Why are we so concerned about sharpness?

[Kaatharine Thayer]

Bjorn, the English photographer you're thinking of is no doubt P.H. Emerson; however he didn't renounce his theories about focus and how the eye sees. What he renounced, after reading Hurter & Driffield's paper describing the characteristic curve, was the idea that one could alter the tonal values of a photograph. He didn't realize, as Ansel Adams did later, that "H&D offered photographers a superb creative control" (Nancy Newhall) but mistakenly thought H&D delivered a death blow to any pretense that the photographer could have any control over the tonal scale. In his renunciation of the idea that photography could be art, he wrote, "I thought once (Hurter and Driffield have taught me differently) that true values could be obtained and that values could be altered at will by development. They cannot; therefore to talk of getting values in any subject whatever as you wish and of getting them true to nature is to talk nonsense." and two years later he wrote "..for taking the picture is pure science, as for ever proved by Messrs Hurter & Driffield. ... the photographer does not make his picture, A MACHINE DOES IT ALL FOR HIM.

As to his ideas about naturalistic focus and vision, he continued to express those views in papers and in the third edition of his book "Naturalistic Photography" which was published in 1899, nine years after his renunciation of the idea that photography could be art. He wrote in 1893, "the methods of practice I advised in Naturalistic Photography I still advise, and the artists I held up for admiration I still hold as the best exemplars of their crafts, but my art philosophy is different... I do not consider photography an art but regard it as a mechanical process..."

This is probably more information than you wanted about P.H. Emerson but since your mistake is a common one I like to set it straight when I can.

And his pictures, they were nice anyway, as you say; I would say some of the most gorgeous platinum prints ever made.

[Dean Lastoria]

I guess even for me there is an obsession to this. I don't care about sharp, but I still need a big negitive. I don't want grain, and I want the nice tone. Good pictorial work has to be almost contact printed. Diana etc are nice for some people, but don't confuse "Pecker" work (great movie) with LF pictorial. So I guess I have the same ailment as the F64's in the group, but different symptoms. LF is the cure all, from mega-sharp-depth-of-field, to no- grain-fuzzies, it's only side effects seem to be strained backs, shoulders, and empty bank accounts. Dean

[jnantz]

a camera and lens are a tool to an end. i think it is great that people are able to manipulate this tool to make images the way they want. while i also record the built enviroment for habs/haer, i do not think the only purpose of a camera and lens, is to make images that are so sharp you can fall into them ... sometimes it is necessary. sometimes it is just as important to make an image that makes the viewer wonder what the heck it is, or what the photographer did to achieve such an effect. while it is obvious that some people are purists and feel that every square milimeter of a photograph needs to be in focus nd sharp as a tack, the folks that use blurr, motion, or other unconventional techniques and in general break the rules are also allowing photography to be pushed as an artistic medium. if rules are not broken, boundries are not streatched, and viewers are not forced to think (rather than just look), the art of photography will become monochromatic, dull and boring.

[Pascal Quint]

I agree with Emil in general that a lot of photographers around the world seem to be very concerned by sharpness. This can be seen not ony in this LF forum but also in many other photography forums, including the ones mainly dealing with 35 mm. Let me try to suggest two explanations which are fairly different to what has been discussed hereabove and which are probably more trivial and less philosophical, although they certainly don't apply to professional photographers.

First, I think that a lot of amateurs are very fond of high end equipment and sharpness can be considered as a visible sign of the use of good equipment and sophisticated photography techniques. Owning a beautiful and well made camera with highly reputed lenses is often a rewarding feeling as such.

Second, in most cases (including mine), there is a strong temptation to call "art" what is actually "craftsmanship". Producing sharp images is often an objective as such, which allows us to demonstrate to ourselves how much we master photography. When we (I) look at great photographers' pictures, reproducing the level of sharpness of some in our own pics is more feasible than being as inspired and creative as others. Let's not fool ourselves (once again, I'm speaking only of myself and those of us who are not fundamentally "artists"), mastering the technique is so much easier than being really creative !

That being said, all the previous explanations are valid as well, it all depends on one's own situation and real talents.

[Walter Glover]

Hi Emil,

You are not alone in your captivation with sharpness. Barry Thornton, the chap who makes DiXactil is a fanatic about sharpness and has written a book about it: "Edge Of Darkness".

Details of availability are available on his site:

http://www.qa63.dial.pipex.com/eod.htm

Sharpness is not the exclusive domain of LF and in his book he states his case in favour of 6x6 and validates his argument with a number of photographs.

