Why don't artists obsess over sharpness in the way that photographers do ?

[dave lackey]

Good one, Jack!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am lucky enough to know personally several very talent photographers, some with international recognitions, photos in galleries and such, who can only dream of the kind of equipment that members of this forums routinely exchange and buy/sell. Yet somehow they manage to make great pictures… Go figure.

No figuring required.

Chris's point (and mine) is that painters DO care about the equipment they use. It was the suggestion that photographers do, and painters don't, that made us laugh.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ebino]

Thanks to photoshop unsharp mask. I can sit there and use many settings until i finally reach what looks to my eyes, the ideal sharpness level.


What I don't understand about this topic is this mutually exclusive club of artists and photographers. There are many photographers who consider themselves artists and many artists who consider themselves photographers.

 

[Vincent.G]

Been done, its called Pictorialism in the United States, but those photographers took care to focus correctly and they used tripods. The softness came from soft focus lenses and filters, textured and colored papers, and hand retouching work on the prints, which give a totally different and much nicer look than people today get by simply being careless and lazy. Pictorialist style fell out of style for decades here, but its being explored again by a lot of younger photographers.

Chris, how did you go about creating the effects in picture 3 and 4?

 

[Soothsayerman]

Clearly it depends on what you're trying to do... but most of the time, sharpness is waaaay over rated.

The distortions that are most important to me are barrel distortions and chroma distortions. I hate color fringing.

If something is a bit fuzzy or if the lens has weird bokeh or flares easily, I can live with these because sometimes those effects are cool.

I sometimes think the more concerned you are about sharpness is in direct proportion to how long you've been taking photos.

 

[Mcary]

Most artists create representations of things, whereas most photographers produce exact likenesses. But, as images in this thread have proved, this is not always the case.

Actually this is almost never the case, as most photographs are simply two dimensional representations of three dimensional objects. The fact that they may more closer represent what our eye see doesn't change this basic fact.

 

[exiled4979]

"and not to mention that there's just no way to see actual difference in sharpness when everything is reduced to 900px"

I disagree. It's actually easy to see actual differences in sharpness at 900 pixels. In fact, I would argue that sharpness is even more critical at 900 pixels than at 20 inches.

Hmm, I'm not so sure... Back in my dSLR days, I used to take a lot of available light portraits with cheap nikkor 50 1.8d, which was really quite soft wide open, but USM at 100% and 0.5-1.0px, then reduced from 3500px to 900px, and then USM with 500%+0.2 - everything was tack sharp on my LCD... If I'd print this, it would look either soft, or really ugly and pixelated... just as it looks when viewed at full size.

 

[timor]

Is not an idea the most important part of the "art"? Isn't sharpness a secondary "thing"? Isn't perspective, color rendition, sharpness, composition etc. a tool in artistic bag ? Meaningful image could be done with a primitive tools, the best tools will not assure anything.

 

[mto'brien]

a good friend of mine just received an MFA in drawing. his thesis exhibition consisted of massive, mind blowing drawings, some 4'x8'. the only tools he used were sharpies and ball point pen. not exactly archival, but the guy is a master.

 

[exiled4979]

Is not an idea the most important part of the "art"? Isn't sharpness a secondary "thing"? Isn't perspective, color rendition, sharpness, composition etc. a tool in artistic bag ? Meaningful image could be done with a primitive tools, the best tools will not assure anything.

yeah, that's pretty much it... I'd just add that some specific tools are necessary for some specific results, but all together, it's not about tech.details...

 

[Ade-oh]

Painters are fanatical about brushes and materials like paints and canvas. Good brushes can be VERY expensive and the professional painters I know own a large collection of said brushes. One of my art school professors was a nationally known painter who only used linen canvas rather than cheap cotton, only sable hair brushes instead of synthetics, and paint that cost $20-$100 a tube for 125ml tubes. I've spent a lot of time around artists like her discussing paints, brushes, canvas, easels (good ones are over $1000!), etc. They're into 'gear' as much as photographers. Most photographers know nothing about the art world so they keep promoting the silly idea that painters do not care about equipment or materials.

Not in my experience.

Look at these pictures of Francis Bacon's studio: quite an important artist but seemingly not that bothered by 'gear'. The brushes, paints etc etc are all very bog-standard.

http://boiteaoutils.blogspot.com/2009/12/7-reece-mews-francis-bacons-studio-by.html

Similarly, with the small number of successful photographers I've been privileged to know, they generally work with gear they are comfortable with and accustomed to, rather than leaping on the new/latest equipment bandwagon.

