emil_salek2 Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 After having followed several rather philosophical threads, I dare to come up with my question that has been haunting me since a long time: Why are we so concerned, if not obsessed by a perfect sharpness of our photographs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 because it gives the illusion of reality, especially at large magnifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_laban Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 If you start with a sharp lens you can always create a deliberate softness. A soft lens is just soft. None of us likes to be soft when something else is required! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_jarvis1 Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 I think many photographers (in art) are just caught up in aspiring to the Group f/64 standard of sharpness from the foreground to infinity. I personally find the old pictorialist look quite appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_santamaura Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 What Ellis said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 I've sometimes thought about this, because my natural view of the world, without glasses, is not entirely in focus... So why should I correct it with the camera - I don't wear my glasses all the time. <p> (I also don't have 3D vision/depth perception, which greatly influences how I envision a photograph - it is already, to some extend, two dimensional to me. To try and give an image depth is, in some way, very unnatural to me...) <p> Tim A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thilo_schmid Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Emil,<br> <br> I don't think that "we" are obsessed by perfect sharpness in our "photographs". But we should be obsessed by it in the parts that need perfect sharpness to deliver the right (intended) message. This does not always apply to the whole photograph. In fact, unsharpness is as good as sharpness as a Rule of Composition. It always depends on the expression.</p> <p>Sharpness might be something a Large Format Photographer is more concerned about. It could be one reason for him to use Large Format. But the opposite conclusion is not valid. The longer focal length in Large Format does also provide a better control of unsharpness.</p> <p>And there are some disciplines that traditionally have a stress on the more documentary aspects of photography. E.g. <i>Architecture</i> is usually not associated with <i>fuzzy images</i>. A sharper image has more detail/information. An unsharp image makes use of less detail/information to isolate a specific motif or to stimulate a more global perception of the whole image.<br> Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_clark4 Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Hi Emil, that's the question I put to myself! and my answer was, I'm not. First, to judge by many great photographs I've seen in the archives at George Eastman, sharpness isn't a criteria for a great image. Second, "sharpness" whatever it is, is perceived (it's all in your head), and if you put it to a test I think you'll find a lot of perceived sharpness is found in the individual image. You hit it, sharpness as criteria is the wrong approach as far as I'm concerned; I'm not concerned with sharpness perfect or otherwise. Best, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_billups1 Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Once a viewer is pulled into an image for compositional or asthetic reasons, they are usually then drawn to the technical aspects of that image. Depending on the subject and how it's being conveyed, sharpness can be a dividend. I like images which show a lot of texture and detail, so sharpness important to me. But I understand that sharpness does not soley rest on the camera lens. Good darkroom technique and knowing your equipment is just as important. Having a sharp lens alone will not ensure a successful image. It goes way beyond that. Just my 2 cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
704 studio Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Hi Emil, <p> I was just looking through a recently published photography book, and there was a segment on Robert Capa's war photographs. Some of the images were very blurred, and according to the author, this made the photographs seem very real and authentic - there is Capa in the field, bullets and bombs whizzing by, and he is having trouble controlling his hand held camera because he can't control his nerves. The author then goes on to reveal that the reason for the blurred images was an assistant who developed the negatives accidentally "overheated" them, and made the emulsion a bit drippy, thus creating strangely unclear images. Yet another example of a darkroom accident creating something good. <p> One more thing, I was recently looking through some of Edward Weston's portraits, and I could not understand why my mind wanted to believe the images were clear and sharp, while my eye saw that they were anything but. Weston was able to create an illusion of sharpness, even though the pictures are obviously a bit out of focus. He was a good magician...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholas_f._jones Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Emil, <p> I agree with Thilo that one of the reasons we get into LF photography is a high valuation of sharp images. As I understand the optics of the situation, for a given size print, LF on the average gives the sharpest image. MF and 35mm lenses may be sharper, but enlargement more than undoes any advantages gained from dropping down to a smaller format. <p> Chad's mention of pictorialism vs. Group f.64 brings us back to the philosophical differences underlying that debate back in the 1930s. The pictorialists attempted to imitate painting, but the Group Manifesto made the point that "Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technic, composition or idea, derivative of any other art-form." Whether these photographers actually lived up to this ideal is another matter. Some of Adams' more dramatic landscapes (called "Wagnerian" on occasion in this forum) strike me as more closely resembling romantic paintings than the actual scenes themselves under typical conditions. <p> The point about eyesight, healthy eyesight that is, applies particularly to landscape, exterior architecture, and other scenes that we see sharp from close in to horizon. But obviously not to other kinds of subjects, so the shallow DOF's that many of us have to deal with on a regular basis actually make a fuzzy background to a sharp subject practically as well as aesthetically attractive. Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlabrosse Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Funny, what made LF appeal to me most was the ability to defocus using movements and the smaller depth of field (than MF or 35mm). