Is "sharpness" really all that important ?

[steve_g2]

<p>http://www.lighting-essentials.com/interview-with-kirk-tuck-photographer-and-writer/</p>

<p>I often read about folks trading lenses to get a proper 'sharp eyes' portrait.<br>

This guy's a pro and not many in the link above are sharp at all.</p>

 

[mark_chartrand]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, sharpness really is all that important. You can make a sharp image "soft" for an effect, but you can't make "soft" image any sharper. Some soften an image to try to get rid of complexion problems. There are better ways to do that then to make your picture look soft or out of focus.</p>

<p>You should always try to get the sharpest image possible. You can do what you want to it later, but you will always be able to go back to your original sharp picture.</p>

<p>You are correct about your link. Some of those pictures are not very good. Remember, being a professional photographer doesn't always mean you are a good photographer -- you might just be a good salesman.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>I think the pictures are quite good, but they haven't necessarily been output sharpened for the resolution they're displayed at, and that may not be the fault of the photographer. One picture--the Asian man--seems a bit front-focused, softening the strong features and directing attention to the soft hairline. I'll bet the rest were tack-sharp in camera.</p>

[vilk_inc]

<p> "I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique--a notion which reveals itself in an insatiable craving for sharpness of images. Is this the passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this <em>trompe l’oeil</em> technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of that other generation, which used to endow all its photographic anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to be 'artistic.'"<br /><br />of course, fifty years is a long time ;)</p>

[mark_hartman]

<p>I think sharpness, or the lack of sharpness is just one element of a great photo. It won't make a boring shot better, nor will the lack of absolute sharpness make a perfectly timed shot fail. It's certainly something I strive for in my work, but I've sold many people portraits they loved that would fall in the same category of the ones in your link. I think there are better things to fixate on when shooting portraits than that. Over time I think I've gotten better with the sharpness and it allows me to concentrate on other elements. </p><div></div>

[josephbraun]

<p>those in the link look sharp too me. it seems as though a few weren't sharpened appropriately for web output though.</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>Generally the eyes need to be sharp, we always gaze upon them first, then other features. That's usually a indicator of correct technique, if in the studio or posed. However, was the shot done on the run? On the run, sometimes the scene or action within sells it, and we forgive or ignore the lack of sharpness.</p>

<p>After a shoot, and in your first round of selection you'll weed out all the images that were under or over exposed, and out of focus. However, there are times you'll be hard pressed to dump a particular shot because something in it is working, despite it's apparent technical failing. For Marks example above, the woman's expression sells it. It's warming and inviting to look at. She seems like a very fun person to be with. I have similar shots, but, having said that, they are few and far between.</p>

<p>Good lenses, good technique always. Yes, sharpness is important.</p>

<p> </p>

[dd_toth]

<p>I think the reason why sharpness is important is because our eyes are drawn to detail. For humans we need to see detail. It's weird when we can't, hence why people wear glasses and contacts and now get laser surgery to correct vision problems. When a photo is soft or slightly blurry, something just doesn't seem right. In fact when you look at a blurry image sometimes it's physically hard to do and it strains the eyes, and we can only view it for a short period of time.</p>

<p>For Marks image, my eyes are drawn to the tip of her nose and bottom lip just due to the fact that they appear sharper then the eyes. When the eyes are sharp and in focus, we would have been drawn to the eyes first. For that photo, my eyes rest on the nose and lips first, but then I have to look at the eyes, but then the detail of the nose and lips draw me back to them, but because I'm looking at a face I have to look her in the eyes, so I'm constantly struggling with where to look, nose/eyes/nose/eyes, back and forth, back and forth.</p>

<p>When we look at people when we greet them/talking to them/look at a photograph, we look at the eyes first. It's just what is hard wired into our brain, I think. So that is why having sharp eyes in a photograph is important. It is just more pleasing, and easier, to look at.</p>