Roger Hicks
Veteran
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.
First of all, look at the word MOST in my post. It is generally taken to mean "significantly more than half, but not all."
Second, would you care to name (say) three artists who put their canvas on the floor; throw paint at it from the tin; and sell their work for 'megabucks'?
Cheers,
R.
>would you care to name (say) three artists who put their canvas on the floor; throw
>paint at it from the tin; and sell their work for 'megabucks'?
I remember there was an episode on the Dick Van Dyke show like that. And a Monkey used paint in squirt guns to make masterpieces and sold them for megabucks. But you have to remember, it was the 60s.
>paint at it from the tin; and sell their work for 'megabucks'?
I remember there was an episode on the Dick Van Dyke show like that. And a Monkey used paint in squirt guns to make masterpieces and sold them for megabucks. But you have to remember, it was the 60s.
gp-ak
Member
I have a collection of amateur landscapes. A lot of them are not sharp. A lot of them are really good. Technical perfectionism is a trap.Chriscrawfordphoto said:
W. Eugene Smith said it best: "What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling?"
Although he was also fanatical about making perfect prints.
Last edited:
AzzA
Established
Because they have more important thing to think about and often the final representation is only a consequence of the concept behind it.
Art is different to craft.
A painter, photographer, illustrator, sculptor, etc is different to an artist.
This isn't to say all artists don't value highly finished work, many do. Just speaking in general terms.
Art is different to craft.
A painter, photographer, illustrator, sculptor, etc is different to an artist.
This isn't to say all artists don't value highly finished work, many do. Just speaking in general terms.
marnicq
Member
A more recent example of a photographer who doesn't 'care' (actually he does care, but sometimes just rather about the lack of it) about scharpness might be Frank van der Salm:
Arlen
photographe d'exception
I shot a roll of film in the pub last night using available light(which was low) and fast film with the lens wide open hand held. My buddies where playing pool and having a good time. I wanted to capture the scene as it was.
We all know in order to obtain any degree of sharpness I would have had to use a flash. A tripod wouldn't help much given their movement. Either of these two instruments in the environment would have literally killed the mood. Most of the guys didn't even know I had the camera in my hand. One of them did and simply stated "cool".
So, when the time comes to develope the roll of film, what are my expectations. I would be and perhaps I am a fool of a photographer expecting any degree of sharpness. I will only hope to capture the lighting and perhaps some interesting composition. My tollerances will be high.
To me, it comes down to this. In some scenes I would expect the sharpest image possible. I say "some" because perhaps the photographers intention was to create a soft appearance as the wonderful examples seen in earlier threads depict.
Aesthetics is what we are talking about here. Aesthetics in photography include variablility in composition, color, brightness, contrast....... and so on. It should also include "sharpness" or "softness".
We all know in order to obtain any degree of sharpness I would have had to use a flash. A tripod wouldn't help much given their movement. Either of these two instruments in the environment would have literally killed the mood. Most of the guys didn't even know I had the camera in my hand. One of them did and simply stated "cool".
So, when the time comes to develope the roll of film, what are my expectations. I would be and perhaps I am a fool of a photographer expecting any degree of sharpness. I will only hope to capture the lighting and perhaps some interesting composition. My tollerances will be high.
To me, it comes down to this. In some scenes I would expect the sharpest image possible. I say "some" because perhaps the photographers intention was to create a soft appearance as the wonderful examples seen in earlier threads depict.
Aesthetics is what we are talking about here. Aesthetics in photography include variablility in composition, color, brightness, contrast....... and so on. It should also include "sharpness" or "softness".
peterm1
Veteran
I think it has to do with expectations. Certain types of photographers expect photographs to be sharp. Not realising that what really matters is the overall image quality - here factors like composition and subject interest are far more important.
I suspect that this type of photographer tend to be those who are less "artistic" in their leanings and more driven by "engineering" considerations. Its probably a personality thing, in short! I often see postings by photographers like this who are pixel peepers. These people usually post absolute crappy photos that have no artistic merit and are not really intended to - but which are designed to display how sharp (or not) a lens is.
Its even sometimes the case that non sharp images can be best for particular image types.
Here is an example where I have deliberately added glow to reduce sharpness in a specific way.
And another where I have deliberately applied a blur layer to make much of the image unsharp
And here is one which is inherently unsharp straight from the camera
In my view I am happy with all of these in their own way. Perhaps because they are more "artistic" than "photographic" in their look and thats what I want.
