Sharpness - an unnatural obsession

[George Kara]

I shoot LF primarily for two things. Art and portrait/figure. Being a painter I must admit that I'm puzzled by this obsession with "sharpness". I suspect that that this element is the lowest common denominator and therefore the yardstick for measurement.

I find it amusing when photographers regularly use loops to view photographic prints. This is just plain artificial and is of interest only to the photographer.

I have never used a loop to create my paintings and I dare you to take a loop for a good close-up view of a live womans skin.

We don't use loops in our real-life so why is it used for looking at photos? Have you ever used a loop to look at a bronze or motion picture? It's my opinion that the value of sharpness is overstated. Acceptable sharpness is of course important, but certainly not the means of judging a piece.

Great photos are not great because of their sharpness. There are so many landscapes that are excruciating and un-naturally sharp and and also un-naturally boring.

The focus of most viewers lies within the intent and content of the image.

I suspect this is because of the newness of the medium of photography as compared to many other arts. Early perspective in painting was often used with emphasis on the artists' new found math skills, and many works are awkward when compared to post 15th century work.

Would someone please explain how this unnatural obsessions translates into superior content and image as compared to the early photographers?

George

www.scaryink.com

[tim atherton]

Good point George

The sharpness relayed on a big print can be a good method of giving a false sense of depth to a photograph and can work well sometimes. But it's continually overdone (in fact, done to death).

Blurr, differential focus and other approaches can also do wonderful things (but are often ignored or not done very well)

You are right though, there is an unnatural obsession with sharpness which is rather silly and also is inherently, but unnecessarily, limiting

This is a perfectly good way to use Tri-X in 8x10...:



here's another, different, (non-LF this time) example:

[paulr]

I don't obsess over sharpness like I used to, but I have to admit, I love taking a loupe to a sharp print ... especially a small enlargement from a big negative, which contains more than you can see with the naked eye. It lets me feel like a voyeur, looking out the window with a telescope, discovering details and little stories that I wouldn't have found otherwise.

I know it's unlikely that anyone else will look at the prints like this, but that's ok ... it's a secret pleasure (speaking of which, you probably don't want to leave your telescope pointed at that hotel across the street when respectable company comes over ...)

[Eric Rose]

Many LF photographers are primarily techies first and artists second. Granted there are important technical matters that have to be addressed and mastered to be able to reduce the photographers "vision" to a 2D print that still has the required impact. For some their true enjoyment is in the fiddling, nothing wrong with that, as I am sure there are scads of painters out there that just enjoy the process of painting rather than always trying to produce the next masterpiece. Maybe they get together with their buddies and oh and aw over stroke patterns or paint mixing techniques. Who cares, they are enjoying themselves and for them that's why they do it.

[David A. Goldfarb]

While I agree that people worry about sharpness to the exclusion of other interesting things, I agree with paulr about the experience of looking at a contact print from a large neg with a loupe. It can be like discovering a whole set of stories in one picture that you may not have realized were there at first. I've thought of organizing a show around this principle at some point--every print has a loupe on a string hanging from the frame.

[Walter Calahan]

Yep it is. Our eyes change day to day as far as their ability to see sharply, and then we only have sharp vision in a very small space within our sight.

Too many engineers in the photo world, I suspect. Grin.

[Alan Davenport]

Would someone please explain how this unnatural obsessions translates into superior content and image as compared to the early photographers?

No. It's a religious thing and very personal.

[tim atherton]

Would someone please explain how this unnatural obsessions translates into superior content and image as compared to the early photographers?

No. It's a religious thing and very personal.

and here I always thought religion was a communal thing...?

[Ed Richards]

While I do not belong to the loupe for prints school, I do not see messing with LF if sharpness on good sized prints is not a goal. At least in the modern digital printing world, a little Gausian blur turns a DSLR into the equal of an 8x10 for the sort of pictures that Tim has posted. (It wipes out the pixelation and smooths the tones.) If you are a silver or alternative print person, and do not want to do digital negatives, that is another matter.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Too many engineers in the photo world, I suspect. Grin.

There can never be too many engineers in any world.