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
Bookmarks