After having followed several rather philosophical threads, I dare to come up wi th my question that has been haunting me since a long time: Why are we so concer ned, if not obsessed by a perfect sharpness of our photographs?
After having followed several rather philosophical threads, I dare to come up wi th my question that has been haunting me since a long time: Why are we so concer ned, if not obsessed by a perfect sharpness of our photographs?
because it gives the illusion of reality, especially at large magnifications.
If you start with a sharp lens you can always create a deliberate softness. A soft lens is just soft. None of us likes to be soft when something else is required!
I think many photographers (in art) are just caught up in aspiring to the Group f/64 standard of sharpness from the foreground to infinity. I personally find the old pictorialist look quite appealing.
What Ellis said.
I've sometimes thought about this, because my natural view of the world, without glasses, is not entirely in focus... So why should I correct it with the camera - I don't wear my glasses all the time.
(I also don't have 3D vision/depth perception, which greatly influences how I envision a photograph - it is already, to some extend, two dimensional to me. To try and give an image depth is, in some way, very unnatural to me...)
Tim A
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Emil, I don't think that "we" are obsessed by perfect sharpness in our "photographs". But we should be obsessed by it in the parts that need perfect sharpness to deliver the right (intended) message. This does not always apply to the whole photograph. In fact, unsharpness is as good as sharpness as a Rule of Composition. It always depends on the expression.
Sharpness might be something a Large Format Photographer is more concerned about. It could be one reason for him to use Large Format. But the opposite conclusion is not valid. The longer focal length in Large Format does also provide a better control of unsharpness.
And there are some disciplines that traditionally have a stress on the more documentary aspects of photography. E.g. Architecture is usually not associated with fuzzy images. A sharper image has more detail/information. An unsharp image makes use of less detail/information to isolate a specific motif or to stimulate a more global perception of the whole image. Regards,
Hi Emil, that's the question I put to myself! and my answer was, I'm not. First, to judge by many great photographs I've seen in the archives at George Eastman, sharpness isn't a criteria for a great image. Second, "sharpness" whatever it is, is perceived (it's all in your head), and if you put it to a test I think you'll find a lot of perceived sharpness is found in the individual image. You hit it, sharpness as criteria is the wrong approach as far as I'm concerned; I'm not concerned with sharpness perfect or otherwise. Best, David
Once a viewer is pulled into an image for compositional or asthetic reasons, they are usually then drawn to the technical aspects of that image. Depending on the subject and how it's being conveyed, sharpness can be a dividend. I like images which show a lot of texture and detail, so sharpness important to me. But I understand that sharpness does not soley rest on the camera lens. Good darkroom technique and knowing your equipment is just as important. Having a sharp lens alone will not ensure a successful image. It goes way beyond that. Just my 2 cents...
Hi Emil,
I was just looking through a recently published photography book, and there was a segment on Robert Capa's war photographs. Some of the images were very blurred, and according to the author, this made the photographs seem very real and authentic - there is Capa in the field, bullets and bombs whizzing by, and he is having trouble controlling his hand held camera because he can't control his nerves. The author then goes on to reveal that the reason for the blurred images was an assistant who developed the negatives accidentally "overheated" them, and made the emulsion a bit drippy, thus creating strangely unclear images. Yet another example of a darkroom accident creating something good.
One more thing, I was recently looking through some of Edward Weston's portraits, and I could not understand why my mind wanted to believe the images were clear and sharp, while my eye saw that they were anything but. Weston was able to create an illusion of sharpness, even though the pictures are obviously a bit out of focus. He was a good magician......
Bookmarks