Why are we so concerned about sharpness?

Hi Emil, since you asked me to give my two cents, I'll try say something sensitive. Or rather, I will relate what

viewing experience made me think that sharpness was a plus. A friend showed me a photography book some

years ago and in it was a picture taken with a large format camera. The picture represented a wild meadow on

the edge of the forest, taken in mist. The background spruces were emerging from the mist, and the

foreground was made of all sorts of plants, but predominantly wild roses. The whole athmosphere was of an

etheral beauty but if you looked closely at the foreground, you could see the details of each bud, each leave,

and I found it just wonderful to have that much information in the picture. Sharpness means information on

details and details are life and intimacy. Maybe that's why some subjects are better treated blurred,

desaturated or over contrasted, for intimacy is not always appealing. If the shot I just mentioned had not been

taken in the mist, it may have been too crude and all the dream would have vanished from it. But when the

subject is beautiful right into the details, then sharpness adds to the picture. In the other hand, we all (I think)

have made pictures that were sharp and detailed, but had no content and others that were not sharp for

some reason but were still rich and pleasing!

"sharpness is mandated in my work. the HABS/HAER standards require

that "all areas of the picture must be in sharp focus." pictorialism

and other soft focus effects which may be desirable for you "fine

art" practitioners certainly do not require out-of-focus negatives.

this seems like a bogus question/issue to

me..."

<p>

To me, Personally, I would find it very hard to describe that as

documentary work, wher you are shooting to such specific guidlines

for a client/organisation. You are being required to manipulate the

image in one particualr way, but exluding others, giving a very

specific view of whatever you are documenting. It's somewhat akin to

shooting a brochure for the Toyota 4Runner.

<p>

Tim A

Neo-Pictorialist. Don't wan't noth'n in focus. Don't care. Long live

the soft-focus lens!!! Verito or bust!

Dean

LF has the biggest negative, simple as that. What people think

should be in focus on that negative will be swayed by the passage

of time and whim. The idea of 'bokeh', things out of focus as a means

to draw attention to the subject in focus is a part of a particular

technique and a valuable one.

<p>

I've shot some of Carnaval in Bahia and many shots were at 1/15

of a second, I'll have some these images on my website. I picked 1/15

of a second to record dancing, celebrating, and movement and with the

intent that there would be blurring and degrees of focus. The results

are varied, every shot's different, but these shots give the viewer

more of an idea of the explosion of Carnaval than If I shot

everything, every movement frozen at 1/500 of a second.

<p>

I will say what James Chinn didn't say, this kind of technique

doesn't always work, can be overdone, isn't going to be done well by

everybody, but it's a valuable technique on the right things.

<p>

I've seen shots of people sitting still and just plain out of

focus and misframed and it looked terrible to me, the shots didn't

work(for me), but I disagree with painting a great idea with the brush

of some folks who can't carry it off.

<p>

Regarding James Chinn thread, it brings up the same recurring

theme, when something comes up that's perceived as new or fresh or

whatever, plenty of people attempt it, and then do it to 'death'.

That doesn't diminish the original idea, but like the sunset shot with

a 1000mm, after a million of 'em it gives you a headache.

Wow, thaks to all for so many answers! However, my question was

lazily written and therefore not clear enough. I meant that weird

kind of satisfaction that makes us (please understand by us or we =

some photographers including myself)happy and proud when the whole

picture, or the part that is intended to be, is tack tack tack ....

SHARP. I do not say that because I have problems with sharpness of my

photographs. After nearly twenty ears of LF I know how to make sharp

or unsharp pictures depending on the purpose. The answers posted are

mostly wise and technically and politically correct. But where are

all the people who compare MTF curves before changing a Schneider for

a Rodestock in the very hope that their photographs will be even

sharper? (Yes, I know there are also the contrast, color rendition,

etc., but...)And all those getting so close and even closer to

exhibited prints to control whether they are REAL sharp? I more hoped

for some answers from the guts about that strange value that the

sharpness represents (for some photographers including me...)than for

perfectly correct but perhaps somewhat impersonal statements like

that the sharpness is a tool or an element of the composition.