I suspect that this type of photographer tend to be those who are less "artistic" in their leanings and more driven by "engineering" considerations. Its probably a personality thing, in short! I often see postings by photographers like this who are pixel peepers. These people usually post absolute crappy photos that have no artistic merit and are not really intended to - but which are designed to display how sharp (or not) a lens is.
Its even sometimes the case that non sharp images can be best for particular image types.
Here is an example where I have deliberately added glow to reduce sharpness in a specific way.
And another where I have deliberately applied a blur layer to make much of the image unsharp
And here is one which is inherently unsharp straight from the camera
In my view I am happy with all of these in their own way. Perhaps because they are more "artistic" than "photographic" in their look and thats what I want.
Last edited:
Pablito
coco frío
is this a serious post?
Because Painting Testers don't obsess on sharpness.
Testing for "sharp" lenses implies "sharp" lenses are always more desirable.
Of course a "sharpness" only criteria leaves out a lot of other desirable lens characteristics.
Stephen
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
To me, the way I see and live and enjoy art and photography, and also from the way I studied them, no work is better for being sharp or sharper: I mean in any way, at all. Never. Could anyone imagine an Ansel Adams print from an 8x10 negative would be "better" in case of having been made with a larger format camera? No, just the same!
If a great shot by Frank or Winogrand or Cartier-Bresson was less sharp than what the used lens could have produced, could have it been a better photograph if any of them were totally still then or used a faster shutter speed? No, not in any way. Not better at all. A bit sharper doesn't mean a bit better.
In my opinion, if we talk about art history, sharpness or detail on paintings are/were/can be considered a lot more important than in photography, and the world and the pass of centuries agree: a painter like Raphael or Vermeer or Bonnard or Dalí, if we talk about technique, are remarkable and deserve respect for that apart from the respect they deserve for their content, color and lyricism... They had to do lots of work to get it, and did it at a level very few in centuries have been able to... In comparison I smile if I think of photography... We just buy a good lens and a tripod and hit the shutter, and the sharpness is there. What's the glory in that? That's too easy! Anyone can do it! So it has no value in any way... Sharpness in photography is just nothing. All of Ansel Adams' images are great because of composition first, and for tone in second place, but their sharpness is irrelevant... Even on "technical" photographic fields I've seen series by photographers who after knowing how to use a view camera very well, decided to do faster architecture snap shooting without tripod, or soft polaroid series, and yet the images can be equally beautiful, and a lot more beautiful than other people's sharper work... It's about content, and if there's no relevant content, at least about relevant composition, as in all arts... Plastic arts have been trying to be more and more free for a long time, more than 500 years, and in the 1800's artists and society accepted sharpness or literal rendering of subjects were not necessary for expression: for sharing feelings. Photography seem less evolved there. The OP is right: artists (painters or photographers) don't care about sharpness because sharpness means nothing and isn't an achievement that can make a work or a body of work last through time, never. Much less in photography where it's not the photographer who produces sharpness. None of any RFF members' shots would be any better if they were sharper. Not even a single one, in any way. Sharpness is great for one thing: for laughing.
Cheers,
Juan
If a great shot by Frank or Winogrand or Cartier-Bresson was less sharp than what the used lens could have produced, could have it been a better photograph if any of them were totally still then or used a faster shutter speed? No, not in any way. Not better at all. A bit sharper doesn't mean a bit better.
In my opinion, if we talk about art history, sharpness or detail on paintings are/were/can be considered a lot more important than in photography, and the world and the pass of centuries agree: a painter like Raphael or Vermeer or Bonnard or Dalí, if we talk about technique, are remarkable and deserve respect for that apart from the respect they deserve for their content, color and lyricism... They had to do lots of work to get it, and did it at a level very few in centuries have been able to... In comparison I smile if I think of photography... We just buy a good lens and a tripod and hit the shutter, and the sharpness is there. What's the glory in that? That's too easy! Anyone can do it! So it has no value in any way... Sharpness in photography is just nothing. All of Ansel Adams' images are great because of composition first, and for tone in second place, but their sharpness is irrelevant... Even on "technical" photographic fields I've seen series by photographers who after knowing how to use a view camera very well, decided to do faster architecture snap shooting without tripod, or soft polaroid series, and yet the images can be equally beautiful, and a lot more beautiful than other people's sharper work... It's about content, and if there's no relevant content, at least about relevant composition, as in all arts... Plastic arts have been trying to be more and more free for a long time, more than 500 years, and in the 1800's artists and society accepted sharpness or literal rendering of subjects were not necessary for expression: for sharing feelings. Photography seem less evolved there. The OP is right: artists (painters or photographers) don't care about sharpness because sharpness means nothing and isn't an achievement that can make a work or a body of work last through time, never. Much less in photography where it's not the photographer who produces sharpness. None of any RFF members' shots would be any better if they were sharper. Not even a single one, in any way. Sharpness is great for one thing: for laughing.
