Sharpness - an unnatural obsession

[Kirk Gittings]

Is this a real question? Its about why we shoot large format plain and simple. Otherwise we may as well shoot half frame 35mm with plastic lenses and stand back 10 feet.

[Bruce Watson]

...I'm puzzled by this obsession with "sharpness."

I think you are trying to make it more difficult to understand than it actually is.

What it comes down to, IMHO, is that it's easier to measure some things than others. It's (much) easier to measure the objective and semi-objective things like Dmax, sharpness, etc. than it is to measure message or how effectively the image communicates the message for example.

Are you telling me that painters don't talk amongst themselves about brushes and technique, or paints and substrates? Photographers talk about Dmax and sharpness, cameras and lenses. Same thing, different art form.

[Bruce Watson]

There can never be too many engineers in any world.

Absolutely right. In the USA lawyers outnumber engineers by a huge margin. Something tells me that more engineers would be a good thing indeed

[bob carnie]

Sharpness is a starting point for expressive printing. From there we have the option to soften the image if we choose.
This obsession with sharpness is to some photographers very vital to how their image is presented on paper.
I don't see any problem with photographers looking with loupes for detail assesment to see if they have the detail they are trying to show.

[Mark Sawyer]

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".

Considering the rising demand/interest/prices for Petzvals and soft/diffused focus lenses, I think you could be equally puzzled by this obsession with "fuzziness".

Is this a real question? Its about why we shoot large format plain and simple. Otherwise we may as well shoot half frame 35mm with plastic lenses and stand back 10 feet.

I'd disagree. While "sharpness" is one thing lf excels at, there are other things that draw many of us to this way of working: the wide variety of optics available, the tonalities of a contact print, perspective controls, the ability to make a direct negative for alt processes, the control of developing negatives one-by-one, the contemplative way of working, and the tradition and history behind it all. I'm sure others could add to the list...

[Bill_1856]

What is a LOOP? Is it anything like a Loupe? That's what photographers and engravers use. I HATE the smug one-upsmanship that painters try to pull on Photographers.

[paulr]

Is this a real question? Its about why we shoot large format plain and simple. Otherwise we may as well shoot half frame 35mm with plastic lenses and stand back 10 feet.

I don't think it's that simple. There are other things that attract people to big cameras. Including the big ground glass, and the controls provided by movements. Jan Groover's work comes to mind.

There's also more to big film than sharpness and detail-- the possibility of smooth creamy tones in soft areas, rather than film grain.

I say this as a guy who's mostly used L.F. in pursuit of edge-to-edge sharpness.

[JW Dewdney]

I think Mark and Kirk have a pretty reasonable perspective on this, to my mind. I certainly got into large format for it's resolution - I think of it as a "deep window" of sorts - both into what I've got a camera pointed at, and, of course, into they psyche. So - while I DO feel people become a little bit superficial at times - concentrating FAR too much on equipment while they appear to utterly neglect the 'work' - I think it is somewhat understandable as a preoccupation. And yes, of COURSE painters and printmakers have similar preoccupations.

[David Karp]

Sharpness is important when its important. Lack of sharpness is important when its important. Neither is better. Neither is worse. Any person who says one or the other is either important or unimportant is speaking for one, not for what is appropriate or inappropriate.

For one artist's views on why sharpness is important, and for a good discussion of photographic technique, check out the late Barry Thornton's The Edge of Darkness.

[fred arnold]

Personally, I got into LF for the movements and the tonality, with the ability to make viewable contact prints close behind. Sharpness is important, but if that was my only criteria I'd give up photography and do pen-and-ink, dry-point etchings, or electron-beam microlithography.

One of the more useful lessons I got from the Ansel Adams show at Corning last year was that when you look at many of his larger prints, they aren't completely sharp, either due to optics, or some slight movement. Step back a pace, and you'd still be willing to sacrifice a camera to Asherah to have been the one that made that image (found, shot, and made the final print).