�Blinded by sharpness� Photography and technique

Well I would like to hear what you think about this, because I think

that I personally have realised something regarding photography and

technique!

 

When I got my first SLR in the summer of 2002, I got a Sigma 28-300,

and I was really happy about it.

 

Then I got into the �ordinary� excitement about sharpness. After

reading about how terrible the Sigma lens was, I got into the path

of hunting sharpness. The result was that I started using a Canon

50mm F:1,8 Mark II, at f8, with tripod, remote control, Velvia slide

film and hood, and even got a medium format system.

 

And yes, I got really sharp pictures, but looking back at almost a

year with that combination, I think I have realised that sharpness

don�t make a good picture alone! The pictures I took with the Sigma

lens was actually also good, ok they were not nearly as sharp as the

50mm lens pictures or the MF pictures, but using the Sigma lens, I

just zoomed to the best focal length, and that also gave a lot of

good pictures!

 

Of course more that 1000 pictures taken with the 50mm lens has

thought me a lot about composing pictures, but I think that I got

blinded by �the goal of ultimate sharpness�. Because a picture like

the one of a tiger that I uploaded today (You can see it in my

portfolio -> Animals -> Tiger), witch is shot in the local zoo, at

300mm handheld is not really sharp, but who cares, as I see it, I

actually think it is ok for viewing in this size! When I got it

developed this summer, I just took a short look at it under a

microscope (Yes not loop, but good quality 20x stereo microscope!),

and said, �well unsharp�, and then it went into a box, and away it

was. This evening I was looking at some of the pictures I took this

summer, and I stumbled over the picture again, and thought �well it

is actually pretty good, even if it isn�t sharp!�.

 

My point here is not that sharpness doesn�t matter, because I still

use my 50mm lens with Velvia, f8 etc., because I like sharp pictures

with a lot of details. My point is that it is unfair to hide away a

lens like the Sigma 28-300 and call it bad.

It is not as sharp as a 300mm prime, of course not, and the price is

not the same either. I�m a student and I can�t afford another lens.

Because I was �Blinded by sharpness� I almost stopped using the

Sigma lens, even thou I like the perspective of tele shots,

because �well they are not sharp, so there�s no point in taking the

picture!�.

 

And this is exactly the thing I think is stupid. We all want to have

the best Canon L lenses (I�m a �Canon man�, and I guess Nikon users

and other users feel the same way), but we can�t all afford these

lenses. The bad thing is, that instead of telling us self, �Well I

have this Sigma lens, and I can make some god pictures with this�, a

lot of photographers tells them self �Well this lens is no good,

I�ll stop taking tele shots until I have saved for a good lens in 4

or 5 years time��.

 

Why can�t photographers just bee happy with the equipment they have,

and use it to make good pictures?. Don�t get me wrong, I also spent

hours every day reading about photo equipment and dreaming abut what

equipment I�m going to have, when I have finished my university

education, but until then I�ll use my (for me expensive) Sigma lens

and Canon prime lens, and be happy with the results!

And therefore it bothers me a bit when almost everyone in here talks

very bad about ex. the Sigma 28-300 lens, because some people can

only afford this kind of lenses, and a �unsharp� picture can

actually also be a good picture! I have now managed to �see through�

the talk about sharpness, and enjoy the equipment I can afford, but

I�m afraid that some beginners get �scared� away from photography,

when they are told over and over, that the equipment they can afford

is so bad, that it isn�t worth the trouble. Maybe a lot of them

think, �well then I�ll find another hobby�.�, and that is a shame!

 

Kristian Reinau

 

 

 

Well stated.

I personally when thru a similar stage to you but here's the thing. Before joining this board, I would not have noticed the "bokeh sp?" of your small bird picture. Now that i know, it bugs me.

 

I would say a lot of time, our views are limited to what we know. Prior to knowing the differnce between a 5 blade apreature to a 8 blades I would not have noticed the picture. Infact, when i looked at the small pic, i didn't notice it, and the composition of the picture drawn me to click it.

 

Then going further, i would have use a PL-Cir filter to get more details for the rock... blah blah blah

 

not trying to critizise your pictures, just trying to emphazise my point.

Very well put.

 

As to your question: "Why can�t photographers just bee happy with the equipment they have...?" I believe people have to have something before they can see that it is not a big deal. Until they have it, they suspect that they are missing something. :)

 

Kam

I have found myself, after finishing any enhancement I make to an image, to blur the image 1 pixel of Gaussian blur. Like Kristian's comment I've found that great sharpness isn't always great. Early on in my learning of digital imaging I used sharpening a lot. I was using a flatbed scanner for 35mm and 120 images and my dissatisfaction with sharpness led to excessive shapening in the editor. Now, I hardly turn to sharpening and end up using the blur. I've come to like the softer effects on my images.

I suppose it depends on the medium you'll be using to deliver the final image. I can easily add blur, but sharpness and contrast, not so much. I've never gone though my images thinking 'wow, I sure wish that wasn't so sharp and clear', but I've sometimes wished the other way. A good photographer can make great images with a pinhole camera, but that's no reason he should force himself to ONLY use a pinhole camera.

 

On the other hand, if that's what he wants to use, who am I to argue? He's the guy making great images, after all.

You might check out how Pop Photo rates lenses. They give a different set of ratings for each enlargement size. So, for example, most lenses will do real well for 4x6 size or so. For very large enlargements, you need the best lens, the best aperture, etc.

 

The point of this is, to consider the end use of your photo. If you ONLY make 4x6's (as I normally do with color film) or ONLY make 500-pixel wide shots for photo.net, then you don't need any higher quality than what it takes to get that.

Totally agree

 

Too many photographers get so obsessed getting the 'best' equipment, the sharpest lens, best film or the most pixels, that they forget to take pictures, or have nothing to show for but a standard picture of their cat, dog, or a flower from their backgarden, but shot with the latest multi dollar/Euro top professional MultiMegapixel LeiNiCanBlad with multi coated IFEDUSMLVRIS prime Telezoom.

 

Same goes for only too many professional photographers who often only can (and will ) boast about the equipment used when handing in a simple packshot and another average wedding shoot.

 

As a member of a society for professional photographers I get their magazine sent every month. It's always filled to the brim with articles of the latest, and each time best camera/lens/computer/software/flash/lights/film/othernewequipment (which always leaves me wondering what happened with last month 'Best thing that ever hit the market'). But when I look at the pictures made by the professional photographers who have used the equipment that illustrate the story, I seldom get convinced that their capacities justify the investment in the equipment made.

 

Good equipment is great when you're taking great pictures, but not mandatory.

 

Bad pictures are always bad, no matter what camera is used for an excuse or to create a smokescreen with.

 

I often think many photographers should spent less money on their equipment, but, as a consequence of taking pictures, more on film ad prints (or the digital equivalent).

 

My two cents

 

Paul K

This past summer, I went to see the Ansel Adams exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. And, like yourself, having an on-again/off-again obsession with sharpness, I was really curious to compare my work with that of one of the great masters. I discovered that while some of the prints were so sharp you feel like the mountain will jump out of the photo and slice anything in its path, others were what I might call "sharp enough". In this exhibition, there were definitely some original prints around the 11x14 size (or larger) in which you could see a slight absence of sharpness compared with other prints, but I guarantee you 99.9% of people attending that exhibition didn't notice. And the reduction in sharpness I saw was only through close examination with my nose about 2 inches from the print. I say if it's good enough for Ansel Adams, it's definitely good enough for me.

 

That said, I do try for the sharpest prints possible. Right now, I'm in the midst of a personal project documenting the hidden and/or abstract beauty of Hollywood, the actual neighborhood in Los Angeles. I'm using Ilford's Pan F/ISO 50 for maximum grain, and I always go for the smallest aperture possible to get the shot that I want. And a tripod, of course. (Sorry I don't have any scans handy right now, but I'll try to get some up soon).

 

Anyway, from one "sharpie" to another, I say don't lose any sleep over it.

"Why can�t photographers just be happy with the equipment they have, and use it to make good pictures?."

 

You aren't trying to bring down the economy of world are you? Don't you know its about buying better, new improved stuff! After that you can take your rightful place in the chorus section at PN :).

people buy the latest leica, pro nikon and canon L to shoot wide

open or near wide open handheld. now if i was just shooting f8

on a tripod, i wouldn't worry about the lens as long as it's clean

and functional.

Good story and quite logical. But, one can take a blurry photo' with a sharp lens, but one cannot take a sharp photo' with a blurry lens.

 

Yes, there are other qualities to lens performance, which is why I have and prefer "old" versions of lenses (Leitz, BTW) than the newer, "improved" ones. The only current design lens I own is the Noctilux, only because I got it for a very good price. Coating "improvements" just mean it's different not necessarily "better", as the wavelenghts of light have been known for centuries. Most of todays lens designs are derived/copied from 20's and 30's designs. The Biogon, for example, was designed in the 30's and has not been improved upon.

 

I benefit, since the "upgraders" are constantly looking for "The Magic Bullet" (I searched, but couldn't find the recent thread addressing this issue), and sell fine lenses - typically mint from lack of use or newsprint testing - at a loss based on some MTF chart or some guru's "opinion".

 

Steve

<P>Kristian, I agree very much with what you say. Since you've "seen through" the sharpness myth, you'll like <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/opinion/html/sharpness.htm">this article</a> by Mike Johnston.</P><P>As he says, the sharpness obsession in photography is very much a 35mm thing. If you get the chance to try roll film or sheet film cameras you will find that the negative area is a lot more important to overall image quality than this or that lens. And there's more to quality than sharpness.</P><P>However, the sharpness freaks are very influential and you can't avoid them, particularly if you get involved in camera clubs. Never mind, you already have some valuable insights about photography, so just enjoy what you're doing.</P>

Tank you for all your comments. I would just like to specify, that I haven�t got anything against people interested sharpness, I am also interested in sharpness, and that�s why I have a MF camera set, and plan to borrow a LF system in the spring! I�m also a member of a photo club, where I discus equipment and pictures, and often I find myself in the �clan� discussing equipment. I�m just trying to say that there is more to a good picture than sharpness, and that you don�t always need to have the last L-lenses (or whatever) to make a good picture!

I found it if anyone is still listening:

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

 

Steve