Went to an exhibit a couple years ago. Most of the photos were sharp but one looked like it had been shot wide open, the edges and corners were soft. Another looked like the wind blew the tripod. Still another looked kinda hazy like a bad lens wide open. The mountains could have been sharper although the foreground was fine. Mostly, none of this was troubling looking at the excellent prints. The photographer? Ansel Adams
People seem to have a fetish for absolute sharpness across the frame now days...
A critically sharp picture of a boring subject/composition is IMO worth less than a fuzzy OOF shot of an interesting subject in a great composition.
That said, some images when critically sharp can be amazing, like being there.
A while ago I browsed through the Alt. Image Thread 3. It was awesome, btw. But the photos I enjoyed the most, and remember, was mostly about subject, composition, colors, processing, look - not killer sharpness. Ulrik's photos come to mind among many others.
A couple years ago I took a photo of my wife hand held. Since it was an old train station, it was somewhat dark so the auto ISO took it up high and there was some camera shake.Even then I added some grain and blurred the area around her.
Despite these faults I printed it 20 x 28... Even so, the image managed a Juror's Mention at a recent show.
One of the juror's said it looked "painterly". I suppose sharpness depends on the image....
When I saw a Ansel Adams show @ Light Gallery in 5th Av in 1984, all the pictures were amazingly sharp, at least for that time standard. It's possible that today I'd have a different impression, BTW.
That said, I find that the todays sharpness religion is absolutely exaggerated, photography is much more than sharpness.
People often forget this is a gear forum. Sharpness is a technical aspect among several others, if you want to talk about overall composition, meaning, and artistic interpretation, this is probably not the best venue.
if i'm shooting stopped down landscape i want decent sharpness to the corners. if i'm shooting nearly anything else it doesn't really matter much. i rarely shoot with my sharpest lenses.
Interesting, from all I've read and seen about Ansel Adams (a lot), he was very concerned about sharpness, not over other aspects, but it was always a factor. Wide open? From a founding member of the f/64 club... Though it may have been one of his earlier prints.
In regards to sharpness, it all depends on the type of photo. If I want total sharpness then it's never enough, there's a reason many like shooting with large formats...
Depends on the image obviously, AM. There is nothing better than a fuzzy image of a sharp concept, lol.
Those were the days of photographer heroes, people hung off every word they spoke! And believed them. Now we have the democracy of the web and know better, much better.
well, I like electro-pop music but it's not what I would make myself if I were into that.
similarly, I don't need sharpness in other people's photographs but I like it in mine.
btw on a related note I was considering swapping out my ZM 50P for a V4 cron because I know the cron has a bit higher lp/mm on film but I recently saw some pics which changed my mind completely. so maybe enough is enough even for someone like me.
FlyPenFly wrote:
People often forget this is a gear forum. Sharpness is a technical aspect among several others, if you want to talk about overall composition, meaning, and artistic interpretation, this is probably not the best venue.
Very valid point, but I think its equally good to sometimes remind people in a gear forum to remember to see the forest and not just the trees and conversely, remind those in other forums that their excellent compositions could be even better with some solid technique, support and good glass.
You can have the best eye in the world but if your working with a sagging $15 walmart tripod, your always being held back.
You can have the sharpest lens made and if your just shooting brick walls and newspapers, your never going to really produce a true photograph.
The "best" photographer doesn't have to have the most amazing gear, but they do have to have some knowledge of how to get the most out of what they have to work with and they also have to have a good eye and be in the right place at the right time.
Amazingly sharp shot of nothing in particular is boring
Capturing perfect lighting with a camera phone just doesn't make a good landscape image
Combine them though and you've got a real stunning image worthy of any wall
I've actually blurred some of my photographs just a tad when it looks too sharp when outputting to the web. I hate the 'crunchy' digital look and prefer a nice harmonious feel to the contrast, tones and sharpness.
I often find I take some sharpness out of an image (or parts of an image) when postprocessing. Just like I'll block up shadows on certain ones, or blow out highlights if it gives the look I'm trying for.
But I want those choices: I can't unblock black shadows or create more resolution in postprocessing (increasing the acutance with sharpneing isn't the same thing, of course). So I'm like Taylor: I want all I can get so I can later choose whether I need it.
FlyPenFly wrote:
People often forget this is a gear forum. Sharpness is a technical aspect among several others, if you want to talk about overall composition, meaning, and artistic interpretation, this is probably not the best venue.
I tend to think of this forum as a lifestyle forum, not following the crowd, doing it your own way, moving away from auto settings and doing it myself, doing it old school, a hybrid of old and new.
overall composition, meaning, and artistic meaning are all valid in this forum, since it's a catch-all forum.
