Are Photographer's Obsessed With Sharpness, but blind to the bigger picture?

[Drew Wiley]

Extreme sharpness is indeed a strategy I often employ in large format prints. But there are other images where I subtly employ selective focus, and still
others, esp small format ones, where maybe there is a "bokeh" out-of-focus effect to the background or whatever. I've never been a true soft-focus lens type like
certain Nevada residents. But I don't believe in any one-shoe-fits-all formula, or any hard-nosed manifesto. It all depends on the subject matter and what I'm trying to achieve in the print. But when sharpness and detail are a priority, large format certainly has its advantages.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I did a fine-grain telephoto 6x6 image of a mountain/elevated island and showed people there that could not be seen with the eye.

An old fellow Vietnam vet who worked with Spooks looked at them and said, "Been there. It's the kind of stuff that gets people killed."

[David Lobato]

I like seeing apparent sharpness in my photos as much as anyone. However, if all one desires is sharpness, at the expense of ignoring everything else, sharpness is only what they will get in their photos. I have seen that happen too many times. The craft and art of photography requires a lot more than paying sole attention to nose-to-the-print sharpness.

[John Kasaian]

It all kind of depends on what you're after, don't it?

[Richard M. Coda]

For the most part I like, and use, sharpness in my LF (4x5, 8x10, 11x14) photography. I rarely print larger than 11x14, printing 8x10 most of the time, and 16x20 only when an image will benefit from the larger print. That said, most of the paintings (oil, acrylic, pastel, watercolor) that I "like" are NOT sharp. More abstract or expressionist in nature. However, once in a blue moon I find myself wanting to photograph something that is not sharp. One case in point... I was out photographing flowers outdoors in color and the breeze was making it impossible and I could not get the depth of field I wanted. I took my glasses off to rub my eyes from the strain of trying to focus and looked at the flowers again. Since everything was now out of focus I decided to photograph them that way and deliberately threw the camera out of focus... I think it made a very nice abstract impressionist type of photograph, concentrating on the color instead of the "object"... http://rcodaphotography.blogspot.com...hout-form.html

[scheinfluger_77]

For the most part I like, and use, sharpness in my LF (4x5, 8x10, 11x14) photography. I rarely print larger than 11x14, printing 8x10 most of the time, and 16x20 only when an image will benefit from the larger print. That said, most of the paintings (oil, acrylic, pastel, watercolor) that I "like" are NOT sharp. More abstract or expressionist in nature. However, once in a blue moon I find myself wanting to photograph something that is not sharp. One case in point... I was out photographing flowers outdoors in color and the breeze was making it impossible and I could not get the depth of field I wanted. I took my glasses off to rub my eyes from the strain of trying to focus and looked at the flowers again. Since everything was now out of focus I decided to photograph them that way and deliberately threw the camera out of focus... I think it made a very nice abstract impressionist type of photograph, concentrating on the color instead of the "object"... http://rcodaphotography.blogspot.com...hout-form.html

There is a variation on the pinhole called the zone plate, with infinate variations of "fuzzy expressiveness" available depending on how you construct the ZP. There are a number of great examples at the f/295 forum.

http://www.f295.org/main/forumdispla...te-Photographs
http://www.f295.org/main/forumdispla...te-Photographs
http://www.f295.org/main/forumdispla...Polaroid-et-al!

And since these generally run anywhere from f/45 to f/90, exposures are relatively easy to deal with.

Steve

[Michael Wesik]

Really interesting discussion...

The process of translating a scene into pictorial space through photographic mechanisms offers countless interpretations. My own interest in the subject of sharpness revolves around the questions of: why is it important? And what do those decisions reflect about the artist?

Approaching the medium in traditional ways forges a physical relationship between the artist and the medium, situating the artist as the filter through which vision and creation are reconciled; and thus rendering the process by which a photograph is conceived and executed a reflection of the artist. In this, the meaning of a photograph and the qualities it displays has less to do with the image itself and more to do with why certain decisions were made to bring it into existence. Obsessing over sharpness becomes emblematic of a much more profound quest, possibly one of recreating the 'real' or the 'ideal' as a way of mediating something personal to the artist.

I don't believe that image production is as simple as making a picture because you like it. Some gravitate towards portraiture, others landscape or still life, and others photo-conceptualism and there are latent motivations for those bents. So when I read about the decisions that people make or see the pictures they create, I see a Promethean quality that we all share in different ways.

So for me, discussions of sharpness is more philosophical than anything else. I've been obsessed by sharpness as well, to the point of working my way up to shooting 11x14 film to project 50x65 inch images and refusing to go larger than 5x enlargement on a pictorial landscape subject because of how the image degrades. I've even hounded Ilford to make bigger paper only to be shot down, several times. But even going that big has been painful at times as 3.5x to 4x seems to be the sweet spot with Tri-X developed in Pyrocat-P Divided. And then I'm often left wondering why it matters if an image is 5 inches bigger or smaller on the short side; it's a huge print, bleach redeveloped, archivally processed, etc. All that is a reflection of me and what I'm trying to reconcile.

It's great to read all this stuff. Thanks everyone.

Happy holidays!

Michael

[blindpig]

I've a friend who repairs cameras professionally and is totally into lens/image sharpness almost to distraction. He will argue long and loud about one lenses resolution over another.With that said here's a short tale about what that cost my brother-in-law.
He and his wife were taking the trip of a lifetime, 3 1/2 weeks in Europe.He was worried about his camera and film for the trip so I recommended he have his camera checked and cleaned before leaving.Also recommended the afore mentioned friend as resource and suggested he purchase a Polarizing and sky-light filters while there.After visiting my friends shop and later picking up his camera,he called me and thanked me for leading him to such a knowledgeable repair professional and said he'd contact me on his return to see his slides.I can't remember how many slides they returned with(100's)and how disappointed he was with about half of them.Seems they traveled buy plane, boat cruises and bus tours all over Europe(great trip!)but all the mountain scenes and long landscapes as well as water pictures were weak or burned-out.You've probably guessed what happened,my friend(the sharpness freak) told him never put anything over your lens but a lens cap when not in use.Sadly he followed this advice,hard to tell if they are needle sharp or not!
Guess I'm partially to blame by not asking about him purchasing the filters before they left.
Don