Which way works? Soft vs. Sharp, a continuing drama...

[Jim Galli]

This is little meadow falls, a lovely little spot in a slot canyon in Railroad Valley, Nevada. Just so happens I did it both with 150mm Super Symmar XL and a 12 inch Darlot Landscape Meniscus with no stops, wide open at f6 on the 5X12.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/14X17andRRValley0908/LittleMeadowFallsSs.jpg (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/14X17andRRValley0908/LittleMeadowFalls.jpg)
little meadow falls, 150 Symmar XL

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/14X17andRRValley0908/LittleMeadowFallDarlotS.jpg (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/14X17andRRValley0908/LittleMeadowFallDarlot.jpg)
little meadow falls, Darlot meniscus

The soft one works well for me. It transports me.

What say ye?

[wfwhitaker]

Too soft for me personally.

[dasBlute]

The softness takes it into 'pinhole/zoneplate' territory - for me - a nice place to be.
But I like having more of the leading-in streamlet in the first composition,
gives a little more context... great. now I'm fence sitting...

[Jeremy Moore]

I'd agree with Will on this one. Maybe a waterhouse to take it down to ~f/10 would have given enough definition to ground the image a little more as it's too soft for me as is. But if it works for you then you did great!

[Ken Lee]

They are two different compositions. Why not crop the Symmar image accordingly, and then we can compare apples to apples ?

[gari beet]

Its dependant on content for me, for this subject I prefer the sharp image. Alot of the stuff that you usually post, such as trucks, flowers etc I prefer soft.

[gari beet]

Its dependant on content for me, for this subject I prefer the sharp image. Alot of the stuff that you usually post, such as trucks, flowers etc I prefer soft. I am getting a thing for sharp in the middle, fall off at the edges too. As I shoot mainly colour landscapes I tend to see em sharp, I am learning though!!

Gari

[Jim Galli]

Thanks all. I've embedded a link to a larger .jpg in both of these. I think the small .jpg hurts the softer image. A little bigger and you can get a better idea of the detail that is actually there in the soft image. The bigger .jpg of the sharp image succeeded in making it look soft :rolleyes: Can't win with this digi stuff. Interesting answers all.

[wfwhitaker]

Ken's comment is good and the difference in the compositions was what caught my eye first. In looking again, I see that one lens is twice the focal length of the other. I like the top (sharp) composition better and feel that the wider lens works better in pulling me in to the photograph. It has nothing to do with sharp or soft! The lead-in from the bottom of the image with the stones is nice. But I find the bright white triangle at the top of the image very distracting.

Nice to see the Darlot in action since I have that lens. But mine didn't come with the "big bore kit" like Jim's. ;) I'll be interested to see what it will do with the stops in place.

[Benno Jones]

I like them both for different reasons. The Symmar shot has a good sense of place while the Darlot shot has the 'mythic' feeling that I look for in a softer image. They both have their place, just in different portfolios.

[Bill_1856]

When there is a question about which of two images is "better," the probability is that neither is worth much.

[C. D. Keth]

I prefer the sharp image. It gets too mushy for me since most everything is grey in the scene. I might find a higher contrast scene to be more pleasing with the softness.

[monkeymon]

The soft image is much more for me. I like the creative use of lenses, and don't understand allways the need to do ultrasharp repros of landscapes. I find them often really boring.

And i have a feeling you like using old lenses more...

[Ole Tjugen]

The soft one is a little too soft for my taste - but I can't help wondering what it would look like stopped down a stop or two.

Maybe I wouldn't have had to wonder if I'd gotten around to testing my J. Lancaster landscape lens (f:10)...

[Nathan Potter]

Jim, nice comparisons. The Symar is what I would class as a documentary shot (a record shot), nice but ultimately boring and uninspiring. The soft image has an aura of mystique to it and an interpretation of the scene that adds a special insight given by the photographer. I prefer the soft image with the lens wide open.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Darryl Baird]

Jim,

For a class of graphic design and photo beginners, I'm currently using a theoretical "line" drawn between "Information and Emotion." We are trying to place images on that line, evoking either high-quality information or emotion, and various percentages in-between to establish how they communicate. I'd venture (and agreeing with Nate) your two versions are almost at the opposite ends... one (the document) is very high-quality information and the other is a very emotional, symbolical gesture (like a gesture drawing) of the waterfall.

It's a great question, without any real answer. If I was shooting stock, this would be a great solution to cover the bases... satisfying all tastes. In the end, only you can make that call. I accept both and like both, but would probably choose the later (soft) since it breaks from the current established norms. (go back in a time machine one hundred years and the answer flips) ;-)

[Jim Galli]

Jim,

For a class of graphic design and photo beginners, I'm currently using a theoretical "line" drawn between "Information and Emotion." We are trying to place images on that line, evoking either high-quality information or emotion, and various percentages in-between to establish how they communicate. I'd venture (and agreeing with Nate) your two versions are almost at the opposite ends... one (the document) is very high-quality information and the other is a very emotional, symbolical gesture (like a gesture drawing) of the waterfall.

It's a great question, without any real answer. If I was shooting stock, this would be a great solution to cover the bases... satisfying all tastes. In the end, only you can make that call. I accept both and like both, but would probably choose the later (soft) since it breaks from the current established norms. (go back in a time machine one hundred years and the answer flips) ;-)

Excellent discussion all, thanks. This was my intent. To illustrate both of the extremes and stir up some thought. Certainly there is no right answer nor was I looking for one. Just fun to get folks thinking. Neither image will make my name a household word and I'm painfully aware of that. When I look at photos on display, I disconnect my head and listen to my heart. The soft image would have a much better chance at speaking to me. It still might fail but I would return for a second and third look.

[stehei]

I would like the softer image better, if it had the composition of the sharp one!

s

[Jiri Vasina]

stefan hit it perfectly...

[Wimpler]

The sharpness/softness is quite nice. I just think the composition on the soft one does not work at all.

[Daniel_Buck]

for me, I think I like the crisp one better, on this landscape anyway.

[cjbroadbent]

...I disconnect my head and listen to my heart...
"The one thing all nations share is the fear that a member of the family will want to be an artist." (anon)

[Mark Sawyer]

The soft one works well for me. It transports me.

What say ye?

They both transport me, the sharp one to Timothy O'Sullivan's time, (maybe it's the white sky...), and the soft one to the 1920's, (do you know Forman Hanna's work?)

I wonder whether O'Sullivan used a Petzval or a Rectilinear... (Well stopped down in either case, I suppose.)

[Jim Galli]

They both transport me, the sharp one to Timothy O'Sullivan's time, (maybe it's the white sky...), and the soft one to the 1920's, (do you know Forman Hanna's work?)

I wonder whether O'Sullivan used a Petzval or a Rectilinear... (Well stopped down in either case, I suppose.)


Thanks Mark. O'Sullivan could very well have used the same Darlot landscape meniscus as I used here except stopped down to f32. Rectilinear's would have been brand new state of the art stuff.

[Diane Maher]

I like the soft one. Possibly because today everything is supposed to be "sharp" or "high resolution/definition" and I just find myself liking softer images. Plus the sharp one is too wide of a view for me, I like the closer view of the image better.

[robert amsden]

Anything less than sharp is an abomination To St. Ansel !

[Alan Davenport]

Tough choice. IMO the composition with the 6 inch is vastly better, but probably the canyon won't let you get 2X as far from the falls to shoot a similar one with the 12 inch? I think the soft lens would be magical here, if you could get a bit more into the frame.

[sun of sand]

I like the sharp
Rocks seem to work better sharp than soft and water is already silky soft in a longer than normal exposure
Soft water stands out from defined rocks