Another photographer using sharpness as a trade-mark, almost, is Nigel Parry whose book of portraits - "Sharp" - again illustrates his point.

Film/Developer choice, lighting, camera stability, lens design, shooting aperture, shutter speed, atmospherics, enlarger and lens, paper and developer - all these are contributing factors, as you know, but every now and then something magic happens and a picture displays an unreal sharpness that can prove highly seductive.

It happened to me once when Kodak first introduced 120 Kodachrome. I shot a studio portrait test of a clean skinned English peaches and cream model. The tranny was almost 3-D in its acutance. I spent 12 months endeavouring to get the same result again without any luck at all. Yes, of course the pictures were sharp - 250mm Super-Achromat on a Hasselblad, mid-range aperture, studio flash - why wouldn't they be. But there was never another image that displayed the outstanding snap of the first test.

It was not an obsession - more like just a nice distraction chasing acuity with a cutie.

pardon the bad pun ... Walter

[Emil Salek]

Hi Walter, thank you for your nice and personal answer. I would personally welcome more of this kind. I visited the site and will probably buy the books. There are some high quality photographs there. Still to your answer, I wonder how you could get such a sharp picture with a 250/5.6 Superachromat. My results with this lens and with the Tele- Tessar F 4.0 as well were always rather disappointing in terms of sharpness (I precise that I use a tripod and lock up the mirror and wait, and use Velvia, before somebody advises me to do so. :0)) More generally, I thought these two days a bit more about the meaning of the sharpness. Once I heard that people are speeding because it gives them an impression to master the space. I would dare to say that some other people are "sharping" as it can give them access to a kind of magical appropriation (if not confiscation) of reality. Funny, the verb "to capture" is often used in connection with photography, and my AMHER dictionnary lists "confiscation" and "capture", among other words, as synonoms of appropriation. As I am writing these words, I am looking at some of my 16x20 prints made from 4x5 Velvias and there is nothing to do, I am weirdly happy and proud that I KNOW that they are real sharp. And I even cannot see it from my place as my eyes are no more what they were 15 years ago. And in the same time, I am not that unilateral, I made many quite successfull pictures using vaselines, soft focus lenses (the Fujinon 250 SF is wonderful, I prefer it to Imagon) and center spot filters (the B+W breed is also wonderful, and damn expensive), some of them being so blurr that it was impossible to tell the subject and I liked them very much, as I can like blurred pictures made by other photographers, like Ernst Haas to name a great one. So, why am I so slyly happy to know that these pictures are tack sharp?! (Please do not worry, I am mentally sound... ) ) Some other people that would share real personal experience about their relation with the sharpness out there? Looking forward to read from you! Thanks!

[Walter Glover]

Emil,

With regard to synonyms there are subtle nuances of meaning that are idiomatic to a language. What is your native language? Words and language are a rather fascinating hobby for me.

There are a number of highly technical books I've seen along the lines of Clarity Of Vision. Discussion of 'acutance' vs 'resloution' has raged for decades. I love sharp images - where appropriate. The same can be said for Black & White, Colour, Contrasty, Subdued.

From reading discussions on this and other forums I am coming to the belief that many photographers don't, perhaps, regard the piece of photographic paper as a blank canvas upon which to inscribe their statement. The process of photography somehow distracts them.

I have always deemed the concept of pre-visualisation as the oft over-looked cornerstone of Ansel Adams' prolific teaching. How do I want the scene in front of me to be rendered on the piece of paper in front of the viewer? The range of tools and techniques at our disposal to manipulate that end result is staggering. We have to use them all. Softness, sharpness, diffusion, the obscuring limbo of solid black, the radiance of glowing white, the lure of gentle gradation. We have to use it all.

Cheers, ... Walter

[Jim Galli]

OK Emil, now that the barndoors been left open I'll admit it too. I'm hooked! I thought that was a given. Why else would you haul this stuff around. Once you've looked at a good black and white contact print and thought to yourself "It's a bottomless pit" it seems nothing else will do.

[Emil Salek]

Thank you Jim, it is nice to find a sister soul. No theory can explain what we fell while looking at a perfectly sharp print or transparency... I hope more people will share that heady experience with us.

[Emil Salek]

Sorry, please read "what we feel", not "what we fell", of course... It is getting late here in Switzerland... If I had to handwrite it, it would be rather sloppy...