Sharpness - an unnatural obsession

[Ken Lee]

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

Sharpness is a visual attribute, like any other. Like any ingredient, it can be used to contribute to a pleasing image.

Progress in lens and film design hasn't translated into superior content, but for those who like sharpness, it has made it possible to have more sharpness.

While we're on the subject, many photographers like to juxtapose sharpness AND blurriness in the same image - and they seek out equipment that lets them get both at the same time. Try a Google search on the term "bokeh".

[Ralph Barker]

George - just wait a few years, and you'll be using a magnifier to view lots of things - even your paintings.

Sharp images versus soft images is obviously a matter of personal taste and/or creative vision, and should probably be respected as such. To say the "Sharpies" have an "unnatural obsession with sharpness" is like saying "Softies" are fuzzy-minded. Both statements lack due respect for the opposing viewpoint.

[tim atherton]

George - just wait a few years, and you'll be using a magnifier to view lots of things - even your paintings.

Sharp images versus soft images is obviously a matter of personal taste and/or creative vision, and should probably be respected as such. To say the "Sharpies" have an "unnatural obsession with sharpness" is like saying "Softies" are fuzzy-minded. Both statements lack due respect for the opposing viewpoint.

However, there does tend to be a rather excessive emphasis on sharpness (often at the expense other aspects of the photograph) among a fair percentage of the current generation of LF photographers

it's certainly an obsession - and it times quite possibly a detrimental one

[paulr]

To say the "Sharpies" have an "unnatural obsession with sharpness" is like saying "Softies" are fuzzy-minded. Both statements lack due respect for the opposing viewpoint.

Ha ... you could ruffle just as many feathers on a Diana camera board by pointing out the fuzzz-obsession. And you might have a good point!

[Mark Sawyer]

However, there does tend to be a rather excessive emphasis on sharpness (often at the expense other aspects of the photograph) among a fair percentage of the current generation of LF photographers

it's certainly an obsession - and it times quite possibly a detrimental one

Perhaps it's only a natural "excessive emphasis" for newer lf photographers, given that detail is one of lf's more immediatelyobvious strengths. I could see someone using it to advantage or disadvantage. For those who "obsess" over it as nothing more than surface detail, well, if it wasn't sharpness, it would likely be something else to "obsess" over...

[roteague]

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

Because I prefer my images that way. I see nothing unnatural about it, sharpness is the way our eyes see - that is why some of us wear glasses.

[walter23]

What I don't get is why painters obsess over colour. There'd be perhaps more emphasis on the underlying art and message if they'd just stick to black acrylic.

[Neal Shields]

I am very lucky to live in a city that has a museum with one of the best and most extensive collections of photography in the world. (Amon Carter, Ft. Worth, Texas)

Because of this I have seen prints that most people have only seen as reproductions. "Moonrise over Hernandez" being one of them. I think that especially in some of Ansel Adams work we see sharpness as part of the artistic vision. One 16 x 20 print of his, is a scene of San Francisco from the hills and you either can or think you can read the names on barber shop signs several miles away. Ansel Adams (although he would be in the bottom of my top ten) is probably one of the best examples of artistic vision and the technique required to maximize that vision occuring in one place. However, thinking as I type, would Weston's peppers be as arresting if they wern't tack sharp?

The best explaination of the need for sharpness that I have read is by Ctein in his book, "Post exposure". He defines acceptable sharpness at about 6 lp/mm and perfect sharpness at about 30. His defination of "perfect sharpness" is the point at which critical viewers can't tell the difference in side by side prints. If he is right, and if you read his book, you will find that he has researched this very thourghly, then for what I would consider "high quality" art, large format is not only desireable but necessary.

How often have we seen physical art in museums where the execution of the vision was shoddy? Almost never. Would Michaelangello's David be as striking if we saw an exact copy executed poorly? I doubt it.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I shoot LF primarily for two things. Art and portrait/figure.

When you take your portraits, do you have the eyes out of focus and the nose sharp? Sharpness is a compositional tool, and it just so happens that in many cases and for the subject that one uses LF for, sharpness makes the print look better. There is no obsession here, only concious choice, at least in my case.

[Vaughn]

Ahhh Grasshopper...

Sharpness is. Fuzziness is. Be one with the light.



I think many photographers and painters place too much of their attention on subject, instead of light.

Vaughn