 

[shadowfox]

No figuring required.

Chris's point (and mine) is that painters DO care about the equipment they use. It was the suggestion that photographers do, and painters don't, that made us laugh.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

I think only photographers and painters who have successfully make a name for themselves can afford to use top-flight equipments.

I bet there are thousands of really gifted artists who has not been "discovered" who use what some would consider low quality equipments to create amazing artworks.

So are musicians, come to think about it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not in my experience.

Look at these pictures of Francis Bacon's studio: quite an important artist but seemingly not that bothered by 'gear'. The brushes, paints etc etc are all very bog-standard.

http://boiteaoutils.blogspot.com/2009/12/7-reece-mews-francis-bacons-studio-by.html

Similarly, with the small number of successful photographers I've been privileged to know, they generally work with gear they are comfortable with and accustomed to, rather than leaping on the new/latest equipment bandwagon.

Few if any of the successful photographers I know (and I've known many, over the years) are inclined to 'leap on the new/latest equipment bandwagon' so I completely agree there, but equally, most of them use pretty high-end gear, and buy new bits from time to time, either when they need them or (sometimes) just when they really want them and can run 'em though the business.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

I think only photographers and painters who have successfully make a name for themselves can afford to use top-flight equipments.

I bet there are thousands of really gifted artists who has not been "discovered" who use what some would consider low quality equipments to create amazing artworks.

So are musicians, come to think about it.

Dear Will,

There are two separate questions here. One is whether you care what you use, and the other is whether you can afford the equipment you would most like to use.

Most artists I know (in any field) use the best tools they can afford for the job they want to do, and because they really CARE about what they are doing, they will often find rather more to spend on those tools than others might expect. Come to think of it, the same is true of craftsmen in any field. True craftsmen, that is: people who take pleasure in the craft for its own sake, not just time-served 'craftsmen' who do it purely to earn a living.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Isn't sharpness just a lens property?

 

[Sparrow]

I would contend that it's the artist ... or photographer's prerogative to decide what's important to his work.

What others think is irrelevant opinion, "talk is cheap" as my granddad would say ...

 

[mto'brien]

Not in my experience.

Look at these pictures of Francis Bacon's studio: quite an important artist but seemingly not that bothered by 'gear'. The brushes, paints etc etc are all very bog-standard.

http://boiteaoutils.blogspot.com/2009/12/7-reece-mews-francis-bacons-studio-by.html

Similarly, with the small number of successful photographers I've been privileged to know, they generally work with gear they are comfortable with and accustomed to, rather than leaping on the new/latest equipment bandwagon.

Bacon is a perfect example. Another interesting thing about him that is causing a bit of fuss in the art world is that he painted directly on untreated raw canvas because he liked how it drank the paint. because of this though many of his works are rapidly deteriorating. They are effectively becoming less sharp over time and in some cases the paint is disappearing. built in time lapse bokeh?

 

[timor]

I think, we should not confuse professional and artist. Not the same.

 

[eddie1960]

Artists don't always obsess on gear, I have a friend who is a reasonably successful artist who does show some photography occasionally. If I'm not mistaken she currently uses a Panasonic Lumix fz35 she picked up used because it fit within her budget and she rarely gets caught up in the technical

http://www.artslant.com/ew/works/show/238884

was taken with this camera. I don't know that i wouldn't be cropping and blowing up to 32x32 from it but it worked for her. her main medium though is paint and mixed media work. prior to this camera she was using an Olympus XA and it was her only camera for decades

Sharpness is a nice tool to have at your disposal but increasingly my favourite works have less than sharp images and evoke a more dreamlike quality (maybe that's just my failing eyesight getting in sync with my artistic sense)

 

[tlitody]

Dear Will,

There are two separate questions here. One is whether you care what you use, and the other is whether you can afford the equipment you would most like to use.

Most artists I know (in any field) use the best tools they can afford for the job they want to do, and because they really CARE about what they are doing, they will often find rather more to spend on those tools than others might expect. Come to think of it, the same is true of craftsmen in any field. True craftsmen, that is: people who take pleasure in the craft for its own sake, not just time-served 'craftsmen' who do it purely to earn a living.

Cheers,

R.

What about those artists putting their canvas on the floor and throwing paint straight from a tin at it. I'm sure those ar the best possible quality tins. They sell that stuff for megabucks. Nice work if you can get it. 🙄