Why are we so concerned about sharpness?

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?

because it gives the illusion of reality, especially at large

magnifications.

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!

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.

What Ellis said.

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

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,

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

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...

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......

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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>.

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,

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.

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.

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...