Visual acuity and photographic style

[AmyHelmick]

<p>This thought has crossed my head a few times and just wondered if anyone else has observed this. <br /> I have always been very myopic; I have been in glasses since second grade. I notice that my photographic work and the work I am often drawn to is soft-focused. That started me wondering if my photographic preferences have anything to do with how I am used to seeing the world with my particular set of eyes. I definitely appreciate the skill and technology that goes into a tack sharp image, yet the softer-focused works are generally the ones that hit me on an emotional level.<br /> As a related question: Do you tend to be drawn to photographs of the familiar or new and different images?<br /> What are your thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

[AmyHelmick]

<p>***</p><div></div>

[geoffs1]

Well, I'm at least one counter-example...

I've been near-sighted since I was a kid, but I favor sharp sharp photos.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Amy, do you view photos from a great distance and without glasses or contact lenses?</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I used to have pin-sharp vision in my younger days and although right-handed, I always put the camera to my left eye. When I had my eyes tested I discovered that my left eye has greater acuity than the right. These days, even with a correction lens on the viewfinder, I cannot focus as quickly as I used to so I now do less street photography because by the time I have focussed the action has passed! I still like the pin-sharp print but to achieve this I choose static subjects and work with medium format cameras tripod-mounted.</p>

[AmyHelmick]

<p>I wear glasses and/or contacts and my vision is corrected if I'm awake. It was just a random thought. Guess it's just me...:-).</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Chris: You might also be left eyed meaning that just like right handed and left handed people, you aim with your left eye even though you are right handed. If you Google this you can get an explanation and a way to determine whether you are left or right eyed.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Alan, thanks for that info. I'll look it up. It's weird, but instinctively I put the camera to my left eye. If I put it to my right eye it just feels awkward and somehow I just can't compose the picture properly.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>I feel the ability of an image to tell a story, create emotion or hold interest is more important than which classification it falls under (IE tack sharp or soft/blurred in the context of this thread). It's more about the vision of the photographer and how well they are able to connect with their audience. I may be wandering a bit here, so to get back on track-personally, I feel drawn to both types, and have used and will contnue to use both methods. They are artistic expressions/ interpretations based on an inner vision and have nothing to do with the integrity of my eyesight, which btw has started to change recently. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Amy, for me it's not so much what the photo is "of." Whether a photo is of something familiar or unfamiliar doesn't affect me as much as the way the photograph handles either the familiar or unfamiliar subject or content. </p>

<p>Generally speaking (and there are, of course, exceptions) softer edges and less sharp approaches tend to ask more questions than provide answers and tend to be more the way I see things, as the world goes by quickly and often in a hazy sort of way to me. Many photographs I find to be way too sharp, which seems to provide more exactness and more rigidity than I tend to find and to see in the world. Generally, softer edges and softer lines have more of a sensual effect on me whereas sharper images often feel too exact. These days, an emphasis, for example, on sharp lenses and often over-sharpened whiskers and textures simply have an empty feeling of technicality to me. Rather than being expressive, such sharpness often comes off as overindulgence and a sort of false kind of precision rather than truly emotive or thoughtful.</p>

<p>IMO, skill has little to do with getting something tack sharp. Skill is effectively and convincingly translating one's own unique vision to the image or print.</p>

[AmyHelmick]

<p>Thanks for the discussion. <br>

Alan, I am definitely L eyed as far as using a viewfinder goes. I went to "mono-vision" contacts a couple years ago. Got all fitted at the optometrist's office and got my contacts home. The very first time I put the camera to my eye, I realized I had to go back for a re-do. By the exam, they had determined my R eye to be dominant, but in reality that was just not the case. Go figure.<br>

Randall and Fred: I agree we need to use all the tools in our arsenal to produce work that translates our vision. Maybe it has to do with style and experience level, but I think I am more often "capturing" rather than "creating". Many times it's at the editing stage that I know into which photos I'll be putting my efforts. My experience (to this point anyway) has been that when I go out with the specific attempt to "create" my work is disappointing.<br>

On a link here recently I saw the quote from Howard Feinstein: "<em>When your mouth drops open, click the shutter</em>". That really resonated with what has happened at the times when I have produced what I felt was a successful photo. <br>

Back to the original question, maybe visual acuity has nothing at all to do with photo style;however it is still a concept that interests me. Maybe it's not so much literal visual acuity, but more the way in which we individually see the world that comes through in our style.</p>

 

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe it's not so much literal visual acuity, but more the way in which we individually see the world that comes through in our style.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right on Amy!<br />Your visual acuity thread has touched on a well-worn topic in an interesting way. <br>

The idea that less than <em>tack sharp </em>is unacceptable in lenses and prints and is evidence of poor technique is pervasive. That thinking goes: blur is happenstance rather than intent unless it is bokeh. To achieve excellent sharpness as well as marvelous bokeh requires superior gear and superior technique. <br>

Having a superior lens is about <em>potential</em> to achieve any desired result the picture requires. If that is "whisker sharp" your work flow begins with the sharpest lens. What we look for is a kind of photographic integrity. If we are drawn to softer renderings we have learned what the very best look like. Likewise sharpness. Overall we, as experienced photographers, know what just <em>looks right</em> for each style of image. To insist on a single criteria for goodness is absurd. Damn you f64! Digital imaging, with blur and sharpness just another post-exposure slider action, has confounded the whole photographic idea for many of us. <br>

"Getting creative" is a powerful temptation that is for me satisfied by all the new digital toys. It sometimes spills over into my seeing but as you point out the "jaw dropping" moments are purest photography.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"purest photography"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oooh. No. I'm very skeptical of such claims, Alan. Too many different ways of photographing and too many compelling yet various photos for there to be such a thing as "purest photography." Man Ray is as purely photographic as Bresson.</p>

<p>Creativity is not something that necessarily "spills over" into seeing. It is something that can actually determine how and what one sees. So-called jaw-dropping photographic moments are very often flashes-in-the-pan that leave me as quickly as they come. Photos of them just as often don't invite even as much as a second look. They may have a wow factor and just as often can have nothing beyond that. Photos that stay with me, that grow on me over time, that penetrate, often are not jaw droppers or based on jaw-dropping moments at all.</p>

<p>Weston, for example, didn't wait around hoping for special moments. He made special <em>photographs</em> happen, almost timelessly. Many of Frank's moments weren't draw-dropping by any means. They were so familiar and recognizable that I, as a viewer, marvel at how much I take them in stride. They are often effective in their utter expectability, like a faithful companion.</p>

<p>* * *</p>

<p>Alan, the idea of "photographic integrity" is much more evocative to me than the idea of "purest photography." I do agree with much of what you said about sharpness and softness. They are not goals in and of themselves. They are tools used to achieve a vision.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p><br />"Purism" isn't what I meat at all! The photographic integrity (call it <em>authenticity </em>if you like) I look for is that whatever certain kinds of photographic techniques done well look like are bench marks to improve my own methods. Nothing succeeds like success. Occasionally for fun I do a <em>Pepper No. XX </em>with my latest digicam just to see how close I can emulate Weston. I have seen real Weston's and know how matchless they are. There is no <em>standard</em> way to make a photograph. With digital cameras we can explore to our heart's content.</p><div></div>

[alan_zinn]

<p>=</p><div></div>

[AmyHelmick]

<p>LOL, Alan.</p>