I can\'t understand why anyone would ever want a lens that wasn\'t sharp! Believing myself to be sane I avoid lenses I know aren\'t sharp - I dig sharp ones.
Every lens is different! There is no \"best\"! Each (good sharp) lens is like a different paintbrush which can be used in different ways as the artist sees fit. But unsharp lenses don\'t fit into this category at all. There is lens defocus and there is digital selective and FF blurring which make millions of times more sense than wanting to use a soft lens. There are also soft filters.
Mr. Adams strove for sharpness and even invented and/or perfected darkroom techniques to improve perceived sharpness. Also most of his bread & butter came from portraiture - not landscapes. Portraits are often best shot with large apertures while landscapes are usually best shot with the aperture closed down (bot for the obvious reasons).
If someone is famous and yet their prints, negs, and files aren\'t sharp when it looks as if they should be then they probably became famous due to politics, inner-circle relationships, and/or buttloads of self-promotion! Nothing new there. Most famous people became famous in just that way.
In a phrase: Sharpness ROCKS! And softness sucks ass! Period! People thinking otherwise are probably not very good with their hardware or their software yet.
I can\'t understand why anyone would ever want a lens that wasn\'t sharp! Believing myself to be sane I avoid lenses I know aren\'t sharp - I dig sharp ones.
Every lens is different! There is no \"best\"! Each (good sharp) lens is like a different paintbrush which can be used in different ways as the artist sees fit. But unsharp lenses don\'t fit into this category at all. There is lens defocus and there is digital selective and FF blurring which make millions of times more sense that wanting to use a soft lens. There are also soft filters.
Mr. Adams strove for sharpness and even invented and/or perfected darkroom techniques to improve perceived sharpness. Also most of his bread & butter came from portraiture - not landscapes. Portraits are often best shot with large apertures while landscapes are usually best shot with the aperture closed down (bot for the obvious reasons).
If someone is famous and yet their prints, negs, and files aren\'t sharp when it looks as if they should be then they probably became famous due to politics, inner-circle relationships, and/or buttloads of self-promotion! Nothing new there. Most famous people became famous in just that way.
In a phrase: Sharpness ROCKS! And softness sucks ass! Period! People thinking otherwise are probably not very good with their hardware or their software yet.
I can\'t understand why anyone would ever want a lens that wasn\'t sharp! Believing myself to be sane I avoid lenses I know aren\'t sharp - I dig sharp ones.
Every lens is different! There is no \"best\"! Each (good sharp) lens is like a different paintbrush which can be used in different ways as the artist sees fit. But unsharp lenses don\'t fit into this category at all. There is lens defocus and there is digital selective and FF blurring which make millions of times more sense that wanting to use a soft lens. There are also soft filters.
Mr. Adams strove for sharpness and even invented and/or perfected darkroom techniques to improve perceived sharpness. Also most of his bread & butter came from portraiture - not landscapes. Portraits are often best shot with large apertures while landscapes are usually best shot with the aperture closed down (bot for the obvious reasons).
If someone is famous and yet their prints, negs, and files aren\'t sharp when it looks as if they should be then they probably became famous due to politics, inner-circle relationships, and/or buttloads of self-promotion! Nothing new there. Most famous people became famous in just that way.
In a phrase: Sharpness rock! And softness sucks ass! Period!
I can\'t understand why anyone would ever want a lens that wasn\'t sharp! Believing myself to be sane I avoid lenses I know aren\'t sharp - I dig sharp ones.
Every lens is different! There is no \"best\"! Each (good sharp) lens is like a different paintbrush which can be used in different ways as the artist sees fit. But unsharp lenses don\'t fit into this category at all. There is lens defocus and there is digital selective and FF blurring which make millions of times more sense that wanting to use a soft lens. There are also soft filters.
Mr. Adams strove for sharpness and even invented and/or perfected darkroom techniques to improve perceived sharpness. Also most of his bread & butter came from portraiture - not landscapes. Portraits are often best shot with large apertures while landscapes are usually best shot with the aperture closed down (bot for the obvious reasons).
If someone is famous and yet their prints, negs, and files aren\'t sharp when it looks as if they should be then they probably became famous due to politics, inner-circle relationships, and/or buttloads of self-promotion! Nothing new there. Most famous people became famous in just that way.
I can\'t understand why anyone would ever want a lens that wasn\'t sharp! Believing myself to be of sound mind I avoid lenses I know aren\'t sharp - I dig sharp ones.
Every lens is different! There is no \"best\"! Each (good sharp) lens is like a different paintbrush which can be used in different ways as the artist sees fit. But unsharp lenses don\'t fit into this category at all. There is lens defocus and there is digital selective and FF blurring which make millions of times more sense that wanting to use a soft lens. There are also soft filters.
Mr. Adams strove for sharpness and even invented and/or perfected darkroom techniques to improve perceived sharpness. Also most of his bread & butter came from portraiture - not landscapes. Portraits are often best shot with large apertures while landscapes are usually best shot with the aperture closed down (bot for the obvious reasons).
If someone is famous and yet their prints, negs, and files aren\'t sharp when it looks as if they should be then they probably became famous due to politics, inner-circle relationships, and/or buttloads of self-promotion! Nothing new there. Most famous people became famous in just that way.
Aug 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #10898619 « How much sharpness do you need? »