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I partly disagree with you on this, Juan. The sharpness is one of the things that Ansel Adams work is known for. He could make gorgeous photos with 35mm too, and of course they were not as sharp as his 8x10 stuff, but they were usually people photos and candid stuff..the stuff 35mm is most suited for. His landscapes wouldn't be the same without the extreme sharpness.
About RFF members, there is a LOT of stuff in the galleries here that could benefit from increased sharpness. Not from bigger film or better lenses, though. A lot of it is just plain out of focused. There is a lot of stuff on here where there's a portrait of a person or an animal like a cat or dog and the eyes are slightly out of focus and the stuff an inch or so behind the eyes is tack sharp and that is just plain ugly. Its important, when doing regular non-soft-focus work that the main subject be sharp, not something behind it. Its probably a symptom of so many here using ancient cameras that have probably fallen out of calibration as far as rangefinder accuracy.
About RFF members, there is a LOT of stuff in the galleries here that could benefit from increased sharpness. Not from bigger film or better lenses, though. A lot of it is just plain out of focused. There is a lot of stuff on here where there's a portrait of a person or an animal like a cat or dog and the eyes are slightly out of focus and the stuff an inch or so behind the eyes is tack sharp and that is just plain ugly. Its important, when doing regular non-soft-focus work that the main subject be sharp, not something behind it. Its probably a symptom of so many here using ancient cameras that have probably fallen out of calibration as far as rangefinder accuracy.
froyd
Veteran
On sharpness
On sharpness
Photography is not always art, not alway documentary, not always reproduction, and not always casual. In all but a very few cases, however, the common denominator is the reliance on the light reflected by our surroundings to form the basis of the recorded image. This recording can range from the abstract and ethereal (light streaks, pinhole, OOF imagery) to the concrete (e.g. some portrait work, street photography, candids).
The photographer can chose how to give strength to his/her images: dramatic light, mysterious atmosphere, blurred motion, shallow DOF, distorted perspective, monochromatic rendition, etc.
One of the tools is sharpness. It is not the end all and be all of photography, but, for instance, it can enhance those pictures that rely on tridimensionality and realism.
In my view, sharpness alone cannot make a photo great. Lack of sharpness to an extreme degree, however, can ruin an otherwise great image. And occasionally a mediocre shot can gain a bit in merit if it's richness of details holds the viewer attention.
As infrequently relevant as sharpness is to great photography, it should not be denigrated and should be recognized for the unique relationship it enjoys with human vision and realistic representation (unique might be too strong a word -- I guess the same could be said about photorealistic painting).
On sharpness
Photography is not always art, not alway documentary, not always reproduction, and not always casual. In all but a very few cases, however, the common denominator is the reliance on the light reflected by our surroundings to form the basis of the recorded image. This recording can range from the abstract and ethereal (light streaks, pinhole, OOF imagery) to the concrete (e.g. some portrait work, street photography, candids).
The photographer can chose how to give strength to his/her images: dramatic light, mysterious atmosphere, blurred motion, shallow DOF, distorted perspective, monochromatic rendition, etc.
One of the tools is sharpness. It is not the end all and be all of photography, but, for instance, it can enhance those pictures that rely on tridimensionality and realism.
In my view, sharpness alone cannot make a photo great. Lack of sharpness to an extreme degree, however, can ruin an otherwise great image. And occasionally a mediocre shot can gain a bit in merit if it's richness of details holds the viewer attention.
As infrequently relevant as sharpness is to great photography, it should not be denigrated and should be recognized for the unique relationship it enjoys with human vision and realistic representation (unique might be too strong a word -- I guess the same could be said about photorealistic painting).
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I partly disagree with you on this, Juan.
OK...
The sharpness is one of the things that Ansel Adams work is known for.
No. Ansel Adams' work has no special sharpness in any way. Lots of other large format shooters were equally sharp and disappeared forever. His work shows outstanding composition, exposure, development, and especially printing. The sharpness comes from the format, and his sharpness is nothing special, as his sharpness in 35mm wasn't either. Don't know if you've used large format with low ISO film... He was a genius composing and printing: his sharpness -that of well used LF film- is not an unusual thing.
He could make gorgeous photos with 35mm too, and of course they were not as sharp as his 8x10 stuff, but they were usually people photos and candid stuff..the stuff 35mm is most suited for. His landscapes wouldn't be the same without the extreme sharpness.
What I mean is a great image made with 35mm by Adams, is as good work as a sharper image from a larger format. In general, people are not used to see good big prints from good LF negatives, and they feel it something special about Adams. Not me. Lots of landscape photographers have the same level of sharpness and I prefer Ansel. And yet I'd prefer works by him no matter if done with a smaller format. And his 35mm shots were as sharp as his LF shots for the simple reason that they were both as sharp as the format allows. None is better. They would print differently if enlarged to the same size, but both would be equally great from a photographic point of view. His photographs with a bit less sharpness wouldn't be the same: they would be a bit less sharp, but not a bit inferior in any way.
About RFF members, there is a LOT of stuff in the galleries here that could benefit from increased sharpness.
They would be sharper, but not better in any way.
Not from bigger film or better lenses, though. A lot of it is just plain out of focused. There is a lot of stuff on here where there's a portrait of a person or an animal like a cat or dog and the eyes are slightly out of focus and the stuff an inch or so behind the eyes is tack sharp and that is just plain ugly. Its important, when doing regular non-soft-focus work that the main subject be sharp, not something behind it. Its probably a symptom of so many here using ancient cameras that have probably fallen out of calibration as far as rangefinder accuracy.
That's another story: focus, not sharpness. Focus should be on place, at least to let the image be understood and enjoyed, and can upset if not well placed especially with narrow depth of field.
All that said, I think you give sharpness higher relevance than I do... But Ansel Adams is not one of the most relevant photographers in history even being as sharp as he was... And this is not just my opinion, but the general opinion in the world... Photography is deeply related to feelings, and nature is beautiful, especially the real one outside images... Some of us enjoy a lot more those less sharp prints from smaller negatives with deeper content or higher creativity by the best photographers.
Cheers,
Juan
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Because "sharpness" is the only unique tool photographers have for their art.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Wow! Unless it's a fine joke, that deserves the price for the wrongest post ever!
Cheers,
Juan
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Sharpness Not Needed
Sharpness Not Needed
This is absolutely a guess, but probably not far off. I'd guess that if you lined up the thousand most famous photographs ever, none of them would cause a viewer response of "Wow... That's Sharp!". With photography its about capturing a moment, capturing some light, capturing a feeling. Rarely does sharpness have much to do with these.
Regarding the need for sharpness in architectural photography... I think that genre has been WAY 'overcooked'. Architectural photography in magazines is so overdone now that it looks fake (in my opinion of course).
Now if you'd asked about SPEED of lenses, I think..... NAW... nevermind!
Sharpness Not Needed
This is absolutely a guess, but probably not far off. I'd guess that if you lined up the thousand most famous photographs ever, none of them would cause a viewer response of "Wow... That's Sharp!". With photography its about capturing a moment, capturing some light, capturing a feeling. Rarely does sharpness have much to do with these.
Regarding the need for sharpness in architectural photography... I think that genre has been WAY 'overcooked'. Architectural photography in magazines is so overdone now that it looks fake (in my opinion of course).
Now if you'd asked about SPEED of lenses, I think..... NAW... nevermind!
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Not especially either. just a reminder that not all of us agree with your fantasies. Please consider taking your joke posts somewhere else.
Have a nice life.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I definitely prefer yours here...
Tomorrow I'll call my friends in Cannes and in Berlin to make them understand they've been wrong (in fantasies) for long, and recommend them to give -from this year on- the Palm d'Or and the Silver Bear, to... the sharpest movie!
I said it: sharpness is great for laughing! Might be the birth of a new therapy!
Every little thing we do as photographers, anything we can think of or imagine, is a huge lot more important than sharpness. Sharpness helps for nothing. And the sad part is, when there's no content, it can't help a bit either!
Any cheap lens yet can do the best photographs ever! Is this bad or good?
Cheers,
Juan
W
wlewisiii
Guest
You're really funny.
Thanks, but I'll take the word of Roger or Brian or joe or any other real photographer here first. You've been trying to make a stink ever since you showed up not that long ago.
Now how do I set up kill filters here? This is the first time in nearly seven years I've needed one.
Thanks, but I'll take the word of Roger or Brian or joe or any other real photographer here first. You've been trying to make a stink ever since you showed up not that long ago.
Now how do I set up kill filters here? This is the first time in nearly seven years I've needed one.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I really don't know what the word "stink" means... I wasn't trying to upset you in any way: I thought you couldn't be speaking that seriously...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan