finish.
My pictures were mostly taken months ago, over the summer. If only I had an image as compelling as Capa's! Come to think of it, actually I wouldn't want to ever capture someone's death on camera. Too great a responsibility. The trouble is that none of my photos is powerful enough for me to forgive the lack of sharpness.
Clarence
My pictures were mostly taken months ago, over the summer. If only I had an image as compelling as Capa's! Come to think of it, actually I wouldn't want to ever capture someone's death on camera. Too great a responsibility. The trouble is that none of my photos is powerful enough for me to forgive the lack of sharpness.
Clarence
FrankS
Registered User
The trouble is that none of my photos is powerful enough for me to forgive the lack of sharpness.
This may be what to work on then, rather than the sharpness issue.
This may be what to work on then, rather than the sharpness issue.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Tri-X in Diafine shot at 1250 is my favorite, but HP5 in Diafine at 800 works great, too. Those were shot on Fuji Superia 400 and developed in D76.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I always shoot for sharpness.... I also like deep contrast
but to be perfectly honest of the images that I have sold (not a huge amount), the majority had less to do with sharpness rather the emotional impact ... in other words many of them have motion blur or a tiny amount of camera shake that pretty much ruined the image for me, however the subject trumped my taste for the technical aspects.
I have learned from this that sometimes even though its ultimately important to be technically sound... nothing is more important then subject you are shooting
but to be perfectly honest of the images that I have sold (not a huge amount), the majority had less to do with sharpness rather the emotional impact ... in other words many of them have motion blur or a tiny amount of camera shake that pretty much ruined the image for me, however the subject trumped my taste for the technical aspects.
I have learned from this that sometimes even though its ultimately important to be technically sound... nothing is more important then subject you are shooting
clarence
ダメ
Isn't superia a C-41 colour film? If so, quite respectable for a cross processed film, actually.
Stephanie Brim said:
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Many of the most well known street photographers - Frank, Klein, Louis Faurer, Moriyama, etc., their images were not always tack sharp. Sometimes that is the point. Not being sharp divorces it a little bit from "reality", adding an other worldliness to the image. Life and moments on the street can be fleeting and not always directly in front of you. Sometimes one can catch only a quick impression of what was there.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
In case anyone else wants to do it, the negatives for the above two photos were developed for the Digital Truth time for TMAX 100 in D76. It was an accident...but it was a happy one.
John Camp
Well-known
What FrankS said.
I once worked on a four-part year-long story (as a reporter) with a really excellent photographer. The photographer probably shot upwards of 1500 color frames (this was back in the days when we shot "film," a kind of disposable sensor) and the paper probably printed 30 of them. The thing about the photographer was that he had a very high success ratio in pulling out wonderful photographs...
Typically, back in the days of "film", the most routine stories -- head shots for a boring feature story -- got a roll of film. You were looking for one shot out of 30+. A really good photographer would get one, or maybe two. A mediocre photographer (and there were many of them, though still full-time PJs at a large newspaper) might not; there were many news meetings where the editors would be looking at the available photos, holding their heads...
JC
I once worked on a four-part year-long story (as a reporter) with a really excellent photographer. The photographer probably shot upwards of 1500 color frames (this was back in the days when we shot "film," a kind of disposable sensor) and the paper probably printed 30 of them. The thing about the photographer was that he had a very high success ratio in pulling out wonderful photographs...
Typically, back in the days of "film", the most routine stories -- head shots for a boring feature story -- got a roll of film. You were looking for one shot out of 30+. A really good photographer would get one, or maybe two. A mediocre photographer (and there were many of them, though still full-time PJs at a large newspaper) might not; there were many news meetings where the editors would be looking at the available photos, holding their heads...
JC
jano
Evil Bokeh
Some will say sharpness isn't everything. Perhaps for certain photos, but for the majority, correct focus is key.
I understand your concerns, Clarence.
I understand your concerns, Clarence.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
You're talking camera blur and shake due to slow shutter speeds. Is that the same as sharpness? Can't you be tack sharp at exact focus and still have blur due to shake & shutter speeds? I'm personally not bothered by blur due to slow shutter speeds. Softness is fine too. Obvious out of focus is another thing.
I understand your 8x10 benchmark, but not every image needs to be that large, or that small.
.
I understand your 8x10 benchmark, but not every image needs to be that large, or that small.
.
davidbivins
Established
Or put another way, only the camera can both deliver something that's painfully sharp from edge to edge, freezing a single moment in time in a way that none of us actually saw it. And only a camera can deliver a unique record of motion and light with blurs and optical aberrations. We never saw it that way, but the print can trigger a memory or emotional connection in a way that's not possible in another medium.
Splurge on some bulk Tri-X and Diafine or another fast combination and shoot faster speeds and smaller apertures if you feel that you're at a disadvantage with camera shake. I'll trade you some Tri-X for HP5.
But don't worry about blur. I rarely worry about how sharp a lens is. I worry much more about how the out-of-focus areas look.
Added: Since I started writing this, there have been several more responses. I have to agree about the ratio thing--I shoot a lot on the street and in the photos with people, my success with on-the-fly sharp photos is low. My success with sharp photos that are also somehow interesting is really low. Perhaps consider shooting even more than you do now.
Splurge on some bulk Tri-X and Diafine or another fast combination and shoot faster speeds and smaller apertures if you feel that you're at a disadvantage with camera shake. I'll trade you some Tri-X for HP5.
But don't worry about blur. I rarely worry about how sharp a lens is. I worry much more about how the out-of-focus areas look.
Added: Since I started writing this, there have been several more responses. I have to agree about the ratio thing--I shoot a lot on the street and in the photos with people, my success with on-the-fly sharp photos is low. My success with sharp photos that are also somehow interesting is really low. Perhaps consider shooting even more than you do now.
Last edited: