Fuzzy Eyes

I recently saw an exhibition of major photographers from the 1920-1970 period.

What surprised me was how few photographs had significant DOF and how many were

soft focus. A lot of fuzzy eyes. (Of course studio photographers were tack sharp.)

 

I don't know if this was always intentional/esthetic or sometimes the inevitable

result of low film ISO.

 

Given that pictorialism was/is a major genre, do you think it is likely that

more photographers of that period would have preferred a tack sharp photograph

if they had had digital cameras or fast, fine grain film?

Interesting question. It may depend on the individual artist: maybe some were getting exactly what they wanted from their tools. And others really wanted their images to look like they were shot with a Canon XTi, but had to settle for fuzzy eyes.<br>

When I see work like you describe, I find myself enjoying the imperfections. Very difficult to achieve happy accidents in the digital world.<br>

Here's an example of an artist who exaggerated the limitations of his tools, to interesting effect. <a href= "http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/waldman/waldman_dionysus_full.html">Try to get this look in digital!</a>

IMO focus control has always been instrumetal in creative art photography. There are special SF lenses build by all major brands from Nikon to Schneider, filters, prolonged exposures, all kinds of post production techniques. Look into Graphis anuals or any graphic art orientated publication - much of images are made to be not etirely sharp in one way or another with apparent intention.

 

Do not see why this would surprise you.

It may depend on the individual artist: maybe some were getting exactly what they wanted from their tools

 

Really,they were also about techy quality. Just crap at it.

 

Most of today photograhers would do a lot better with the same gear. Time moves on...but most folk live in the past. The good old days...grainy out of focus photos,and poorly exposed.

 

Those were the days my friends when folk had smelly arses and seldon washed. Ha,the music of BS.

I don't think things have changed as much as you imply. Even earlier with slow emulsions, large negs and big lenses, the use of tripods indoors and out made sharp eyes and fuzzy eyes a matter of choice and approach. I do know that Linhof and Graphic users never complained that their field cameras did not have gyro stabilization,IS or VR and they had to use 100 speed Verichrome Pan. Tack sharp has never been the ultimate goal except on forums perhaps. ("It's the Gestalt, Stupid" (not you,sir I hasten to add) as someone once posted here...who was that anyway:-)?

http://www.photo.net/photo/5729786

 

Tack sharp portraits win you very few satisfied customers. Not many like to see themselves that way. They don't see themselves that way at any other time. I think the perception of a sharp image, clarity rather than the actual sharpness, is a goal I strive for.

 

 

eg; The baby in the image below. The mother wanted to see the gown and the bangle the grandmother had given the child. The dof, the softness of the babies face helps obtain that outcome.

 

Without knowing the intent of the photographer..it seems pointless to argue sharpness and dof of an image in general terms.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6425728

I think TYPICAL professional photographers were, at the turn of the century, better than they are today. Given today's tools, they'd dominate.

 

They were more respectful of the individual character of their subjects, not as inclined to make their subjects look like celebrities (per "Senior" and "Wedding" photography), and were much more aware of the effects of natural light and their limited artificial light.

 

Example (my grandmother and siblings..scanned from a 3.5X5.5" print...wish I had the negative):

http://www.photo.net/photo/6365030

Kurt, I'm sure someone more into Photoshop than photography could fake Waldman's 2475 Recording Film "look," but there was only one Waldman...or was there?

 

He shot the Marat Sade actors after midnight in a sparsely lit studio down the street from the stage...and those actors looked just like Peter Brook wanted them to look...which was in many cases almost exactly the way the real crazy people looked in the madhouse Richard Avedon photographed a decade earlier, using a Minox...the madhouse in which his sister was confined....I wonder how much of Waldman's look came from Avedon's work in "Nothing Personal."