Just an example from the real life, and the only one that I can give

(sorry, Paul): Paul Schilliger answered the question in his very nice

and poetic style but no word about the excitement that we both can

feel when we are spending excellent moments around his or my light

table and transparencies, using lupes with still greater magnifying

power, and then saying: Well, this one is REAL SHARP. It is real

EXCELLENT. Even with the Peak 10x! I could put it also in a more

complicated way - that my intent was to discuss about sharpness as an

introjected cultural value or driver and related gratification, but

never mind.... Frankly, should I believe that I am the only (even if

not always) obsessed fool on today's LF scene?

Hi!

<p>

I'd say that large format photographers have to be a little (?) bit

crazy in order to lug around 30-40 pounds or more of equipment in

order to be able to take a picture. If he/she wants to make a full

day or week trip the weight picks up logarithmically. But we all do

it and (at least) say that we love it. The obsession

about "sharpness" is probably something that we "have to" believe in

to justify our craziness. :-) Another part of the craziness is the

fact that these sharp photographs actually can be done. Dealing with

shifts and tilts is difficult, but most of us master that science to

some degree, and from time to time we have to show others that we can

make those shots where every single grain of the film is sharp. (Will

I be shot if I exchange the word "grain" with the word "pixel" in the

previous sentence. :-)

<p>

I don't know about different trends in different countries, but here

in Sweden extremely shallow DOF has been popular in some ads for a

long time, preferably developing E6 films in C41. Making those shots

look good also takes skill and knowledge and mastering your camera

and lenses.

<p>

Looking at facts isn't always that fun. Some of the facts in this

case says that a good MF camera will produce originals that make it

hard to differ those orignals from similar shots taken with LF

cameras. But being pushed up against the wall, I recon that we mumble

something about "other qualities ... tonality ... ".

As someone else said, making a shot soft with a sharp lens is easy,

but the other way around cannot be done...

<p>

In the 19'th century there was an english photographer, whose name

illudes me at the moment, who was convinced that his prints was

supposed to be sharp in the middle and softer towards the edges. He

claimed that it had to be that way because that was the way the human

eye worked. Towards the end of his career he revised his theory, as

he probably used the very same eyes to view the prints. I.e. you

don't have to make the same mistake that he did. But his pictures was

nice anyhow.

<p>

And so on...

Just got back from a Japanese dinner and a good dose of sake ...so

in my current state of mind I'll say this...sharpness is like a

beautiful woman or a Samurai sword...completely arresting! But we

need sake also ...like good bokeh to give us a break from the

intensity of the obdurate world.

Bjorn, the English photographer you're thinking of is no doubt P.H.

Emerson; however he didn't renounce his theories about focus and how

the eye sees. What he renounced, after reading Hurter & Driffield's

paper describing the characteristic curve, was the idea that one could

alter

the tonal values of a photograph. He didn't realize, as

Ansel Adams did later, that "H&D offered photographers a superb

creative

control" (Nancy Newhall) but mistakenly thought H&D delivered a death

blow to any

pretense that the photographer could have any control over the tonal

scale.

In his renunciation of the idea that photography could be art, he

wrote, "I thought once (Hurter and Driffield

have taught me differently) that true values could be obtained and

that values could be altered at will by development. They cannot;

therefore to talk of getting values in any subject whatever as you

wish and of getting them true to nature is to talk nonsense." and two

years later he wrote "..for taking the picture is pure science, as for

ever proved by Messrs Hurter & Driffield. ... the photographer does

not make his picture, A MACHINE DOES IT ALL FOR HIM.

<p>

As to his ideas about naturalistic focus and vision, he continued to

express those views in papers and in the third edition of his book

"Naturalistic Photography" which was published in 1899, nine years

after his renunciation of the idea that photography could be art. He

wrote in 1893, "the methods of practice I advised in Naturalistic

Photography I still advise, and the artists I held up for admiration I

still hold as the best exemplars of their crafts, but my art

philosophy is different... I do not consider photography an art but

regard it as a mechanical process..."

