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

In my opinion, it's because it's the probably one of the first things MOST people notice in a photo. Almost any camera can produce a sharp photo when used properly... even an iphone camera could do it. My guess is because of that, people expect photos from "nice" cameras and lenses to be sharp. A lot of people don't know how to appreciate composition, contrast, and light (not because they're ignorant, but because maybe they weren't exposed to those elements... the general public might not know too much about art), so they look for staple qualities of a "good" photo, such as bokeh, super sharpness, vibrant colours, etc. People want to see what their point and shoot/phone cameras can't do. If everyone can do sharp photos, then the standard for "pro camera" sharp is raised.

Why people obsess over it? Maybe because it's the norm now? Maybe it's because people want to appeal to the public? I don't know about others... but if I'm paid to shoot an event or shooting for my school's yearbook... I'm always shooting my fanciest lenses wide open. I'm always producing photos that people will go "wow" at, photos with tack sharp subjects and bokeh-filled backgrounds. Of course, I'm still keeping in mind composition, light, contrast, movement... but most of my clients and the students at school don't care much about that. I have to do what I'm paid for, that is, deliver photos that will please the general public.

Might've gone off on a tangent there, but the point is, sharpness is what people expect from "nice" cameras and lenses. They might obsess over it because it's what their viewers want, or because it's what they want themselves.

When I'm shooting for my personal pleasure, however, that's another story. Sharpness becomes less of an issue. Blurryness matters little to me, compared to lighting and composition.

just my two cents!
 
An artist is in total control of his medium. He can produce a sharp or a soft image with the same medium. While we as photographers are only in control in choosing the medium needed for the desired sharpness or softness. Thus I can safely say that when a painting is not sharp, it is according to the artist's intent. But if a photograph is not sharp, it is most likely that the medium (or the user) is to blame. Of course I'm speaking in the most general terms. Most of the time, modern minds consider photographs to have a better representative quality of reality than paintings thus we like our photographs clean and sharp. For photographers who are also considered artists (or sometimes they are mistaken for being old-school), usually they know what they want and they get what they want. :)

Just my 2 cents.
 
personally I beleive that many photgraphers think they can hold a camera still when they can't. But thinking they can, they then assume their lens is not sharp or their developer is not sharp or their film is not sharp. It's the old adage that a bad workman blames their tools. As already mentioned, virtually any lens is capable of sharp images or at least properly focussed images. But many are not good out from centre so that is another worry for them. Result is the search for the magic bullet of lens, film and developer when the real magic bullet is holding camera still and using selective focus to emphasize subject edge contrast without needing additional sharpness.
Sharpness is about edge perception. It doesn't need, and personally I don't think it is desireable, to have knife edge sharpness in photographs when edge contrast is what our visual perception systems work with.

I think artists use colour contrast for edges and often look for softness. Not always but painters always use colour contrasts to define edges. And then you have sfumato. So how about some sfumato photographs. Perceptol stock would be a good starting point.
 
Last edited:
Re-reading the thread, it appears that some of the members who discount the importance of sharpness claim many great photographs are not sharp (Capa's V-Day picture is mentioned often as an example). This argument just proves that sharpness is not required to make a great picture, but I have not seen a post making a strong case for how sharpness cannot enhance a picture.

Some picture arrest me just for how sharp they appear, how rich in detail, how tridimensional they look. Of course, if all other elements of the image --both technical and emotional are lacking, sharpness alone won't save the shot.

About the Ansel Adam comments: he might not have obsessed about sharpness, but that's because he did not need to --sharpness was built in. The LF camera gave him not only the wonderfult tonality he sought, but also a sharpness not easily match by smaller formats. Its sure would have been easier carrying a Zippo-sized spy cam than a wooden tripod, plates, and camera.
 
Jeez, there are many successful photographers including a lot on this forum who do not want sharp photographs. Impressionist painters do not want sharpness either. So, what is the argument? That sharpness is always wanted/required? Certainly not!:rolleyes:

To each his own, why argue?
 
Jeez, there are many successful photographers including a lot on this forum who do not want sharp photographs. Impressionist painters do not want sharpness either. So, what is the argument? That sharpness is always wanted/required? Certainly not!:rolleyes:

To each his own, why argue?

Because it is a photography forum and sharpness has a specific role in visual art forms. Sharpness is plays a role in painting, graphic arts. photography, video, film, etc. Rather than rolling your eyes, consider the OP's query in the light of your approach to photography. For some this is a waste of time, but for others it's a way to better understand how their aesthetic taste is shaped and why they like the type of photography they do.

The concepts of tonality, pathos, composition, sharpness, and other are shared across visual art forms, but have specific applications and relevance in photography because photography straddles the worlds of the real and the imaginary, the concrete and the abstract in a very unique way.
 
Good god...is everybody in a pissy mood today? I am not against sharpness. But I am not against whatever one wants to do with their photographs. So, lighten up, I am merely pointing out that not all photographers or artists want sharpness in their final products.

