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

[Bernice Loui]

Many discussions have been about sharpness of lenses, making sharp macro images, how sharpness is affected by diffraction and on and on and on..

Sharpness is only one aspect of image making yet it appears to be a myopic obsession with more than a few image makers to the degree where the definition of a GOOD photograph is driven by it's sharpness.

Yet, there are SO many other aspects of what makes an expressive image. Composition, tonality, form, color, texture, content-subject and much more.


Bernice

[StoneNYC]

Well I think when you're looking for sharpness, it's hard to find.

Lenses with character tend to be easier to find, are cheaper currently etc? So it's less of a difficult subject, if you'll notice only the extremes are often talked about, ultra sharp, and "the petzval effect" etc.

It's always at the extremes that we are particular about.

[Lachlan 717]

Well I think when you're looking for sharpness, it's hard to find.

Lenses with character tend to be easier to find, are cheaper currently etc? So it's less of a difficult subject, if you'll notice only the extremes are often talked about, ultra sharp, and "the petzval effect" etc.

It's always at the extremes that we are particular about.

?

[IanG]

Sharpness is controlled by craft, how you use your skills as well of course by choice of equipment. Good mastery of craft should allow greater freedom to enable you to capture the images you want while also giving you greater controls over " Composition, tonality, form, color, texture, content-subject and much more."

Craft should become mindset and inner hidden toolkit that allows us to pursue our obsession to make images.. The obsession must not be the craft itself or any aspect of it like sharpness.

Ian

[mdarnton]

Technique is easy to quantify and discuss. Art is much more difficult. Most people aren't very good artists, but they can happily discuss and pretty much agree on which photo from two similar ones is sharper, so that's where most of their discussions go.

[Jim Jones]

To present the photograph's subject honestly, the photograph should usually be sharp. Many subjects deserve to be presented honestly. A lack of sharpness in a photograph is often an attempt to present the photographer's view of the subject rather than the subject itself. Sometimes that photographers view imparts knowledge about the subject that may not be obvious in a sharp photograph. Sometimes it is merely an expression of the photographer's character or ego. I find many subjects of photographs more interesting than the photographers' interpretation, and therefore lean towards sharp photographs.

[Dan Fromm]

Bernice, on the one hand yes, sharpness is all. On the other, a strong image will usually survive a lot of fuzz. In most situations composition trumps sharpness. For me the big exception is scientific photography. There accurate representation with as much fine detail as possible is the goal and that trumps composition.

Jim, when I was working I rotated 8x10 color prints through my office desktop. One was pretty damn fuzzy but the composition was good. Passersby loved the picture, often commented favorably on it. I wanted that one to be sharp, unfortunately took it with a camera (Perkeo II with Color Skopar) that wasn't capable of making sharp negatives. It wasn't what I wanted, it was what the gear could give me. And it worked.

[Peter Collins]

Technique is easy to quantify and discuss. Art is much more difficult. Most people aren't very good artists, but they can happily discuss and pretty much agree on which photo from two similar ones is sharper, so that's where most of their discussions go.

+1, amen, etc.

[Bill Burk]

Bernice Loui,

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and reading a lot of books where the topic comes up.

My instinct tells me that not many photographers concern themselves with sharpness, and those who do, are probably concerned about it "for the right reasons".

In "An Introduction to the Science of Photography," Katherine Chamberlain wrote a chapter "Factors That Influence the Critical Definition of the Photographic Image." In her opening paragraphs she states the obvious about photography, "No other method of pictorial representation remotely approaches it in ability to render fine detail..."

A paragraph she wrote explains exactly why I look for sharpness...

"Often, then, our problem as photographers does not require us to produce all possible detail... it is usually sufficient to render the subject so that the observer will neither have his attention distracted by seeing more than the eye usually shows him nor feel vaguely dissatisfied because he wishes to perceive detail that is not there."

Then later...

"It should be emphasized, however, that deliberate repression of the elements that are not desired is wholly different from the effect produced when detail is missing because lack of technical skill on the part of the photographer causes his picture to suffer from a complication of minor disorders."

I love the way these two phrases describe what I am trying to avoid, having my viewer be "vaguely dissatisfied because he wishes to perceive detail that is not there" because a photograph might "suffer from a complication of minor disorders."

[Jac@stafford.net]

Technique is easy to quantify and discuss. Art is much more difficult. Most people aren't very good artists, but they can happily discuss and pretty much agree on which photo from two similar ones is sharper, so that's where most of their discussions go.

That should be cast in concrete. I told my students back in the day. "Find your photographic vision by making pictures now. Technique and preferences will come about with experience." Certainly, many chose a technical approach from the beginning. One of such became a good documentary photographer. I believe that in the end very few found the art of photography. I'm not sure I did.