<p>

This is probably more information than you wanted about P.H. Emerson

but since your mistake is a common one I like to set it straight

when I can.

<p>

And his pictures, they were nice anyway, as you say; I would say some

of the most gorgeous platinum prints ever made.

I guess even for me there is an obsession to this. I don't care about

sharp, but I still need a big negitive. I don't want grain, and I

want the nice tone. Good pictorial work has to be almost contact

printed. Diana etc are nice for some people, but don't

confuse "Pecker" work (great movie) with LF pictorial. So I guess I

have the same ailment as the F64's in the group, but different

symptoms. LF is the cure all, from mega-sharp-depth-of-field, to no-

grain-fuzzies, it's only side effects seem to be strained backs,

shoulders, and empty bank accounts.

Dean

a camera and lens are a tool to an end. i think it is great that

people are able to manipulate this tool to make images the way

they want. while i also record the built enviroment for habs/haer,

i do not think the only purpose of a camera and lens, is to make

images that are so sharp you can fall into them ... sometimes it

is necessary. sometimes it is just as important to make an

image that makes the viewer wonder what the heck it is, or what

the photographer did to achieve such an effect. while it is

obvious that some people are purists and feel that every square

milimeter of a photograph needs to be in focus nd sharp as a

tack, the folks that use blurr, motion, or other unconventional

techniques and in general break the rules are also allowing

photography to be pushed as an artistic medium. if rules are not

broken, boundries are not streatched, and viewers are not forced

to think (rather than just look), the art of photography will become

monochromatic, dull and boring.

I agree with Emil in general that a lot of photographers around the

world seem to be very concerned by sharpness. This can be seen not

ony in this LF forum but also in many other photography forums,

including the ones mainly dealing with 35 mm. Let me try to suggest

two explanations which are fairly different to what has been

discussed hereabove and which are probably more trivial and less

philosophical, although they certainly don't apply to professional

photographers.

<p>

First, I think that a lot of amateurs are very fond of high end

equipment and sharpness can be considered as a visible sign of the

use of good equipment and sophisticated photography techniques.

Owning a beautiful and well made camera with highly reputed lenses is

often a rewarding feeling as such.

<p>

Second, in most cases (including mine), there is a strong temptation

to call "art" what is actually "craftsmanship". Producing sharp

images is often an objective as such, which allows us to demonstrate

to ourselves how much we master photography. When we (I) look at

great photographers' pictures, reproducing the level of sharpness of

some in our own pics is more feasible than being as inspired and

creative as others. Let's not fool ourselves (once again, I'm

speaking only of myself and those of us who are not

fundamentally "artists"), mastering the technique is so much easier

than being really creative !

<p>

That being said, all the previous explanations are valid as well, it

all depends on one's own situation and real talents.

Hi Emil,

<p>

You are not alone in your captivation with sharpness. Barry

Thornton, the chap who makes DiXactil is a fanatic about

sharpness and has written a book about it: "Edge Of Darkness".

<p>

Details of availability are available on his site:

<p>

http://www.qa63.dial.pipex.com/eod.htm

<p>

Sharpness is not the exclusive domain of LF and in his book he

states his case in favour of 6x6 and validates his argument with

a number of photographs.

<p>

Another photographer using sharpness as a trade-mark, almost,

is Nigel Parry whose book of portraits - "Sharp" - again illustrates

his point.

<p>

Film/Developer choice, lighting, camera stability, lens design,

shooting aperture, shutter speed, atmospherics, enlarger and

lens, paper and developer - all these are contributing factors, as

you know, but every now and then something magic happens

and a picture displays an unreal sharpness that can prove highly

seductive.

<p>

It happened to me once when Kodak first introduced 120

Kodachrome. I shot a studio portrait test of a clean skinned

English peaches and cream model. The tranny was almost 3-D

in its acutance. I spent 12 months endeavouring to get the same

result again without any luck at all. Yes, of course the pictures

were sharp - 250mm Super-Achromat on a Hasselblad,

mid-range aperture, studio flash - why wouldn't they be. But

there was never another image that displayed the outstanding

snap of the first test.

<p>

It was not an obsession - more like just a nice distraction

chasing acuity with a cutie.

<p>

pardon the bad pun ... Walter

Hi Walter,

thank you for your nice and personal answer. I would personally

welcome more of this kind. I visited the site and will probably buy

the books. There are some high quality photographs there. Still to

your answer, I wonder how you could get such a sharp picture with a

250/5.6 Superachromat. My results with this lens and with the Tele-

Tessar F 4.0 as well were always rather disappointing in terms of

sharpness (I precise that I use a tripod and lock up the mirror and

wait, and use Velvia, before somebody advises me to do so. :0))

More generally, I thought these two days a bit more about the meaning

of the sharpness. Once I heard that people are speeding because it

gives them an impression to master the space. I would dare to say

that some other people are "sharping" as it can give them access to a

kind of magical appropriation (if not confiscation) of reality.

Funny, the verb "to capture" is often used in connection with

photography, and my AMHER dictionnary lists "confiscation"

and "capture", among other words, as synonoms of appropriation. As I

am writing these words, I am looking at some of my 16x20 prints made

from 4x5 Velvias and there is nothing to do, I am weirdly happy and

proud that I KNOW that they are real sharp. And I even cannot see it

from my place as my eyes are no more what they were 15 years ago. And

in the same time, I am not that unilateral, I made many quite

successfull pictures using vaselines, soft focus lenses (the Fujinon

250 SF is wonderful, I prefer it to Imagon) and center spot filters

(the B+W breed is also wonderful, and damn expensive), some of them

being so blurr that it was impossible to tell the subject and I liked

them very much, as I can like blurred pictures made by other

photographers, like Ernst Haas to name a great one. So, why am I so

slyly happy to know that these pictures are tack sharp?! (Please do

not worry, I am mentally sound... :o) )

Some other people that would share real personal experience about

their relation with the sharpness out there? Looking forward to read

from you! Thanks!

Emil,

<p>

With regard to synonyms there are subtle nuances of meaning

that are idiomatic to a language. What is your native language?

Words and language are a rather fascinating hobby for me.

<p>

There are a number of highly technical books I've seen along

the lines of Clarity Of Vision. Discussion of 'acutance' vs

'resloution' has raged for decades. I love sharp images - where

appropriate. The same can be said for Black & White, Colour,

Contrasty, Subdued.

<p>

From reading discussions on this and other forums I am coming

to the belief that many photographers don't, perhaps, regard the

piece of photographic paper as a blank canvas upon which to

inscribe their statement. The process of photography somehow

distracts them.

<p>

I have always deemed the concept of pre-visualisation as the oft

over-looked cornerstone of Ansel Adams' prolific teaching. How

do I want the scene in front of me to be rendered on the piece of

paper in front of the viewer? The range of tools and techniques

at our disposal to manipulate that end result is staggering. We

have to use them all. Softness, sharpness, diffusion, the

obscuring limbo of solid black, the radiance of glowing white, the

lure of gentle gradation. We have to use it all.

<p>

Cheers, ... Walter

OK Emil, now that the barndoors been left open I'll admit it too. I'm

hooked! I thought that was a given. Why else would you haul this

stuff around. Once you've looked at a good black and white contact

print and thought to yourself "It's a bottomless pit" it seems nothing

else will do.

Thank you Jim, it is nice to find a sister soul. No theory can

explain what we fell while looking at a perfectly sharp print or

transparency... I hope more people will share that heady experience

with us.

Sorry, please read "what we feel", not "what we fell", of course...

It is getting late here in Switzerland... If I had to handwrite it,

it would be rather sloppy...

I think what we really want is "smoothness" instead of "sharpness." A painter's stroke doesn't look sharp but it does look smooth. A grainy image looks fine but when you can see an image made up of tiny dots it often looks "rough" (sometimes even painterly), but a large format image with blurred water, for example, has a a more sensual "feel" to it. The blurred water's sensualness is also heightened by other elements in the picture that are razor sharp. That's just my take on this subject.

EM