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xx Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 group 64 didn't advocate the literal interpretation of a scene, but creative interpretation through the use of photography without the need to use another form of expression as a "crutch" to make it seem more accepted as an art form. of course you have to consider the attitudes towards photography at the time. <p> as for the question, who is the we you are talking about? the need for sharpness also depends on the situation, I would hope that we are less predictable than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter brown - www.peterbro Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Hi Emil, <p> An interesting question and I think that we as photographers are more concerned about sharpness than our viewers are. I have seen people (non-photographers) commenting favourably on images which I notice are unsharp, but because the image has it's own impact, perhaps due to the subject or the composition or whatever, the viewers are not concerned that part of the image may be unsharp - they just like it for what it is. <p> If we try to reproduce "reality" type photographs then sharpness and detail certainly enhance these images as they relate closely to what we see, but if we are trying to create an "emotional" response to a photograph I think that sharpness is not so important, look how well abstract images can work and they are often not sharp edge to edge. <p> I believe it comes down to the subject matter - a portrait with unsharp eyes, whether human or animal, looks very odd, as would an architectural image if the building was not looking sharp and detailed. A landscape photograph on the other hand may look quite nice even if it is a bit soft. <p> I agree with Thilo; [snip]. . . ."we should be obsessed by it in the parts that need perfect sharpness to deliver the right (intended) message. This does not always apply to the whole photograph. In fact, unsharpness is as good as sharpness as a Rule of Composition. It always depends on the expression. . ."[snip] <p> Kind regards <p> Peter Brown <p> - Don't squat with your spurs on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_galli4 Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 I do many images that use bokeh, but they are planned and I control where and how much for the effect I'm looking for. I confess what drew me into large format is the lenses (a good one's) ability to make images far sharper over much wider areas than my eye ever could. It fascinates me. Our eyes (when we were younger) can only focus sharply on a very narrow area. When we look at a large scene they "update" many times as we look around and keep adding different parts of the seen to our memory. We think we've taken in a large sharp panorama, but actually we've memorized many little scenes to make up the whole. My camera on the other hand can capture a huge area in resolution my eyes never dreamed of. That kind of sharpness can draw a viewer in even though they're unconscious of why. It is a tool that begs to be used on some images, not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_chinn Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 Sharpness is in the eye of the photographer. People don't plunk down a few thousand for new LF gear and lenses to have unsharp images unless it is part of the design of the image. Look at most advertising work. The in thing is selective focus and depth of field. I would imagine most of this work is done with LF because you can calculate the exact placement of sharpness with in the image. <p> Most of my LF work is totally sharp because it is documentary in nature. I am recording a scene that needs to be sharp and do what needs to be done to eliminate exteraneous material from the image. Lf is simply the best tool for that particular aspect of my work. <p> The current trend in fine art photography is for unsharp images bordering on total blur, usually taken with 35mm, sometimes toy cameras, and pinhole cameras. I am not a sharpness freak, but some of the work I have seen looks the same as what my duaghter could do when she was 3. Check out www.photography-guide.com/index.html to see current Photo galleries in New York. Look for any name you are not familiar with and the work will be of the unsharp-blurry genre and not inexpensive to purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emile_de_leon9 Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 I think we may confuse sharpness with completion and unification.In my experience sharpness is only a tool to be used or discarded as the situation demands and the soul of the photographer permits.Sharpness is really, way smaller in scale than perfection....the light of the sun is perfect....only when it interacts with dense physical matter does it appear to sharpen.To imagine that sharpness equals perfection, is like someone who, wearing the most expensive jewlery, will somehow... become a real person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janez_pelko1 Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 I like LF mainly because of its rich tonal range, not just because of sharpness. I found modern lenses sometimes even too sharp for portraits and I prefer the results from 40+ years old lenses. Sometimes even still life looks better with old lenses. Regards, www.janez-pelko.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 "Most of my LF work is totally sharp because it is documentary in nature". Interesting statement? Explain why a photograph that is documentary in nature needs to be totally sharp? The scene or situtation itslef isn't totally sharp to the human eye. In fact I would suggest that by making documentary photograph of something that is totally sharp in all it's aspects may in fact take away from the "documentary" nature of the image, and impose upon it something of the photographer own view of what the scene should look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_poulsen1 Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 I think that I concur with Ellis' response. <p> People look at an image taken with a large format camera, and they say, "Wow, that's a great photograph!" I think that sharpness is an essential ingredient for an LF photograph to achieve that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thilo_schmid Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Tim,<br> <br> "documentary in nature" requires to capture as much information as possible. A sharp image contains more information than an unsharp one, whereas <i> Information</i> is simply an abstraction of <i>Detail</i>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_paramore Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 I think it depends more on the subject. Some need great sharpness which will allow the viewer to get close and revel in the details. Some work just fine with a bit of softness. A previous poster mentioned that sharpness is needed in the catchlights of the eyes in a portrait. In the old days, when studios did their own lab work, the retoucher would sharpen up the catchlights to make the portrait look sharp even when it wasn't. Sharpness is just another tool to let the photographer get his or her message across. <p> Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armin_seeholzer Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Hi Emil <p> I like sharpness but I like also the controlled unsharpness many times. I get more a 3D feeling with the soft part (unsharp) at the right place in a picture.It gives more deep to a picture many times. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_alpert1 Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 I like sharp photographs and I like not-so-sharp photographs. As much as possible, sharpness should be a matter of choice. Older photographers did not have it so good. Edward Weston's great photographs are often not as sharp as the incredibly silly and technically wonderful commercial photos you see everywhere. (The periodicals are presenting an amazing sameness to us, with sharpness at the core of all sorts of nonsense.) Weston couldn't enlarge many of his images even if he had wanted to, which, as everyone knows, he did not. It was a struggle for him just to be reasonably sharp, given his equipment. So he obsessed about sharpness a little in order to keep His Mind Sharp. I agree with a previous contributor that the movements of view cameras are what set large format photography apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnorman2 Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now