If I have ruffled any feathers, please accept my apology. Sorry you don't like my smilies application.;) Is a wink okay? Or just this? :angel:
 
Sharp is great, but the image is greater. I've seen a lot of great street/journalism photos that weren't as sharp as they should have been but were still great photos. Perhaps a takeoff on the f8 and be there. I prefer sharp, but I will take a not-so-sharp image over no image at all IMHOP.
 
In my opinion, it's because it's the probably one of the first things MOST people notice in a photo. Almost any camera can produce a sharp photo when used properly... even an iphone camera could do it. My guess is because of that, people expect photos from "nice" cameras and lenses to be sharp. A lot of people don't know how to appreciate composition, contrast, and light (not because they're ignorant, but because maybe they weren't exposed to those elements... the general public might not know too much about art), so they look for staple qualities of a "good" photo, such as bokeh, super sharpness, vibrant colours, etc. People want to see what their point and shoot/phone cameras can't do. If everyone can do sharp photos, then the standard for "pro camera" sharp is raised.

Why people obsess over it? Maybe because it's the norm now? Maybe it's because people want to appeal to the public? I don't know about others... but if I'm paid to shoot an event or shooting for my school's yearbook... I'm always shooting my fanciest lenses wide open. I'm always producing photos that people will go "wow" at, photos with tack sharp subjects and bokeh-filled backgrounds. Of course, I'm still keeping in mind composition, light, contrast, movement... but most of my clients and the students at school don't care much about that. I have to do what I'm paid for, that is, deliver photos that will please the general public.

Might've gone off on a tangent there, but the point is, sharpness is what people expect from "nice" cameras and lenses. They might obsess over it because it's what their viewers want, or because it's what they want themselves.

When I'm shooting for my personal pleasure, however, that's another story. Sharpness becomes less of an issue. Blurryness matters little to me, compared to lighting and composition.

just my two cents!

I think you hit this nail right in the head. Exactly. Everybody and his brother knows- photo has to be sharp. Those more advanced also know: main subject has to be in a thirds of a frame. And so on and so forth... Lens "performance" apparently based on that notion.

In reality the rule of thirds (which I used only as an example, there are plenty of other "commonly known concepts") is the same bull**** as the idea that main subject has to be sharp, or in portraits sharpest thing should be eyes, or that should be one or three main subjects but not two - odd number, list goes on. There are plenty of examples of contrary in photography and other visual arts. But hey, that's what people know and that's what they stick with...
 
This thread is interesting..thanks to whoever revived it..

First I'm just going to clarify that 'artist' in this thread is talking about painters or drawers and not other types of artists.

What is your expectation for an artist's picture? Does it differ from what you expect from a photographer's picture? For me the expectation is different. Partly because sharpness in a painting or sketch is more difficult to come by. It takes a particular talent to achieve life-like sharpness in a drawing and I would say that only a small percentage of artists can attain that talent. Life like drawings are rare. Yes, it happens. But how many paintings or drawings have you seen that are truly like that? I mean really life like. And when I see a painting like that I say, 'Damn, that looks like a photograph!' There is a standard, an average. And that average is not sharp, IMHO.

Paintings do not always represent reality. We can look at a sketch of real objects done in an 'artistic' way and have an instinctive feeling that that sketch is not supposed to be completely realistic. Yes, photos often times are not supposed to be realistic, they are done in an 'artistic' manner. But so many photos are done in that realistic manner that our minds are set to 'real' whenever we look at a photo. We have to change the setting in our minds to view photos differently. Most people don't have their minds set on 'Artist's Rendition' whenever they look at a photo.

An artist can draw whatever he/she wants to draw. What can a photographer photograph? Can we take real pix of Dali-like images? It's difficult at best. It is the nature of photography that makes us want to see it as the eye sees it because photos are most often representations of reality. They often are not art. Like Hi-Def TV. Jeesh, it's awesome isn't it? Because we want to have real life represented as we see it. Not always, but it is what drives many of us, myself included.

I do have a liking for non-sharp photography but it didn't come naturally. It came after I was able to look at a photo as a painting or some other non photographic process.

Just my $.02
 
I'm not an artist so, as a photographer (or trying to...) Sharp is a requirement.
Why? Because it gives two options, 1- It's sharp, 2 - you can blur it later.
Other way around One can't do...
 
I'm not an artist so, as a photographer (or trying to...) Sharp is a requirement.
Why? Because it gives two options, 1- It's sharp, 2 - you can blur it later.
Other way around One can't do...

And who was it that said "I'd rather see a fuzzy image of a sharp concept than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"
 
In theory, a sharp print with a huge amount of detail is only one of many possible artistic interpretations of a scene. There are countless others, and none is necessarily preferable. Its up to the artist.

On the other hand, you will rarely see artists who regularly sell prints to galleries carry anything smaller than a 6X7, and they will obsess about sharpness and 100% crops as much as the last DLSR forum gearhead...

?? really? i have NEVER discussed sharpness or crops of any kind in a gallery. never been asked either.
 
It can get better. What about sharp developers? Have you noticed how that is nearly always a requirement when asking for recommendations? And we have yet to get to sharp films. :D

please stay on topic... this could unleash a deluge.. that we don't need.
(implied humour)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom